Bridgman oh holland v fisher this judgement be deliver on the d day of  November in Michaelmas term car two see keb and there p the report close with  adjornatur the court be divide the case be cite in keb where also and in lev  and raym in Wheatley v Thomas the will of George Lord Cobham and the act of  parliament which constitute the foundation of this case be discuss on another  point a recital in patent where the premise of a patent recite inaccurate the  estate create by a will those estate be partly vest in the crown but refer to  the whole will and the habendum of the patent give in term estate commensurate  with the estate in the will itself be large than the estate specify in the  recital this misrecital or partial recital of the king estate shall not  necessary make the patent void where separate estate in feesimple qualify and  absolute be in the king with other intervene estate of the same land in other  person general word in the habendum of the king grant of the land be  sufficient to extend to all the separate estate but imply one entire continue  estate can pass all these separate estate where the king intend to pass one  estate and the patent in effect passes more than one the king be deceive and  the patent be void and when instead of one entire continue estate several  estate in fraction be create by a patent that patent be void consideration of  patent act of parliament confirm patent hark ms No fol ejectment Bridgman c j  Edward holland have bring a action of trespass and ejectment against sir  Thomas fisher baronet upon the demise of sir John brook knight now Lord Cobham  of the manor of Rathwinter and Bendish hall and message garden acre of land  acre of meadow acre of pasture and acre of wood with the appurtenance in  Rathwinter Ashdon Henstead and Wimbush the that October habendum from the that  day of September then last pass for five year upon not guilty plead the jury  find a special verdict wherein they find that George Lord Cobham be seize of  the premise and hold the same in free socage and have issue sir William his  old son George Thomas John Henry another Thomas Edmund and Edward son and two  daughter Elizabeth and Katherine and January make his will and thereby devise  inter alian the premise in question to sir Bridgman oh William brook his old  son for life remainder to the first lawful beget son of the body of sir  William and to the heir male of the body of the same first son and for default  of such issue to the second lawful beget son of the body of sir William and to  the heir male of the body of the same second son and so to the eight son of  sir William and to all other his son and to the heir male of their body with  remainder to George brook for life and so to his first second and three and  other son ut above and the heir male of their body with like remainder to  Thomas John Henry Thomas Edmund and Edward and their son remainder to his  daughter Elizabeth late call by the name of marchioness of Northampton for  life and to her son and the heir male of his body and so to her other son with  like remainder to his daughter Katherine and her son with remainder to the  heir male of the body of his brother Thomas brook and the heir male of their  body remainder to the heir of the body of sir William brook his son lawful  beget and to their heir of their body with like remainder to the heir of the  body of George and other his son and their heir of their body and for lack of  such issue to remain to the right heir of Edward his young son for ever that  September and p and m George Lord Cobham die seize sir Bridgman oh er p  William brook be his son and heir that Edward the young son die without issue  that sir William then Lord Cobham have issue Henry his old son and George and  no other issue male and three daughter Elizabeth Frances and mary all which  have issue of their body live that mark Elizabeth William Lord Cobham die  Henry be his son and heir and that Henry then Lord Cobham enter and be seize  ut law c that November I James George be in due form of law convict and  attaint of high treason and likewise Henry Lord Cobham November I James be  convict and attaint of high treason that at the aforesaid time of the say  attainder George Bridgman oh have issue sir William brook and two daughter and  die that George son of George Lord Cobham have issue duke brook and Charles  and die and afterward Nov James the king by his letter patent do inter alian  grant the premise to duke brook and his heir pro ut by the letter patent the  tenor whereof follow in haec word appear by which letter patent the king in  consideration of to be pay upon or before the that of may and on or before the  that day of Nov and on or before the that day of may to the king his heir and  successor at the receipt of the exchequer by duke brook grant to duke brook  heir et assignat nest inter alian the say manor of Rathwynter and Bendish hall  and other the premise who indeed in all respects et one to send forward  superius per present circumstance data et concession recently to be parcellae  possession et haeredit Henry recently domini Cobham recently de southsouthwest  wind prodition wipe on ac de who ipse Henry seisitus to be in of his ut de fee  talliato Himself et heir male de corpore his legitime procreand army ultimae  will george recently domini Cobham cum to visit remaneriis ind prout in dictam  ultima will abundantly to be fluid fallow etian a saying beforehand d brook  heir et assign nest in all respects et one messuagia c et haereditamenta  situata et to step out infra come will sive paroch pillage prediction domini  manor c et the other to send forward per present circumstance data et  concession or once ind parcellas in whatever way speck or ut member c ac  return et return pillage manerior c et the other praemissor superius per  present circumstance praeconcess depend well expect de in well super aliquan  dimission well permission sive once dimission well permission pro toto well  boundary vitae life well a year well aliter de to send forward nest de aliquan  ind parcella with her litter fallow etian a saying beforehand d brook heir et  assign nest quod ipse haeredes et appointed Himself de the other to have infra  c tot of such size ankle c cur franchesia c et haeredit quot c et in tam  opportunity modus et form pro ut paed h or some the c ac to such a degree  plene c pro ut our predict maner habenius c or to have et to rejoice to  withhold ration wipe on pillage Henry recently domini Cobham et george brook  father Himself Bridgman oh well the dawn of one another de southsouthwest wind  prodition wipe on fallow etian beyond c say beforehand advance d brook heir et  assignat nest prediction owner maner c to such a degree plene c pro ut she in  all respects et one to send forward or some ind parcellae ad manus our men  ration well pretense seu army dict recently wipe on dict Henry recently domini  Cobham et pillage g brook well of one another the dawn seu wherever elsewhere  of modus jure seu distinction to come seu to come to withhold ac in shades of  dead our men existeba seu jam to step out fallow etian a saying beforehand d  brook heir et assigner nest to stay behind et remaneria return et return our  men quascunque in fee simple all et singulor praemissor superius per present  circumstance that et concession pron  interrog  ind parcella habendum prood  manner our men de Rathwinter hall ac pillage manner our men de brandish hall c  ac pillage message land c ac inheritance superius per present circumstance  concession ac rev et revert pillage ac the other in all respects et one to  send forward superius express c say beforehand advance d brook heir et assig  Suis Interrog  say beforehand advance h recently dominus Cobham de  southsouthwest wind go forth wipe on or some exitus de corp his legitime procr  or some exitus de corp say beforehand advance george brook brother Himself de  southsouthwest wind prod similiter wipe on et modus defunct legitime procreate  or some exitus or in some way exitus de corpore hujusmodi exitus legitime  procreate well procreand haereditabil praemissorurn army ultimae will speech g  recently domini Cobham to live well in vita to step out well the dawn some to  live well in vita to step out ad solum proprium opus et use say beforehand  advance d brook heir et assign of oneself in continuous ac habendum et  tenendum prediction to stay behind et remaneria rever et revert our men  quascunque in fee simple all et singulor praemissor superius per present  circumstance that et concession who we per wipe on say beforehand advance h  recently domini Cobham forfeit to be et pron  interrog  ind parcel say  beforehand advance d brook Bridgman oh er p heir et assignat nest in  continuous ad solum et proprium opus et use proof d brook heir et assignat of  oneself in continuous tenant per the condition of a slave per who prius to  hold with non to stand before not find of office and find of office in Com  Essex after the attainder of Henry that he be seize to he and the heir of his  body Bridgman oh of the say manor non to stand before non to read out or male  aliq dismiss sive concession et non to stand before h and find the entry of d  brook and a bargain and sale by he by indenture bee James to Alexander  Prescott and enrol within six month that p James d brook levy d fine to  Alexander Prescott that the same term a common recovery be have against  Alexander Prescott wherein duke brook be vouch that in the parliament begin  November James and continue maii James and then prorogue to November throw it  be enact that h Lord Cobham and g brook shall forfeit and the king have  against they only and their heir and all claim under they since their treason  all the manor c wherein they or either of they have any estate of inheritance  the day of their several treason commit and that from their attainder all  their manor c shall be vest and judge to be and to have be in the king actual  possession without any office save to all person other than the Lord Cobham  and George brook and their heir claim as heir all such right as they have or  ought to have have at or before the treason commit in as large and ample  manner as if the Act have not be make and all such right entry remainder c  which they now have or hereafter may have only by virtue of any conveyance or  limitation make before the say several treason commit or do this Act or any  thing therein contain notwithstanding and in as large and ample manner as if  this Act have not be make provide that this Act shall not extend to make void  any grant or demise by the king to any person by letter patent under the great  seal and it be further enact that all grant bargain sale and demise make by  the king under the great seal since the say attainder of any of the say manor  c to any person and person and their heir shall be good and effectual in law  to they their heir and assign to all intent construction and purpose accord to  the tenor effect and true meaning of the say letter patent save to every  person and person and their heir and Bridgman oh assign other than Henry and  George brook and either of they and their and either of their heir claim as  heir or heir by or from either of they and all other person claim by they or  either of they to the use or behoofs of they or either of they or of their or  either of their heir all such right c reversion remainder hereditament and  demand whatsoever they or any of they have or ought to have have at or before  the same several treason commit or do in as large and ample manner as if this  Act have never be make and also all such right c reversion c they or any of  they now have or at any time hereafter shall or may have only by virtue of any  conveyance or limitation make before the say several treason commit or do this  Act or any thing therein contain notwithstanding and in as large and ample  manner as if this Act hand never be make maii James d brook die without issue  Apr James Charles brook die without issue the jury further find the  inquisition bee James whereby it be find that June ibis day of the treason  commit h Lord Cobham be seize in his demesne as of fee tail to he and to the  heir of his body of the manor and land in the declaration they find the die  seize of Alexander Prescott James John be his heir and a fine by he car and  his death and entry of William his son and death and descent to his two sister  jane marry to the defendant fisher and whether and fisher entry in his wife  right and find the several death of Henry Lord Cobham without issue Thomas the  three son of George Lord Cobham without issue male John the four son without  issue Henry the five son and of a philosopher of Olynthus his first son  without issue male and that John now Lord Cobham the lessor be his second son  and the death of William brook the son of George August without issue male  leave four daughter yet live and find the entry of John Lord Cobham April upon  fisher and his entry again October Bridgman oh er p and lease to the plaintiff  pro ut and entry of fisher but whether fisher be guilty Bridgman oh of the  trespass and ejectment or not ignorant et to be able advisement et si c in  this case the point be many which have be stir and the record be long it will  be the clear way to state the case by parcel as the point arise upon it shall  come to be consider the plaintiff claim not by the patent to duke brook but  the defendant title be under the patent to duke brook several thing have be  move against the validity of the patent for though the plaintiff claim not by  it yet if he can destroy it he destroy the recovery wherein duke brook be  vouch for then Prescott the bargainee of duke brook be not tenant to the  freehold and so the lessors remainder not cut off and the point stir upon this  patent have be first upon the consideration of the patent second upon the  clause of who indeed in the premise and three upon the limitation of the  habendum and if by reason of these the patent be defective it come last to be  consider what operation the Act of parliament of confirmation in this case  will have towards the make good of the grant and supply the defect of it upon  the consideration of the grant or patent the case be but this the king at the  humble petition of duke brook and in consideration of upon or before the that  of may and upon or before the that of November and upon or before the that of  may to be well and true pay to he at the receipt of the exchequer by duke  brook his executor and administrator grant to duke brook his heir and assign  inter alian the land in question the money do not appear in the verdict to  have be pay at the time the point hereupon intend to be speak to be whether  the nonpayment of the money which be the consideration of the patent it be a  consideration personal and executory and subsequent to the grant shall by  matter ex post facto avoid the grant but I hold this point come not in  question in this case for first admit the nonpayment of the money do avoid the  patent yet no advantage can be take of it till office find for the  consideration must in such case of the king grant be take as a condition  subsequent and therefore as a condition break it must be find by the office  and till such office find the estate still remain in the patentee and admit  the recovery will be against one who be not tenant to the freehold yet no such  office be find it still remain a good Bridgman oh estate and good recovery  second the verdict have not find whether it be pay or not it be leave in state  of equilibrium and it be matter in fact the court shall not intend upon the  verdict the jury find either one way or the other for if they do the jury must  be attaint by reason of the judgement of the court if they give it upon a  wrong supposal of the truth of the fact and therefore if there be not as I  have say sufficient without it to find for the plaintiff the court earl give  no judgement in it but there must be in such case a venire de to make new but  for the point itself if a grant be make by the king for money to be pay to the  exchequer at a certain day to come and there be a failure of payment whether  this admit a office find do avoid the patent be a question not yet judicial  determine if it be agree that a consideration personal pass as that he have do  service or pay l to the king though it be false it vitiate not the grant and  so Wroths case Com and e and h Br patent and and so be my Lord Hobart in  needler and needham case fol but there he say express further that if a  consideration be prescribe in the future and be not perform it will avoid the  grant and instance if the king grant to I S in consideration that be shall  serve the king in any office or that he shall pay unto he l though these  consideration in time pass have do no hurt yet in the future they be make  material and it be agreeable to the opinion of Hussey c j e a a grant eastern  quod relaxabi to the king in the future be void if no release be make at the  time prefix for it and I take the law to be accord for as it be say   in  berwicks case it be a maxim that if the consideration which be for the benefit  of the king be it execute or executory or be it of record or not of record be  not true or not duly perform or if prejudice may accrue to the king by reason  of the nonperformance of it the letter patent be void a consideration personal  pass be not for the future benefit of the king and therefore not material but  a consideration Bridgman oh er p personal executory be for his benefit to have  the money and it be the meritorious cause of the grant and therefore not be  perform be void in villiers case see p in the case of berry v white in these  report which appear to be the same case c this term it be adjudge that verdict  need not find payment of rend ad Bridgman oh to loosen in the case of the king  make a condition in any part of the grant c Com a ad faciendum or ad execution  or ex intention it be one end or final cause of the grant a strong where it be  the consideration and efficient cause of the grant and the difference which  brook title patent put that a false suggestion shall avoid a patent not a  false consideration be clear against law and experience if it be general take  some false consideration and some false suggestion shall avoid a patent and  some not the next question upon the patent arise upon the clause of who indeed  but because they have a dependency upon the habendum I must put they together  and thus single they out in the point wherein the case stand thus George Lord  Cobham have issue diverse son and diverse daughter his old son be William  after Lord Cobham who have issue Henry Lord Cobham and George brook both  attaint of treason and George execute and diverse daughter and George brook  have issue a son sir William brook and several daughter and sir William be  since dead without issue male but have several daughter George Lord Cobham in  the reign of queen mary by his will entail among other thing these manor in  question by virtue whereof at the time of the attainder Henry Lord Cobham be  tenant in tail to he and the heir male of his body with remainder to duke  brook another descendant and the heir male of his body with other remainder in  tail male whereof one be in sir John brook Lord Cobham the lessor with  remainder to Henry Lord Cobham and the heir of the body of William Lord Cobham  his father a estate tail in remainder descend to he from the say William his  father with several other remainder to the heir of the body of other son of  George Lord Cobham the devisor and to the heir of the body of his daughter and  with a reversion in fee in Henry Lord Cobham as heir to Edward brook the young  son of George Lord Cobham in who the estate in fee be lodge so that there be  forfeit to the king four estate first the present estate tail of Henry Lord  Cobham to he and the heir male of his body second the immediate remainder to  George and the heir male of his body then after the interposition of several  estate tail male to duke brook sir John brook and other all which be spend but  the lessors at the time of the lease make a three estate to Henry Lord Cobham  and the heir of the body of William his father which take in and last as long  as there be any issue of the body of George his brother whereof Bridgman oh  there be a great many still in be and which estate in truth be that under  which the land be now to be hold for the lessor be dead without issue male  since the lease make and the estate in tail male be all spend but that be not  in this case we be now to argue sir John brook the last in the male line be  then alive and last the Lord Cobham have and forfeit a remainder in feesimple  to he and his heir expectant after the several other intervenient remainder to  the heir of the body of other son and daughter of George Lord Cobham diverse  of which be still unspent so the king have in himself these forfeit estate  some immediate other after the interposition of other intervenient estate by  his letter patent date Nov James for the consideration which have be before  mention de agreeableness not general c grant to duke brook and his heir and  assign inter alian all these manor and land in question who indeed in all  respects et one to send forward superius per present circumstance that et  concession recently to be parcel terr possess et hoeredit Henry recently  domini Cobham recently de southsouthwest wind prodition father ac de who ipse  Henry seisitus to be in of his ut de fee talliato Himself et heir male de  corpore his legitime procreand army ultimae will george recently domini Cobham  cum to visit remaneriis ind pro ut in dictam ultima will abundantly to be  fluid et that this only is apparent and after several other clause which shall  be mention as there shall be Bridgman oh er p occasion the king grant to duke  brook his heir and assign to stay behind et remaneria return et return our men  quascunque in fee simple all et singulor pranmissorum superius per surety that  et concession habend the say manor and premise to the say duke brook his heir  and assign Interrog  a saying beforehand Henry recently dominus Cobham de  southsouthwest wind prodition wipe on or some exitus de corpore his fixed by  law procreand or some exitus de corpere say beforehand advance george brook  brother Himself de southsouthwest wind prodition similiter wipe on et modus  defunct legitime procreate well procreand haereditabil praemissor army ultimae  will speech george recently domini Cobharn to live well in vita existent well  the dawn some to live well in vita existet  to the use of the say duke brook  his heir and assign and habendum to stay behind et remaneria return et return  our men quascunque in fee simple all et singulor praemissor superias per  present circumstance that et concession et who we per attinctur a saying  beforehand Henry recently domini Cobham forisfacta to be wont et pron   interrog  ind parcel to the say duke brook his heir and assign to the use of  he his heir and assign Bridgman oh upon the premise thus couple with the  habendums there have be these question raise first it be in the who indeed  recite that the land be parcel of the possession of Henry Lord Cobham attain  ac de who he be seize in tail to he and the heir male of his body with diverse  remainder over as by the will of George Lord Cobham it more full appear  whether this clause shall be say to be the information or suggestion of duke  brook the patentee and what be the consequence of it if it be the suggestion  of the party on the collection or affirmation of the king and dly here be a  recital that Henry Lord Cobham be seize to he and the heir male of his body  with remainder over as by the will of Lord George appear and the habendum be  so long as Henry Lord Cobham or any issue of his body or any issue of the body  of George brook inheritable by virtue of the will of George Lord Cobham shall  live which extend it not only to the heir male but to the heir of the body of  Henry and to the issue of George as be within the compass of the entail which  Henry Lord Cobham have to he and the heir of the body of William his father  whether upon these premise couple with the habendum here be not such a  misrecital or partial recital of the king estate as shall make the patent void  for that cause and then upon the habendum itself single take several point  have be touch which I shall put anon the king have several estate forfeit to  he by the attainder of Henry Lord Cobham and George some immediate other after  the interposition of other article grant the land with one entire habendum  Interrog  Henry dominus Cobham or some exitus de corpore his or some exitus de  corpore of George heritable of the premise to live well in vita to stand out  which general word be sufficient to extend to all the several estates whether  all these estate shall pass by fraction and that also have two reasonable  consideration first whether the king intend one entire and continue estate by  his grant it can pass by fraction second in regard the grant carry not the  whole estate but reserve some part of it to the Kingwhether any thing at all  pass and if it do what the operation of it be for the estate so long as  William have heir of his body be forfeit to the king and he grant it out so  long as Henry and George have heir of their body which be but part of that  estate for that all the rest of that estate as long as there be Bridgman oh  daughter or daughter child of William be leave in the king and not grant over  and the last thing to be consider is whether upon the limitation so long as  there be issue and issue of issue as it be here pen a estate of inheritance be  create first I hold the clause who indeed in all respects c duper to be  parcellae possession Henry recently domini Cobham de southsouthwest wind  prodition wipe on ac de who ipse seisitus to be in of his ut de fee talliato  Himself et heir male de corpore his legitime procreate army ultimae will  george recently domini Cobhamm in to visit remaneriis ind pro at in dictam  ultima will abundantly to be fluid shall be take in law to be the suggestion  of the party and not imply the collection or affirmation of the king Bridgman  oh er p the print report in keb seem to misstate what sir Orlando say of  popham practice and of the effect of legate case d before legate case it be  much controvert whether these kind of clause with who indeed shall be take to  be the information of the party and whether the grant shall be void for the  falsity of they the reason be because if a grant be make de manor de d quod  indeed manor recently to be parcella terrae I S de southsouthwest wind  prodition wipe on or quod indeed manor recently per eschaetam ad manus our men  come to it be say the grant be certain and sufficient of itself et quod to  point out causan to put to rei satis reveal in vain fit   a and shall not  avoid that which go before and therefore they take this difference if the  grant be that the king grant manor de d recently parcellam possession I S de  southsouthwest wind prodition wipe on or use valor l c there be parcel of the  grant it be void if false but if it be with a who indeed whether before or  after the habendum it be a distinct clause it do not vitiate the grant and  accord to this distinction I have hear somewhere that it be the practice of  Popham when he be attorney always to have the word of qualification or  restraint to be parcel of the grant as manor de d yearly payment valor l or  manor de d recently parcellam terrae et possession I S de southsouthwest wind  prodition wipe on and not with a who indeed to send forward be yearly payment  valor or be parcel possess I S wipe on c and he continue of that opinion after  he be a judge and therefore in mason and chamber case James now in Cr Rep he  hold if the king grant manor de d quod indeed manor be of the annual value or  rend of though it be not of that value or quod indeed to have per Le attainder  I S he hold the lease to be Bridgman oh good because there be a certainty  before and the addition with a who indeed be but to add another certainty and  be intend to pass the manor but if the king grant the manor of d yearly  payment valor or To give back and it be set under a great rend or appear upon  record to be of a great value it be in one sentence be agree it be nought for  the king intent appear not to grant a thing above such a value and so Popham  in case of grant who indeed c keep secret to be doubt of such grant and  therefore when he be attorney be make they with a clause of proviso that they  be not conceal b   but Legatts case be in James after those opinion have  resolve the contrary the very principal case be of a grant of two piece of  land call Nettlehampstead and Weekmans contain fifteen acre in Wymondham in  corn Norfolk recently in tenure John colman ac recently monastery de Wymondbam  quondam spectant who indeed to send forward a we c keep secret to be although  there be a certainty in the thing grant by particular name in the content  fifteen acre in the town county tenant and in the title to the monastery of  Wymondham belong yet it be adjudge the who indeed be false avoid the patent  and that it shall be take to be the suggestion or information of the party and  so also it be resolve in vow be case there cite and then quod restringend  causan to put to in grammatical case domini king si falsehood sit viliat paper  the reason be as it be say by my Lord chancellor Egerton I   in Alton wood  case the king have the charge of the public and can attend his private  business and the grant which he make he make as king and therefore as king he  ought to be inform that his purpose and effect may take effect `or otherwise  as king and jure king as it be say   b he shall avoid they and it be matter  mere of fact the king who be suppose not to know the private affair and  interest of person but by information in law be suppose to have it from the  party concern in our case it be somewhat strong for the grant be express  recite to be ad humilem candidacy of duke brook and though the grant be ex  certan knowledge et mero movement et agreeableness not general yet these be  word of course and put in by the clerk without special warrant shall not take  away the presumption of law that that which be matter of fact allege in the  patent shall be take for the suggestion of the party as it be agree both in  Alton wood case and legate case Bridgman oh much less where it be express  allege to be at the petition of the patentee so that I take this clause of who  indeed here to be the information of the party to the king it be clear it be  so as to the first part of it who indeed c in all respects et one to send  forward recently to be parcellae terrae et possess Henry recently domini  Cobham de southsouthwest wind prodition wipe on if they be not his land they  pass not by the patent Bridgman oh er p and the reason be the same for the  other word ac de who ipse Henry seisitus to be in of his ut de fee talliato  Himself et heir male de corpore his legitime to bring forth for first they be  part of the same clause and if it shall be take the suggestion of the party as  the part the same reason hold it shall be so for to residue of the clause but  dly it concern the king title for as the other part show how the king come by  it videlicet by the attainder of Henry Lord Cobham so these word de who Henry  Lord Cobham be seize in tail show what title the king have in it videlicet a  fee determinable by the failure of issue male of Henry Lord Cobham and the  rule pro ut in legate case   a upon such kind of grant let the who indeed or  matter in fact be allege in what part soever of the patent whether before or  after the habendum though upon the authority of green chief justice in e some  make a difference   b hold where the king be deceive in his title or in the  value which he intend to grant or in the restraint which for his profit or  avail be intend to make there the falsity of the who indeed or matter in fact  shall vitiate the patent and therefore if it be not true that Henry Lord  Cobham be seize in tail to he and the heir male of his body I do conceive the  patent will be void in my Lord chandos case   they be distinct clause the  surrender ad opus nostrum cancellend army pron  interrog  aeedem litter  patenes tunc et ibidem to be cancellat army pron  interrog  our de manor  prediction seisiti to be these two army pron  interrog  be the inference or  affirmation of the king upon the suggestion of the party they be distinct  clause but here all be one entire clause there be a great difference between  army pron  interrog  king seisitus which be but a inference and de who the  party to be seisitus which be a affirmation of the party not draw out of what  go before the next thing be upon this partial recital of the king estate here  be no misrecital it be a true but not a fall sug Bridgman oh gestion or  affirmation it be true that Henry Lord Cobham be seize to he and the heir male  of his body but it be as true that he be also seize of another estate  expectant after several remainder to duke brook the lessor and other all which  be now spend to he and the heir of the body of William Lord Cobham his father  which be forfeit by his attainder and then the recital in the who indeed be  that Henry Lord Cobham be seize to he and the heir male of his body with  remainder over pro ut by the will of George Lord Cobham it appear and there be  no recital of the estate which Henry Lord Cobham have to he and the heir of  the body of William Lord Cobham and the habendum be so long as Henry Lord  Cobham or any issue of his body or any issue of the body of George brook  inheritable of the premise by virtue of the last will of George Lord Cobham  shall live which extend it not only to the heir male which be recite but to  the heir of the body of Henry and to the heir of the body of George as be  within the compass of that entail by the heir of the body of William whether  in respect of this recital but in part of the king estate and grant more than  be so recite the patent shall not be void I conceive there be no such  misrecital or recital in part as shall make the patent void for I conceive  there be no necessity for the king to have recite either how the estate come  to he by attainder or otherwise nor what estate the person attaint have it be  say by periam in Alton wood case a and not deny by any the king needs not in  any case recite his own estate and it be the express resolution in the say  case if the king have a qualify fee so long as the person attaint have heir of  his body and he grant it to one and his heir or a fee conditional and he grant  it to one and his heir absolute it be good in both case and without a recital  for in both case the king have a feesimple and grant a feesimple and therefore  in the principal case of Alton wood it be say they go about to avoid the  patent not because the king do not recite his own estate but because he grant  such a estate as will not stand with his own estate and in Hussey case there  cite but more full in m Elizabeth cro admit the king have two base fee in he  and grant the land to I S and his heir the patent be good both for the base  fee and for the reversion without recite the king estate and so be my Lord  chandos case c where the king have a reversion expectant upon a estate tail of  a common person if he grant the land it be good because he need not recite the  particular estate and though he grant it as in possession the reversion  Bridgman oh er p passes for he need not recite the particular Bridgman oh  estate make by a common person and where the king make a lease for life or  year and after grant the fee without recital it be void not because he recite  not his estate but because he be deceive in grant a possession where he have  but a reversion and the lease appear of record and therefore it be not help  without a non to stand before non to read out   a but second though the king  may have grant without a recital of his estate yet when be do recite I take it  in case of a misrecital as I say before which be material in title value or  restraint for the benefit of the king it shall vitiate the grant and in case  of a partial or too short a recital in the king case it may restrain it and in  some case also vitiate it for the recital declare the meaning of the king and  be always the best direction for the construction of his grant as it be say    b Alton wood case if the king pardon I S ex certan knowledge in all respects  debt is owed all debt which he owe as viscount be pardon I h and be and be  agree to be good law by the justice in Alton wood case fol yet I conceive in  that case if the king have recite that I S have own he a debt by bind and  pardon he in all respects debt is owed this recital shall so far declare the  king meaning that it shall not pardon pass in the manuscript e debt as  viscount ration duty but only debt in his private capacity and that I conceive  be express warrant by the case put by the justice in Alton wood case the king  recite that whereas I S be indebt to he as executor of I h he pardon he ex  certan knowledge in all respects debt is owed this shall not discharge his  proper debt and yet clear it will have discharge it if such recital have not  be and therefore in our case I do conceive if the king recite that Henry Lord  Cobham be seize to he and the heir male of his body do grant habendum to  patentee Interrog  some exitus Henry domini Cobham to live it shall be  understand only Interrog  some ankle exitus that be such issue as be before  recite that be issue male shall live and I think for my opinion it will not  have be void though the word extend further to all issue of Henry general for  though the truth be that Henry be seize not only of a estate tail to he and to  the heir male of his body but also he have a estate in remainder to he and to  the heir of his body yet as I say before I think the word will have be  restrain as in the case where it be recite Bridgman oh that I S be indebt to  the king as executor the king pardon I S in all respects debt is owed it be  good as to debt quatenus executor and be not void in the whole because the  word be in all respects debt is owed and so here if that be our case the  recovery wherein duke brook be vouch will be good at the time of the action  bring but will not touch upon the estate which be in Henry Lord Cobham and the  heir of the body of William the estate tail male since fail be now in be but  three as this case be and as to this present point I conceive here be no such  misrecital or partial recital as shall make the grant void for that cause if  there be nothing else in the case the ground of this recital but in part of  the estate forfeit appear in the close of the patent that a office have be  find that Henry Lord Cobham be seize of the premise to he and the heir of his  body and to set that right beside a non to stand before in the patent of that  office the king recite as the truth be that he be seize to he and the heir  male of his body so that the intent of particularize the estate in this clause  be to set right a former mistake that whereas the immediate estate in  possession be find by former office to be to he and the heir of his body it  shall be understand to be accord to truth to he and to the heir male of his  body so that the clause be add non to point out causan send to make straight  causan for the set right that which be before mistake and for no other cause  but I conceive the reference to the will alone have not be sufficient to have  make this a good recital for the king will not have know his estate by that  will whether Edward be dead without issueor what daughter William Lord Cobham  hadthough I agree it be good enough by way of reference for so much as appear  in the will then though it be the information of the party yet it be a full  information so far as concern the rectify that mistake and to let the king  know he have other estate mistake in the manuscript f for the word be that  Henry be seize to he and the heir male of Bridgman oh er p his body army will  george recently domini Cobham cum to visit remaneriis ind pro ut in dictam  ultima will abundantly to be fluid et that this only is apparent it say there  be other remainder and that show be deceive not the king and if the king will  be ascertain of they there be a reference to the will and id that which is  fixed be quod that which is fixed To give back to be able as in whistler case    and   Strata marcellam Bridgman oh case the king grant to I S such liberty  as queen Katherine have that be good enough because by that reference they may  be make certain and the case cite by my brother brown be to that purpose and  three it appear in the very body of the patent itself that the king take  notice he have other estate in those manor forfeit unto he beside this estate  tail recite to Henry and the heir male of his body for example first by one  clause the king grant all franchise within the manor to such a degree plene as  he ought to have they ration attinctur Henry domini Cobham or of his brother  George and second by another clause be grant the manor to such a degree plene  as they come to the king hand ration affincturce of Henry and George or either  of they or by any other title and three the habendum itself take notice that  George have issue inheritable of the premise army ultimae will of the Lord  Cobham and fourthly by a special habendum the king grant his reversion and  reversion remainder and remainder in feesimple which be forfeit by the  attainder ofHenry Lord Cobham which show the king well understand that he have  other estate forfeit to he by those attainder beside that to Henry and the  heir male of his body and though the grant of the reversion or remainder in  feesimple which the king have do pass only the remainder in feesimple which be  in Henry and his heir and not the estate which Henry have to he and the heir  of the body of William his father for the grant by that habendum be of the  remainder in feesimple which be forfeit by Henry but that estate to he and the  heir of the body of William be a remainder in tail and though it be feesimple  in the king yet it be not a feesimple forfeit to the king yet it be enough to  our present purpose to show the king be not deceive but know he have other  estate beside that to Henry and the heir male of his body and therefore I do  conceive that notwithstanding the special mention of the estate of Henry Lord  Cobham to be a estate tail to he and the heir male of his body in the who  indeed the patent be good enough if there be nothing in the habendum to make  it void the next thing considerable be upon the habendum itself wherein to  make way to the main point I must state the case Henry Lord Cobham at the time  of the attainder of himself and his brother George be tenant in tail to he and  the heir male of his body with remainder to his brother George and the heir  male of his body with several remainder to the other son or descendant of  George Lord Cobham the come Bridgman oh mon ancestor and the heir male of  their body whereof the last be the lessor John Lord Cobham with remainder to  Henry Lord Cobham and the heir of the body of William Lord Cobham his father  which descend to he from his say father with several other intervenient  remainder to several other son of the say George Lord Cobham the common  ancestor and to diverse other yet in be with the remainder in fee to Henry  Lord Cobham by the attainder these four estate be forfeit videlicet the estate  tail to Henry and the heir male of his body the estate to George and the heir  male of his body the estate to Henry and the heir male of the body of William  his father and the remainder in fee which be in Henry and his heir the point  then be this these four estate be forfeit to the king the king make the grant  to duke brook and his heir habendum to he his heir and assign Interrog  Henry  Lord Cobham or any issue of his body or any issue of his brother George then  decease inheritable of the premise by virtue of the last will of George Lord  Cobham shall be in be whether this be a good grant to pass all or any part of  the say three first estate forfeit to the king and the main doubt rest upon  this that this habendum intend one continue estate so long as Henry or George  have issuewhereas the king estate will not bear it for his first estate which  he have will bear only a estate so long as Henry or George have issue male and  not so long as they have issue and if this habendum do carry a estate so long  as they have issue accord to this letter then it must carry another estate  Bridgman oh er p after all other remainder to the other son of George Lord  Cobham and the heir male of their body be spend to clear the difficulty of  this point which be the great point of the case I must lie down these ground  first that the king have by these attainder several feesimple estate in he  some of which be qualify or limit and the last absolute I must agree if the  king have a feesimple to he and his heir grant the land to I S and his heir so  long as b have heir of his body the king have no remainder or reversion but a  possibility and therefore can limit a remainder over no more than a common  person who give land to I S and his heir so long as b have heir of his body  but if a estate tail be turn into a feesimple a reversion or remainder may be  expectant upon it for the estate before it be turn into a feesimple be capable  of both and that be our case here several estate forfeit be feesimple in the  king raise out of estate tail which the Lord Cobham and George his brother  forfeit Bridgman oh but second that though four estate as I say be forfeit  that be first the estate tail in Henry Lord Cobham and the heir male of his  body second the estate tail to George and the heir male of his body three the  estate to Henry and the heir of the body of his father and fourthly the  feesimple in Henry and his heir yet the king by the forfeiture have but three  estate videlicet one in feesimple determinable by the failure of issue male of  Henry and George for George estate be immediate dependent upon Henry estate to  he and the heir male of his body and no intervention between they they be but  one consolidate estate in the king so long as Henry or George have issue male  for the king can have two estate in fee together where they be immediate and  no other estate between they as appear by Austens case and Hussey cite before  and though in those case the king be in point of reverter yet the reason be  the same where the king have no reversion before as if tenant in tail  reversion in fee to the tenant in tail be attaint the king have but one fee  and it make no difference where they be all fee determinable or qualify and  where one of they be absolute for be immediate expectant or upon the other  they be but one estate for law non service useless and it be fruitless and in  vain to say the king by the attainder of Henry and George have one fee so long  as Henry have issue male and another fee so long as George have issue male for  it be no prejudice to any to have they consolidate and it be agreeable to law  that there shall not be multiply of feesimples the law do not delight in or  allow a fee upon a fee but for mere necessity where it can be otherwise and  therefore if a villain be tenant in tail and the lord enter he have one fee  and the donor another for necessity but if the lord feoff the donor he have  but one fee e c c this reference to Lord coke commentary seem to be incorrect  g a but then in our case here there be several remainder intervenient between  these estate in tail male forfeit by Henry and George and the estate to Henry  and the heir of the body of William his father that estate to he and the heir  of the body of William his father be also forfeit the king have another  feesimple determinable by the failure of the heir of the body of William and  this be a distinct estate in the king of necessity because of the  interposition of other intervenient estate which keep they asunder and for the  same reason Henry have the remainder in fee to he and Bridgman oh his heir  after the intervenient estate this estate be also forfeit to the king but it  be in the king as a distinct feesimple for the reason before mention other man  estate interpose so that the king as I say have three estate in feesimple two  qualify and a three absolute and these three the king may several grant as  distinct estate either to one or more person and he may keep one and grant the  other and in our case it appear by the several habendums that he grant the  absolute remainder in fee as a distinct estate these I conceive be undeniable  ground for first of all I say and therein differ from my brother who argue  against me that the king do not intend to depart with this whole estate he  have in this second remainder or fee which be while there be issue of the body  of William Lord Cobham but only for so long time as Henry or George have issue  inheritable when those fail the king will have it again while William have  issue for we Bridgman oh er p must gather the king intent out of the word of  his grant holt c j say that a legal intention be not necessary in the king but  only a moral intent Skinner h and therefore to say that the king by this  habendum do intend to pass the whole estate which Henry have to he and the  heir of the body of William his father it be gratis dictum and contrary to the  express word but if it be true it make against the patent for then the king be  deceive in the estate which he intend to grant by it for be think he have a  estate only so long as Henry and George have issue but I take it clear this  habendum passes no more than while Henry and George have issue and it leaves a  remnant of that estate videlicet when William have issue of his body after  failure of issue of Henry and George in the king which remnant by no word of  this habendum be take out of the king second this grant quamdiu so long as  Henry Lord Cobham or any issue of his body or any issue of his brother George  shall be in be if it take effect it must be draw out of the two several estate  in fee which remain sever in the Kingthe estate determinable for default of  issue male of the body of Henry and George and the estate determinable for  default of issue of the body of William Lord Cobham for the estate so long as  Henry and George have issue of their body in the habendum can be draw only out  of the first estate which last so long as they have heir male of their body  and no long but it must arise also out of the king second estate which the  king have so long as William have heir Bridgman oh of his body and take a part  of that videlicet while Henry and George have issue and cease when there be a  failure of their issue hence I infer that since the estate to duke brook and  his heir while Henry and George have issue must arise out of the king estate  and there be a interposition of other estate between they that if the habendum  pass any thing at all it must pass two estate to the patentee but the king  intend only to pass one estate and so it be void because the king be deceive  but second which be the main reason in the point the king by this habendum do  intend to grant one entire estate continue Interrog  so long as any issue of  the body of Henry and George inheritable of the premise be in be but it can  pass here a continue estate but by fraction for the patentee as I have often  say shall enjoy it by virtue of the habendum only while there be issue male of  Henry and George then during John Lord Cobham estate who be the lessor and the  other estate in tail male to the other son of George Lord Cobham and the heir  male of their body the say John Lord Cobham and other male will enjoy it and  dispossess the patentee and when these be spend as in truth they be spend  since this action bring then again the estate must by this habendum return to  the patentee as long as the heir of the body of Henry and George continue and  when that be spend then this grant to cease again and other estate to  interpose so then if the king can pass such a estate as he intend he be  deceive in his grant the king intend to pass one entire estate to duke brook  the patentee and his heir so long as Henry Lord Cobham or George his brother  have issue but such a estate can pass accord to the king intention and  therefore he be deceive to prove the first of these propositions that the king  intend to pass one entire estate appear by the very word for the grant to the  patentee and his heir be Interrog  so long as Henry or George have issue the  word Interrog  imply a duration without interruption or intermission if  Blackacre be grant to a Interrog  b suffer I n to enjoy Whiteacre if b enter  into Whiteacre the grant of Blackacre cease now though b suffer I n to reenter  and reenjoy Whiteacre yet the estate by the Interrog  be determine and so if  land be grant to a and his heir Interrog  b have heir of his body if b die  without heir of his body the estate cease and though the wife of b be enseint  and after have a son yet it shall not revive that be the express case put by  Yelverton in pool and needham case in James b r for it be Bridgman oh a  collateral determination which be once interrupt shall not be set on foot  again the true reason be the Interrog  be a word of limitation of a continue  uninterrupted estate and indeed to have a estate cease and rise again the  proper word shall be so often how often and not Interrog  which as I say imply  a continue estate Bridgman oh er p this suggestion be not in the print book  keb I the other proposition that one entire estate can pass accord to the king  intention by the limitation of this habendum needs no further proof for as  have be say the king first estate must cease when the issue male of Henry and  George fail but the estate accord to the limitation cease not by the failure  of issue male of Henry or George brook but the manuscript be but when by the  failure c j by the failure of issue male and female and so the king be deceive  in his intention for by the letter of the habendum the patentee will have it  so long as Henry and George have issue male those fail this estate cease and  when the rest of the male cease the patentee must have it again of another  estate and so the patentee have not one entire but several estate with the  interposition of other another reason why I conceive this grant be void be  this that this grant be to the prejudice of a three person that be to those in  remainder for the grant be so long as any issue of the body of Henry or George  shall be in beingwhen issue male fail sir John brook the lessor and other  which be in the remainder to they and the heir male of their body be prejudice  for if he in remainder shall bring his action against the patentee the  patentee may pray in aid of the king and it shall be grant to he for the king  grant if it have be in the case of a common person it will have carry a  warranty by the word to give away and where a common person be bind to  warranty there shall be a aid prier of the king if the estate grant by the  king be not determine but the estate which be mention to be grant by this  habendum be still in be after failure of issue male of Henry and George for it  be to continue by the purport of the habendum while they have issue female and  therefore give cause of aid prier against sir John Cobham and all those in  remainder in tail male who ought to have enjoy the land but otherwise it be of  a grant determine and therefore if the patent have be only so long as Henry or  George have issue male the grand patentee estate determine by failure of issue  male and there can be no aid prier upon a estate determine Bridgman oh in  Wheatley v Thomas Keble it be say by Glyn counsel that in holland v fisher in  c b all the court agree that the next in remainder after Henry and George may  enter on the crown the report of the principal case in keb be as the ms king  whether or no in this case he in remainder may enter upon the patentee admit  the grant Interrog  there be heir of the body be good may be some question for  that it appear the king grant not out of his whole estate but part still  remain in him and will come anon to be consider in this case but however if it  be a prejudice to he in remainder in his action which the law give he that be  cause enough to avoid the patent because by it a wrong be do to a three person  and we know the great delay that come by aid prier and after aid grant the  long time allow to make search for the king title beside in the king grant if  this habendum stand good the dedimus imply a warranty and in honour he ought  to make good his grant to the patentee and so the king must answer the value  of the prejudice to the patentee during the time after failure of issue male  of Henry and George John Lord Cobham or other the heir male shall enjoy the  land and so the king be not only deceive but prejudice in his grant and these  I conceive to be the reason why if the king be tenant for life and be grant  the land to another and his heir or the heir of his body though this be by  periam chief baron hold to be good during the king life yet it be agree by  Popham and the rest of the judge in Alton wood case that such a grant shall be  void and shall not be good to pass his estate for life and chancellor Egerton  say that he have also see a report in king Henry the seven time to that  purpose yet in truth the king grant there pass less than the king intend to  pass but the reason be those that I cite before the king be deceive in his  grant be take upon he to grant a great estate than he can legal grant the  grant be a prejudice to the king as to his warranty and to he in remainder in  respect of aid prier and in some case as to his entres and give colour at  least to put he to his petition of right which last reason though not in the  book yet be in the case Bridgman oh er p again if the king have a base fee so  long as I S have issue Bridgman oh male of his body and be grant the land so  long as I S have issue of his body I hold this grant to be void and our case  be the same in effect for the king have a estate in possession only so long as  Henry and George have issue male and be grant the land as in possession as  long as Henry and George have issue be it male or female such a grant I hold  to be void for the king be deceive in his grant he grant what he can in that  manner grant as he intend it be take upon he to grant a great estate than he  have to grant for it be a great estate to have the land so long as I S have  issue of his body than so long as he have issue male of his body and it be a  prejudice to a three person and to he in remainder as to his action but it  have be object though the king can grant one continue estate in possession so  long as Henry and George have issue of their body yet have several estate in  fee in he he may do it by fraction the patentee may have it while Henry and  George have issue male and when these fail then those male who be in remainder  may enter and when these be spend then the patentee may have it again while  Henry and George have issue and so all may stand be construe respective well  enough together as it will do in the case of a common person for it differ  from Alton wood case where the king be tenant in tail with remainder in fee to  his own right heir grant to Welsh in fee the king have a estate tail in  possession and can not grant a fee out of it without a tort and it will be a  tort if such a grant be make by a common person but here the king have a fee  and grant a fee out of it and admit it to be great than he intend it be no  tort and so good to this purpose Englefields case   have be cite at the  Bar  The king be tenant for another man life without recite his estate grant  for forty year this be good though he can not contract absolute for the king  do no tort to any but to this I answer first that in Englefields case it be  express agree that it be but a lease for forty year of the land and so a less  estate than the king have and so the king not deceive in his grant and so if a  copyholder for life have licence to lease for twentyone year if he so long  live if he lease for twentyone year absolute yet this be good for in law it be  but a lease for twentyone year if he live so long and forty year be but such a  term as a man life may common arrive to it be in law continue a chattel  interest the word a chattel interest be supply to a blank in the manuscript  this part of the case seem to be confuse report by Keble l Bridgman oh but  suppose the king grant for one thousand year or such other long term as amount  to a mortmain or have but for twenty year grant for forty year I conceive in  both these case the grant be void though there be no tortuous estate by such a  grant for the king be deceive in his grant so the Lord chandos case   be urge  tenant in tail reversion to the king the king recite the letter patent to the  entail and that the tenant in tail have surrender they in chancery ad opus  king cancel army pron  interrog  they be cancelled virtute pron  interrog  the  king be and still be seize in lord his ut fee the king grant to the say and  his heir manor prediction whereby he pass the reversion only whereas he intend  to pass it in his demesne as of fee and yet adjudge good for the king grant  less than be intend and his estate will support such a grant in fee and in  case of a common person such a grant will be good and so in the present case  but that case of my Lord chandos clear differ in reason from our case for  there less pass than the king intend for he intend to part with the possession  and no prejudice to the king in our case he pass more than he intend for he  intend to part with a estate in possession so long as Henry or George have  issue of their body which we can pass by reason of the intervention of several  other estate and it be express there say   b that if more pass than the king  intend to pass as if he intend only to pass a reversion and a possession pass  it shall be void and that be our case for the letter of the habendum carry it  in possession immediate after the failure of issue male of Henry and George so  long as they have issue female whereas it be but a remainder which the king  have in such case second that case in itself be but hard law and a  extrajudicial opinion and Bridgman oh er p the grant be make to the  terretenant who have the immediate estate but if the king have grant the land  by those word to a stranger suppose the estate tail surrender whereas the  estate tail be in be for my own part I shall think the grant have be void for  it give colour to oust the tenant in tail but three that be a good grant  accord to the letter without any fraction the grant be of the reversion entire  but in our case if it be good it must be good by fraction or not at all so  that there appear a manifest diversity in the case but as touch fraction in  estate the king grant where he have several qualify fee I do not deny but that  there may in some respect be fraction in estate and those estate so Bridgman  oh in fraction may be grant Hussey case before cite be tenant in tail with the  reversion or remainder to the king forfeit it or grant it to the king by a  conveyance which bind his issue though it be agree that the king there have  one consolidate fee yet it be also express agree that if the king have two fee  in he that by a grant to one and his heir by one entire grant both the estate  will have pass I   Cr the king in our principal case have three estate which  be all feesimple in he though two of they be but qualify one to he and his  heir while Henry or George have issue male a second after other remainder  interpose while William have issue of his body a three after other remainder  absolute to the king in fee if the king have grant the land to duke brook  habendum to he and his heir I conceive for my own opinion all three have pass  though I confess my brother Terrell very strong argue against it for the king  need not to recite either his own or other man estate they be create by a  subject and not of necessity tie to be of record as the king S own grant or  lease be and there the king make no fraction in his own estate but such  fraction as be while the estate be in the king and so be passes they as they  be in he if the king have recite and so pass all his estate he can have pass  they with no other limitation but to the patentee and his heir and therefore  no recital be necessary the same limitation to the patentee and his heir will  pass and therefore I think the king by a grant to d b and his heir without any  recital have pass all his estate but that differ from our case for the king  intend to grant all which he have which he do not here and the word there  habendum to he and his heir be the word of the large extent that may bethey be  not cut short nor abridge in that case by the king grant which be as large as  may be but by the act of law because the king have no great estate to grant  and I conceive the patentee have not by such a grant one entire fee but three  several fee as the king have and this be the opinion of those who draw this  patent for the king grant his reversion in fee by a distinct habendum and if  the patentee die seize and after the first fee determine for default of heir  male of the body of Henry and George and the heir male in remainder enter and  after these remainder be spend the heir of the patentee in respect of the  other estate so long as there be issue of the body of William Lord Cobham  reenter it may be a question whether the wife of the patentee shall be endow  or no the estate Bridgman oh in fee whereof her husband be actual seize be  determine but when the king have a fee so long as I S have issue male oh his  body and he grant the land not general habendum to a and his heir but habendum  to a and his heir so long as I S have issue of his body which be in effect our  principal case the restraint of the estate be in the very grant itself and  though it be a good grant in case of a common person who have land so long as  I S have issue male of his body and grant so long as I S have issue of his  body because it shall be take strong against the grantor yet in the case of  the king it shall be void as I conceive for the king grant shall be take in  the usual and common sense and intelligence secundum thought domini king and  not in deception domini king the king be intend not to pass all his estate as  in the other case for be reserve part of it but be intend to pass one entire  estate and that in possession so long as Henry and George have issue of their  body which intention can stand with the nature of his estate hill I James b r  mason and chamber be case cro James the king be seize of a rectory part in  possession part in reversion and he lease habendum from Michaelmas next si no  one dimissi de rectoria be then in be and if there be aliquan dimissi Bridgman  oh er p then from the end of it the king intend one entire commencement of the  lease and not at several time and therefore adjudge void to have it commence  at several time part at one time part at another I conceive the principal case  of Alton wood to be in the reason of it our very case tenant in tail to he and  the heir male of his body with reversion to he in fee make a grant in tail to  Welsh it be urge that the king may grant a estate during his own life out of  his estate tail and he may grant a estate tail out of his reversion in fee  that therefore the king grant shall be take by fraction and to pass that which  the king can pass but it be adjudge to be void for the whole one reason of  that judgement be give in the Lord chandos case fol   that the king be not  conusant or right inform of his estate but that reason hold not for it be both  agree in Alton wood case fol and in needler and needham case hob that though  the king have recite Bridgman oh his divide estate it can not have better his  grant and yet there he have take knowledge of the fact and have only  misconceive the law that his grant may nevertheless work entire but the true  reason of that judgement in Alton wood case be express in the Lord chandos  case that the grant can not take effect without fraction of estate or wrong do  and in needler and needham case the reason of the judgement in Alton wood case  be set down to be this because the king do err in the form and manner of the  estate intend that entire which can not be so which reason be in effect both  one and extend to our principal case the king intend a entire estate without  fraction so long as Henry and George have issue of their body which can be for  when issue male fail then other estate in remainder intervene and those be  spend then it must rise again while Henry and George have issue of their body  or else it be a wrong to those in the remainder for that which be object to  make a difference between that case and we that there it will be a tort if  such a grant be by a common person as if a common person be tenant in tail  with reversion to he grant the land in tail it be a discontinuance but here if  a common person have two base fee as in our case grant the land Interrog  any  issue of Henry or George live it will pass all he have without a tort I answer  first that the reason of that judgement be build upon another foundation but  second it be true ill a common person be tenant in tail with reversion over to  he grant in tail and make livery the livery not the grant work the wrong but  if he have by lease and release or bargain and sale grant the land in tail it  have pass the estate for life and his reversion in fee and so will the king  patent pass both without any discontinuance if there be nothing else in the  case but we will weigh the reason of that case as they be in the print report  of it with our case one reason there be the king intend to grant that which he  can not lawful grant that be a estate tail in possession and therefore be  deceive and since that which he intend to pass can not take effect that which  he intend not shall not pass that be a estate tail out of the reversion and  the king ought to be so inform that his purpose and intent may take effect the  case be there put the king be tenant in tail with a reversion to he in fee the  king grant a estate for his own life and after grant the re Bridgman oh  version in fee or in tail this grant shall be void for he intend a immediate  reversion and not a reversion expectant upon his estate tail which be remote  and mediate in our principal case the king intend to grant one entire estate  so long as Henry and George have issue of their body that be one estate in  possession determinable upon that limitation such a estate he can not grant  for other estate intervene and therefore it shall not be take by fraction to  pass so long as they have heir male of their body and immediate after other  estate determine to pass it again so long as they have issue of their body  second in that case it be say the estate which the king have will not permit  such a estate as be grant to Welsh it can not stand with his estate No more  will it in this case the king have no such estate as will stand with this  limitation he have no estate so long as Henry and George have issue of their  body but he have a estate so long as they have issue male of their body three  the king be not apprise of his own estate for then he will not have grant a  estate which can not take effect accord to his purpose which reason hold clear  in our case fourthly it be say the king intend to grant a entire estate not  two Bridgman oh er p several estate and to grant a estate in possession and  not part in reversion which reason full hold in our case it be say in that  case it be a absurdity to have such fraction of estate that Welsh shall have  it to he and the heir male of his body during the king life and then the king  shall have a estate tail and then the patentee shall have a estate tail  expectant upon the king estate tail whereas the king intend to grant a estate  tail in possession et ankle interpretation always fiend be ut to shun absurdum  and Popham say without question it shall not pass by such fraction of estate  the same reason I conceive hold in our principal case here will be fraction of  estate upon this one entire habendum the patentee shall have it so long as  Henry and George have issue of their body and then when those fail the king  shall have it again so long as William have issue of his body which without  all question be not intend I have press this case of Alton wood the more  because it be at first adjudge upon solemn debate and deliberation and in that  case it be adjudge void for the entire part so it shall be in this case and  not good so long as there be issue male of the body of Henry and George it be  very true if it be good so long as there be issue male of the body of Henry  and George though void for the residue yet the pa Bridgman oh tentee be then a  good tenant to the freehold it will be sufficient to enable the recovery  wherein duke brook be vouch and so bar the lessor of the plaintiff in this  action but this title be now determine by the failure of issue male and the  ejectment lease be also determine in point of time but the defendant will be  nothing the better for it for the estate in tail male be determine the other  estate which the king have so long as Henry and George have issue not pass by  that patent come to take place so that the king or whosoever have get his  title will have ft as I have argue against both plaintiff or defendant but I  hold as I say before if the patent can extend by fraction to pass as well the  estate which the king have so long as Henry or George have issue as that which  he have so long as Henry or George have issue male it shall be void for the  whole I have do with this point but my brother brown start up another point  which be never touch at the bar say he Admit the habendum be void the king by  the premise in the first clause grant it to duke brook and his heir by a  second clause to he and his heir to such a degree plene freely Elizabeth  ntegre prout by the attainder of Henry and George or either of they or  wherever elsewhere of modus seu jure in manus our men to come so that these  premise be sufficient to pass all and here be a express grant and so the  habendum can alter it and a void habendum shall not vitiate the grant and he  cite auditor king case cite   in the earl of Rutland case the king grant land  to b and his heir habendum to b and his assign and it be resolve the habendum  be void and the grant good and some other case he cite to show the force of a  to such a degree plene to this I answer first I conceive in the case of a  common person if he grant land in the premise to b and his heir habendum to b  and his heir so long as I S have issue male of his body I conceive this be a  good habendum and a qualify fee it stand agreeable with the premise but if he  have grant to he and his heir habendum to b for life or year this be a void  habendum because it be repugnant to the estate in the premise and so be  baldwin case and this answer auditor king case where the habendum be to he and  his assign which be but for life by implication and second this habendum in  the case of a common person will have be good so long as Henry and George have  issue it be void in the king case jure king because the king be deceive in his  grant and contrary to the king intention which must be gather not out of this  or that part of the patent but out of Bridgman oh the whole the king intend  indeed to grant to duke brook and his heir so say the premise but the habendum  show how to he and his heir videlicet so long as he have issue of his body  wherein the king be deceive think he have a entire estate to grant so long as  Henry and George have issue which he have not so that which make void the  habendum make void the whole grant because the king be deceive and such a  estate pass not as he intend in the case of a common person the estate shall  be take strong against the grantor so that if the premise express a estate the  habendum though void shall not alter it but that reason turn in the king case  for the grant shall be take strong for the king accord to his intention and  the proper office of the habendum be to Bridgman oh er p limit the estate as  of the premise to express the grantor and grantee and thing to be grant if the  habendum be void whereby the king be deceive in the restrainnt he intend to  make the patent be void as I conceive but in auditor king case there be no  express estate in the habendum but to he and his assign and if there have be  any express estate for life itwas unsuitable to the nature of the premise and  be not of a explanation of the premise as our habendum be though in that case  if the habendum have be to he and his heir for the life of I S it may have be  a question if land be give to I S and his heir habendum to he and the heir of  his body or to I S and the heir of his body habendum to he and his heir the  book say he have a estate tail and remainder expectant but in the case of the  king if he give land to I S and his heir habendum to he and the heir of his  body I conceive in such a case he have but one estate videlicet that in the  habendum to he and the heir of his body for the king intend not two several  estate so if the king grant land by the premise to I S and his heir habendum  from Michaelmas next I conceive this be void in the king grant for it appear  the king intend to keep it till Michaelmas which if the habendum be void and  the premise good he can and therefore I conceive in the case of the king his  whole intent shall be consider through the patent where the habendum be  pursuant to the premise and the general intent thereof though not agreeable to  law but where the premise show one intent and the habendum another there it  shall be take best ut res to be strong if it be allow I in this case that  where the king grant in the premise to one and his heir he may restrain it by  a habendum to he and his heir so long as I S have issue of his body it  Bridgman oh will follow that if this limitation be void in the king case the  whole shall be void for he be deceive in the restraint which he intend to make  I have one thing more to say to this point that be there be two habendums in  this case the one be for the base fee the other for the absolute fee admit the  first habendum be void yet the second habendum for the reversion in feesimple  which the king have as a distinct estate stand good and that be sufficient to  answer the premise by which the land be grant to duke brook and his heir so  that admit the other habendum void yet it be not like the case put by my  brother brown where if the habendum be void all be void in Pasmore and prowse  cite in Lofields case one have a reversion expectant on a estate for life  grant the land habendum the reversion for life or habendum the reversion cum  to fall upon in both case it be good so here the king grant the manor to duke  brook and his heir habendum the king reversion in feesimple which be forfeit  by the attainder of Henry Lord Cobham this be good and sufficient of itself to  answer the limitation to duke brook and his heir in the premise and this I  conceive answer my brother brown objection if there be nothing more in the  case as for the to such a degree plene I conceive that alter not the case at  all the use of that have always be expound to extend to the thing grant and  not to the estate which be proper to be limit in the habendum and therefore  the case cite out of whistler case   be good law by the grant of a manor to  such a degree plene and the advowson passes but if the king have grant a manor  to I S to such a degree plene as I d have it no estate will have pass in the  case of the king and it be well observe in whistler case the clause of to such  a degree plene never come in the first part of the grant and as my brother  Terrell say if this clause intend to limit that estate which shall pass the  first clause and habendum shall be nugatory so that notwithstanding these  objection I conceive that if the habendum be void as I have argue that neither  the feesimple which the king have while Henry or George have issue male of  their body nor that which they have while William have issue of his body do  pass if the king grant as I have thus argue shall not be good then when the  recovery be suffer wherein duke brook be vouch the freehold be in the king and  so no good recovery to bar the lessor sir John brook Lord Cobham of his  remainder but admit the grant to be good it be then considerable upon this  habendum what passes by it and that be the next point which have be speak  to Whether Bridgman oh any more than a estate of freehold pass for if no more  than a freehold pass so long as there be issue or issue of issue then it  leaves the reversion and inheritance in the king which reversion  notwithstanding any common recovery preserve all the estate and remainder  subsequent to the king estate and then Bridgman oh er p also the recovery by  duke brook will be a forfeiture and determine his estate wherein the point be  but this the grant be habendum to duke brook and his heir Interrog  Henry  recently dominus Cobham or some exitus de corpore his procreand or some exitus  de corpore a saying beforehand george brook procreate well procreand  haereditabilis praemissor army ultimae will george recently domini Cobham to  live well in vita to step out well the dawn some to live well in vita to step  out whether this pass a inheritance or only a descendible freehold in the like  patent to Charles brook which be the brother of duke make by king James to  avoid this question there be other word add to these before videlicet or some  haeres or exitus or in some way haeredes or exitus de cor poor hujusmodi  haereduum well exitus legitime procreate well procreand haereditabilis c but  marginal note in the ms sergeant Maynard object that the grant be not  Interrog  any issue shall be inheritable but Interrog  any issue inheritable  shall live and so he say there may be a time when the word shall hold and the  estate not be in be and another time when the estate shall be in be not the  word m I do not take that to be the question because there want the word  haeredes in the habendum for though the word issue be not word proper to limit  a estate of inheritance yet they may be sufficient to limit and determine the  duration of a estate of inheritance as if land be give to I S and his heir so  long as such a tree grow it be a estate of inheritance and so to give land to  one and his heir so long as I have issue I conceive be a good estate of  inheritance determinable by default of issue otherwise it be if it be limit so  long as he have son for the word issue be nomen proceeding by inference and  comprehend all men who exeunt de corpore et born to be born et who to be born  ab strike against as well the mediate as the immediate issue and so in a  reasonable sense upon a limitation so long as I S have issue it shall be  intend to extend to all the issue and descendant mediate or immediate but the  word issue may also be refer to the immediate issue only and then if the sense  be so it shall not be extend further and shall be all one as if it have be  limit to he and his heir so long as I S have son or daughter this Bridgman oh  carry only a descendible freehold now the objection here be when it be limit  Interrog  any issue of Henry or George shall live this will have carry it to  all the succeed generation but when it go further or any issue or any issue oh  the body of such issue this as be object show that in the first place the  immediate issue only be intend and not all issue whatsoever for otherwise the  first word be nugatory and by the same reason that the word issue shall be  construe to extend only to the immediate issue in the first place they shall  also be construe to extend only to the immediate issue of those issue and then  it be no more than habendum so long as Henry and George shall have child and  those child shall have child this go no further than the three generation and  be but a freehold descendible but as to this point I conceive a good estate of  inheritance passes for first as I say before Interrog  some exitus will have  carry a estate of inheritance and then I think the latter word or some exitus  hujusmodi exitus be but word of explanation or redundance as in Shelleys case    there be a limitation to the use of Edward Shelley for life and after to the  use of the heir male of the body of Edward and of the heir male of the body of  such heir male heir male of the body may as well be word of purchase as of  limitation yet the latter word there shall not alter the limitation before  they be but exegetical and explanatory of the other and so in this case but  admit the word shall extend only to the immediate issue it follow not that the  latter word of the issue of the issue shall extend only to the immediate issue  of the immediate issue but rather the contrary for the first limitation so  long as there be issue of Henry and George extend only to the immediate and  not mediate issue for no other reason but because there be a subsequent  limitation to the issue of that immediate issue but there be no further  limitation after the limitation to the issue of the issue by the same reason  that the first word will have extend to all the issue mediate or immediate  have there not be a limitation over by the same reason I say the latter word  which have no such limitation over shall also extend to the issue mediate or  immediate as the first shall have do and it be no more than if the land have  be give to duke brook and his heir so Bridgman oh er p long as Henry or George  have child and that those child have any issue which limitation will  comprehend all both mediate and immediate issue and so it shall in our  principal case then as I conceive the last thing considerable upon this  Bridgman oh habendum be this the king grant to duke brook and his heir  Interrog  there be some exitus of Henry and George which admit it be a good  grant and issue out of both estate forfeit to the king videlicet that to the  heir male of the body which it take up whole and that to the heir of the body  of William yet it leaves part of this latter estate videlicet for default of  issue of Henry and George so long as William have several daughter and issue  of his body in the king whether this estate shall hinder the operation of the  recovery wherein duke brook the patentee be vouch and prevent the docking of  the remainder to the Lord Cobham and I hold the recovery shall bar it this  rather needs explanation than argue the case as to that be this duke brook  have a feesimple qualify by the king grant with remainder to duke brook  himself and the heir male of his body remainder to sir John brook Lord Cobham  the lessor remainder to the king so long as William have heir of his body I  will put it strong for in truth duke brook have part of that estate so long as  William have heir of his body and the king but the other part with remainder  over duke brook bargain and sell and then come in as vouchee in a common  recovery this bar duke remainder in tail and the Lord Cobham remainder in tail  but do not bar the king estate nor the estate subsequent to it if the king  have make a gift in tail remainder in tail before the statute of h c a common  recovery will have bar both the estate   sir Hugh Cholmeleys case warren  remainder be bar in such case   wiseman case Com h h in the margin of the  edition of dyer publish since the time of sir Orlando Bridgman be the follow  case hill car in chancery between Lord Nottingham and Lord Monson it be  resolve that if tenant in tail donee of the king levy a fine and suffer a  recovery the estate tail be not bar for the statute of h save it otherwise if  the king for money make a gift in tail by Coventry hide and Richardson n c c  Cr stone and Newmans case and at this day it will in case where the particular  estate be make by a common person though it touch not the king remainder or  estate yet it shall touch those which precede it for by the same reason that  it may bar the issue it may bar the remainder and the recompense shall go unto  they in our case the remainder be make by George Lord Cobham and therefore  Bridgman oh shall be bar but the estate subsequent to the king estate shall be  protect by it for the recompense be but a feign recompense shall not bar the  king and so a stop be make there it can go to the remainder subsequent to it  but the Lord Cobham estate in the principal case be precedent to the king  remainder and subsequent to duke brook remainder if there be a good tenant to  the freehold duke brook come in as voucbee shall bar the Lord Cobham who  estate be subsequent to he agreeable to Copledikes case m   and the case there  put so that I conclude the patent notwithstanding all the objection against it  be good enough save only for that point upon the habendum where the king have  a estate so long as Henry and George have issue male grant so long as Henry  and George have issue of their body for which cause only I think the patent to  be void on this point hide I keb and brown I ib agree against Bridgman c j oh  but then admit the patent shall be void there be two thing more stir in the  case against the plaintiff title the one be this The king be entitle by double  matter of record the attainder of Henry Lord Cobham and the office whereby it  be find that Henry Lord Cobham be seize to he and the heir of his body all  this may be omit this note have reference to the passage between bracket it  have be preserve as explanatory of the manner in which the chief justice seem  to have leave his composition p and thereupon it be urge that he in remainder  can enter upon the king or his patentee for by the commonlaw where the king be  entitle by double matter of record as the attainder and office Bridgman oh er  p the party can not enter but he be put to his petition and thereupon he be to  have a office find for he set forth his title and then he be to have his  traverse or to point out de law as the case require and this hold as well in  the case of the king grantee as of himself for in such case a to know facias  ought to be award against the patentee as saint b S and the statute e c which  be the only statute which reach the king when he be entitle by double matter  of record give a traverse or to point out de law as the case require and give  not a entry to the party and the stat h c though it enact that the king shall  be in actual possession without office of that which the party attaint have  yet it alter not the strength of a office where one be find nor give more  power to enter upon the king or his patentee than they have before so that it  remain at the commonlaw this Bridgman oh point be waive by some of the  defendant counsel but insist on by other and to I as the case have be put it  seem to be of great difficulty it be clear if there be a attainder and a  office find that the person attaint be seize in fee though in truth it be  false be that have right can enter upon the king or his patentee for the  record of the office which be the king title stand in force but if the office  find that the person attaint be seize to he and the heir of his body as our  case be now the king title by the office last no long than while the person  attaint have heir of his body hereupon there be a estate once vest in the king  which be in truth determine the great question grow whether he in the  remainder or who have a right may enter or be fine to a to point out de law at  the commonlaw if a office find the title of the king to a freehold the party  have no remedy by traverse or to point out de law but if the title of the  party be find in the same office he may then have his to point out de law  which imply he can not enter in such case but in those case the party may  enter upon the king patentee as in all case where by the commonlaw he may have  a to point out de law or traverse against the king he may enter upon his  patentee but in our case though the king title be find special by office yet  here be none find for he in the remainder sir John brook Lord Cobham the  lessor and beside the king title find by office be continue and do not appear  to be defeasible by the office itself for it may by possibility last for ever  be to last so long as Henry have heir of his body and therefore the doubt be  whether the king be entitle by a matter of record to a determinable estate  videlicet by the death of Henry without issue the determination of this estate  whereto the king be entitle by the office ought not to be find and if it be  requisite to be find before entry of he in the remainder the find of it in  this verdict will not serve the turn for that it ought to be find before the  entry by John Lord Cobham in remainder and his lease whereupon this verdict be  find and beside the find it upon a verdict inter alian and not by special  office shall not take away the force of a office entitle the king in Piers  Partifields case ass   a return of the mayor of London though upon the king  writ shall not determine the king title by office though it Bridgman oh stand  with the office and contradict it not in the case of the king or so long as he  have not depart with his whole estate find by the office I conceive be in the  remainder as sir John brook Lord Cobham can not enter in this case if by  office it be find that I S who be attaint be seize of a mortgage upon  condition that if the mortgagor pay l then to be void the king be now entitle  by double matter of record the attainder and office but the office find a  estate determinable the mortgagor have his remedy by to point out de law see  burgess v wheat Eden and other case in Powell on mortgage that Edward p note h  r but before that the performance of the condition ought to be find by office  it ought to be so where land be convey to the king upon condition by record  quaere hic the case   de Leic see p and the performance of the condition  appear not of record   Com a strong in case of double matter of record suppose  the king in such case have grant over all his estate whether or not the  mortgagor before office find whereby the estate of the Kingwas find to be  determine can enter upon the king patentee may be a question and I know no  authority in point it be in effect our very case it be find by office that  Henry Lord Cobham the Bridgman oh er p person attaint be seize to he and the  heir of his body the king grant so long as he have heir of his body now the  king have part with his whole estate find by the office if it or part of it  have continue in the king I conceive that a office ought to have be find of  the death of Henry Lord Cobham without issue before be in the remainder can  enter for the king have a estate by double matter of record the determination  of it ought to appear also by record but the king have grant over his whole  estate find by the office whether he as the remainder can enter upon the  patentee or his heir may be the question for the title of the patentee be upon  a double record of a title under the king and it may seem reasonable that the  determination of that title shall also appear upon record the case be put out  of ass pl in Alton wood case c and the husband of a feme inheritrix be attaint  of felony and a office find the special matter that he be seize only in right  of his wife the heir say the book shall not be put to his petition and I agree  the law to be so for in that case a to point out de law lie at the commonlaw  because the same Bridgman oh office which find the king title find the party  title but that case do not say the heir may enter and in the principal case  there though it be against the patentee the heir do not enter but have his  writ so that I hold it a point very worthy of consideration but I shall  deliver no positive opinion in it inspect think over I find the case to be  otherwise than it be put at the bar for the office be not find upon a writ out  of chancery under the great sea but by a commission out of the exchequer and  office so find be not office of entitle but office of instruction where the  king be entitle before as he be in our case by the stat h and serve only to  instruct the king officer of the certainty of the land that it may be put in  charge and not to create a title to the king as it be resolve in page case so  that the king not be entitle by this office be not entitle by double matter of  record and the king title be in part determine and none particular appear for  he upon any entitle record he in the remainder may lawful enter this office of  instruction notwithstanding also in the principal case the office find only  that Henry Lord Cobham at the time of his death be seize to he and the heir of  his body but it be find that Henry Lord Cobham be dead without issue so that  the estate find by office be determine and consequent the entry of he in  remainder shall not be hinder by that office there be no double matter of  record against he that be the reason of sir William say case Elizabeth  Gertrude tenant in tail with the reversion of a moiety to herself and of the  other moiety to whether marquis of Northampton as coparcener be attaint by Act  of parliament and all her land forfeit the king grant in fee the tail be spend  the other sister may enter without petition or to point out de law and so in  the earl of arundel case Elizabeth he grant the manor of Haslebury to Thomas  earl of Northumberland in tail with remainder to Henry his brother with  condition if the earl of Northumberland shall discontinue or do or suffer any  thing quo minus the say manor shall revert to the earl of Arundel and his heir  without hindrance well dilation in possession et id immediate if the say earl  and Henry die without issue that it shall be lawful to reenter it be there  agree the earl of Northumberland be outlaw and attaint of treason whereby the  estate by the statute h and h be in the king without office that the manor  notwithstanding the attainder debet et to be able see revertor  to the donor  immediate by act of law by failure of issue because Bridgman oh the king  estate be determine as in the Lord burleigh case when issue male of h fail his  entry rule congeable without issue for in those case there be only a title by  attainder general and no particular title by office and so there be no office  here but upon commission out of the exchequer which be as no office in law or  if there have be a good office yet the estate find by the office be determine  be in the remainder may enter the last thing in this case be upon the Act of  parliament wherein the point be this Henry Lord Cobham be seize in tail male  with like remainder to George his brother they be attaint and office find that  Henry be seize to he and the heir of his body the king grant the land to duke  brook who be next in remainder in tail male after Henry and George duke brook  in April James bargain and sell to Prescott and in p James levy a fine to  Prescott against who a common recovery be have with voucher of duke brook who  vouch the common vouchee Bridgman oh er p then by Act of parliament begin Nov  James but continue by prorogation to James it be enact that Henry and George c  prout c and I hold this Act of parliament help not the patent if it be void  before for it enact only that the king grant shall be good and effectual in  law to all intent construction and purpose accord to the tenor effect and true  meaning of the letter patent so that it be make good only accord to the tenor  of the patent the Act supply the defect of power in the king to grant but it  make it not good if the patent in the composition of it be not good that be  the very case of h the king grant a manor except the advowson then he grant  the reversion to a certain bisbop habendum One cum advocation which be void ad  execution that they shall grant they to the manor of this be void for that the  advowson be not name before the habendum and after the king by authority of  parliament ratify and confirm the say letter patent and grant this extend not  to the advowson nor to take away any condition if it be in the grant by the  word ad execution but if the king grant one the land of io mary of I S which  be a void grant and after this grant be confirm by parliament this be good h  by Laicon and agree by Prescott chief justice for the Act of parliament supply  the defect of power in the king and that be all which the Act of confirmation  supply here it make the grant so good to the patentee as if this Act of  parliament have vest the land in the king before the earl of Leicester case in  effect be he be indict at Norwich before eight commissioner fifteen be in the  Bridgman oh commission but the commission to the mayor of London and other to  try he recite that he be indict before all the fifteen and give they power to  receive indictamentum prediction et ad audiend exam et render compelland  pillage Robert Dudley super ind et debt is owed fine triand et adjudicand soit  tiel endit et Le mandat all commrs ft a de endiclament predict so that it be  hold the trial before the mayor of London be void for the commission to  receive and proceed upon a indictment before fifteen be not warrant by a  indictment before eight afterward by Act of parliament which recite that the  earl of Suffolk sir Robert Dudley c be right and accord to law convict and  attaint of treason as by the record thereof more full appear the king lord and  Commons grant and assent that the say conviction and attainder shall be  approve and confirm by authority of parliament and it be further enact that  the say duke of Suffolk and the attaint person above name shall by authority  of parliament be convict and attaint of high treason and that so many of they  as shall be alive shall suffer pain of death and that they shall forfeit all  their land and they shall be in the queen actual without office and it be  adjudge that the attainder be void the Act of parliament shall not make it  good and a difference be take where act of parliament refer to a thing which  be and have no force or power there the Act be good and add force to it but  where it refer to a thing that be not it be void and upon that difference io  de Matravers case e grant fitzherbert abridgment beside this be a confirmation  of all grant in general not particular of this patent and three there be two  express save either of which leave those in remainder or reversion to be in  the same condition as if the Act have not be make the first save preserve the  remainder out of the grant of the forfeiture of their land and the second save  preserve the remainder out of the clause of make the king grant good and last  though the Act shall make good the patent yet there be no word in it to make  good the recovery by relation so that I take it the Act of parliament will  make nothing to the case