burn case after h a make a feoff to the use of his wife and if he survive her  to the use of himself and such woman as he shell afterward marry for the term  of their life remainder to b such secondwife shall take in joint enancy with  he though they come to their estate at different time but if before the second  marriage b and the feoff with the assent of a who levy a fine accord feoff to  new use after the death of a and five year after the fine whether the second  wife may enter with the assent of the feoff to revise the first usequ a feoff  be make after the statute of h c to diverse person to the use of d the wife of  the feoff for the term of her life and if the feof3 or survive his wife then  to the use of the feoff himself and of such person as he shall chance to marry  for the term of their life and to the intent that such person shall have it  dyer for her life for jointure the remainder over in use to a stranger in fee  c afterward he in remainder in fee with the feoff by consent and privity of  the feoff himself join in a deed of ferment to diverse new feoff by letter of  attorney to other use S to the use of the feoff himself and d his say wife for  their life the remainder over to one a in tail the remainder in fee to the  feoff himself after which feoff the husband levy a fine with proclamation to  other use and afterward the wife die the husband take a second wife and die  the second wife by the assent and command of the first feoff after the five  year pass since the fine enter to raise the use mention in the first feoff to  the second wife whether this entry be lawful or not upon evidence in  ejectioneirmae be demurrer in law and it seem to mounson and Harper that entry  be lawf ul and they hold that it be not necessary for the second wife to have  the assent or command of the first feoff for they be quite Orig nient dyer b  er p exclude from all manner of right or interest in the land by the statute h  which vest all the estate and title that the feoff have in the cestays and use  in such manner form quality and condition as the use be and that this  possibility of a future use to the second wife be reserve and preserve in the  custody of the law and that if any thing be leave in the feoff it be but a  power and authority to make a entry only which be not a interest in right in  the land and then it follow in consequence that nothing pass by their feoff to  the new feoff but mounson think that if they have title or right of entry to  revive the use suspend then the feoff will be a impediment to the entry  notwithstanding the attorney and they be disseizors to the particular tenant  for life which Harper deny but manwood and dyer assent to the opinion of  mounson accord to a precedent in the time of queen mary ante fol a of the  demesne of the abbey of comb in the county of war which be enjoy at this day  by the lady mary the wife of e umpton knight in jointure where the case be  that he in reversion or remainder in fee by deed with letter of attorney feoff  a stranger in the absence of the tenant for life who never attorned or assent  but occupy it during his life that be hold a good feoff enough for the  feesimple and to that afterward agree Wray chief justice and sander chief  baron although at another time he think otherwise and the opinion of manwood  and dyer be that although the future use be in abeyance and in n`bbus and in  no person certain or person know yet when the contingency happen and the use  also it be necessary that the feoff enter to raise this last and dead use for  they be the person put in trust by the feoff or who create the use and the  fooffment and estate that the feoff accept be the very root and foundation of  all the say use which be as branch and fruit of the body or bulk of the tree  and if such fooffment to the use before have be antecedent to the make of the  statute and alteration of the use in be by dyer the particular beneficiary and  use and that the feesimple of the use have not be make but the feoff continue  in their estate and trust after the statute make there after the death of the  particular tenant the feoff need not to make ingress and egress in the land to  awaken the dormant use as in case of alienation and feoff of the cestuys and  use c but there the second wife of her own authority may enter but the case  above be otherwise and a change and disturbance of the use and this by the  assent and will of the first feoff and founder of the use and of the feoff in  trust to the same use and at commonlaw the feoff shall have power sufficient  to alter change and dissolve the use and trust by their alienation and  limitation and no remedy for the land but by subpcena in conscience to make  recompense or receive punishment for the breach of the trust wherefore c and  although it be do to person have notice of the first use so as it be upon  consideration and the use express contrary to the first use but yet quaere of  this but here the case be not state that the new feoff have any notice of the  former use and when the new feoff be make to new use by the will and assent of  the feoff himself and his coffees also no injury be in anywise do to the  second wife who be not in be nor a person at that time know and although by  the word of the statute the freehold of the land and the feesimple also which  the feoff receive be deem and vest in the ceshbys and use before yet there  still remain come scintilla of right and title as some medium between both  state S that possibility of a future emerge use and so a interest and title  and not only a naked authority or dyer a er p power remain wherefore c and for  the first question of this case S whether the feoff who reserve the use to  himself and to the wife which shall be after the death of the first wife shall  have the freehold vest in he only and afterward when he take a second wife  whether she shall be jointtenant with her husband in possession and the other  estate merge in the baron or shall take by way of remainder after the death of  her husband by the word before S to the intent that she shall have it for her  life for jointure or not and dyer think that she shall not take by the one way  or the other because she be not capable nor in be at the time when the  remainder fall to the husband and then she shall never have it afterward any  more than if it be of a remainder of the land fall in possession of which it  have be agree by all that she shall take nothing but of a remainder in use it  seem to all the other justice that it alter the law but dyer think it all one  since the statute and dyer think that a remainder to the wife for life after  the death of the husband can be deem or take for a jointure and this for two  reason one because she ought to take estate joint with her husband accord to  the etymology of the word joiniqtre and the other because in the statute of l  r c that the wife who consent to the ravisher lose dower et conjunct feo  farnentum spurn which be intend jointure also the statute of h c h dyer c make  no demonstration in case of jointure of wife in possession or in use of any  estate of remainder after the death of the husband but of estate make during  the life of the husband joint or several and sole to the wife but of this  opinion quaere also there be much treat in the argument of this case of the  nature of use and what be a use benefit confidence perception of profit c and  when they first begin and so in conclusion of the opinion mounson and Harper  be for and with the second wife and for the jointure and manwood and dyer  contra and therefore the matter be adjourn into the exchequerchamber and there  in mich term next it be argue by revery and Barham and afterward the party  agree between themselves and judgement give by default easter term queen  Elizabeth