case child against baily and other a underlease make by a lessee for year  determinable on a future day certain and to commence immediate on his death be  good he die within the time palm Plowd Leon cro Elizabeth   a possibility  couple with a interest be devisable a lessee for term of year devise it to his  wife for life and afterward to William his old son and assign provide that if  the say William die without issue live at the time of his death that Thomas  another son shall have it the devise to Thomas be void ejectment of a lease of  Thomas heath of land in Alchurch upon not guilty plead a special verdict be  find upon the case which be that William heath possess of a lease for  seventysix year of the land in question let it to one blunt from the day of  his death until the first of may which be three month before the end of the  lease if Dorothy his wife live so long afterward he devise that William heath  his son and his assign shall have the say tenement and the reversion of they  and all his title and interest in the say tenement for all the other of the  say seventysix year which shall be unexpired at the time of his wife death  provide that if the say William die without issue live at the time of his  death that Thomas his son the now lessor shall have it for all the residue of  the seventysix year unexpired from the death of his say wife and of William  without issue and if he die without issue then to his daughter and make his  wife his executrix and die the wife assent to the legacy William assign all  this lease and his interest thereto to the say Dorothy who assign it to Mr  comb under who the defendant claim afterward Dorothy die and then William die  without issue Thomas the devisee enter and make this lease to the plaintiff  after diverse argument at the bar it be adjudge for the defendant first it be  resolve where a lessee for year let it after his death until the fir of may  that it be a good lease which begin immediate by his death he die within that  time second that the lease be make to begin after his death unto the first of  may the lease be make August if Dorothy his wife shall so long live he do not  thereby convey the interest and remainder of the term videlicet from the first  of may to August and the possibility of a long term if croak throw Dorothy die  before the first of may which interest and possibility together he may devise  to William heath his son the three and main question be whether this devise be  to William heath and his assign with a proviso that if he die without issue  live that Thomas heath shall have it and he alien it and afterward die without  issue whether this alienation shall bind Thomas heath or that he may avoid it  it be resolve that this alienation shall bind for when he limit to he and his  assign all the estate be vest in he and he have a absolute power to dispose  croak James er p thereof for the law do not expect his die without issue the  difference therefore be where a lease be devise to one if he live so long and  afterward to another the first have but a qualify estate and the other have  the absolute interest and therefore this alienation shall not prejudice he who  have the absolute estate but when it be limit to he and his assign then the  proviso thereto add be void to restrain the alienation and the limitation to  the heir of the body and the proviso be all one for all long lease will be  more dangerous than perpetuity and therefore this case differ from the case in    and   Lampets case that a devisee for life can not bar he in remainder and  Lewknors case a in the exchequerchamber be cite wherefore it be adjudge for  the defendant note upon this judgement a writ of error be bring in the  exchequerchamber and the error assign in point of law that the remainder of  this term limit to Thomas heath after the death of William without issue then  live be good and the alienation of William shall not bind he in remainder it  be argue by Bridgman and afterward by Humphrey davenport for the plaintiff in  error that it be a good limitation of the remainder of the term to William and  his assign with the proviso that if he die without issue then live the then  remainder shall be to Thomas c and that it be no more in effect than after his  death and therefore it differ from Lewknors case a adjudge in the exchequer  where a devise of a term to one and the heir of his body and if he die without  issue that it shall remain to another be hold to be a void remainder for he  can limit a remainder upon a term after the death of another without issue but  here it be but a remainder after the death of one without issue videlicet  William die without issue then live so upon the matter it depend upon his  death and therefore not like to the say case but it be agreeable to the reason  put in the case of   matth man case and   but it be now argue on the other  part by Thomas crew and George croak that the judgement be well give in the  king bench for here the limitation be to William after the death of the  devisor wife of all his estate and interest to he and his assign it be but a  remainder for the wife may outlive all the croak throw term and then this  devise of the remainder of the term be give to he in particular and William  have but a possibility and then to limit it to Thomas after the death of  William then live be to limit a possibility upon a possibility which be  against the rule of law as it be hold in the rector of Chedingtons case a and  Lord Stafford case b second that this limitation to Thomas after the death of  William without issue then live be all one as if it have be limit upon his  death without issue and the addition then live do not alter the case for at  the first limitation non constat that he shall die without issue and the law  shall not expect his death without issue and it be not like to the case when  it be limit after the death of one for it be certain that one must die and it  may be that he may die during the term and the law may well expect it but that  one shall die without issue the law will never expect such a possibility nor  regard it and it will be very dangerous to have a perpetuity of a term in that  manner for it will be more mischievous than the common case of perpetuity  which the law have seek to suppress and therefore it be say that this case be  like to some of the case which have be adjudge that the remainder of a term  after the death of one person be good and shall not be destroy by the  alienation of the first devisee vide   man case   Lampets case Plowd dyer  after diverse argument all the judge of the common plea videlicet Hobart winch  Hutton and Jones and all the baron except Tanfield chief baron agree with the  first judgement for they say that the first grant or devise of a term make to  one for life remainder to another have be much controvert whether such a  remainder may be good and whether all may not be destroy by the alienation of  the first party and if it be now first dispute it will be hard to maintain but  be so often adjudge they will not now dispute it but for the case in a easter  term James roll Rep a   b   croak James er p question where there be a devise  to one and his assign and if he die without issue then live that it will  remain to another it be a void devise and it be all one as the devise of a  term to one and his heir of his body and if he die without issue that then it  shall remain to another it be mere void for such a entail of a term be not  Allowable in law for the mischief which otherwise will ensue if there shall be  such a perpetuity of a term and although Tanfield chief baron doubt thereof  especial by reason of a judgement give before in the king bench in rhetoric v  chapel c where William caryi possess of a term for year devise it to his wife  for her life and afterward that John his son shall have the occupation thereof  as long as he have issue and if he die without issue unmarried that then  jasper his young son shall have the occupation thereof as long as he have  issue of his body and if he die without issue unmarried he devise the moiety  to Dorothy his daughter the other moiety to Robert and William his son and  make his wife executrix who assent to the croak throw legacy and die John and  jasper die without issue unmarried and afterward Robert and William enter upon  the defendant claim the moiety and let to the plaintiff upon a special verdict  all this matter be discover it be adjudge for the plaintiff that he shall  recover the moiety which be all one case with the case in question but the  defendant counsel in the writ of error show that there be a difference betwixt  the say case for first in that there be a devise but of the occupation only  but here of the term itself second it be a devise here of his estate and term  to he and his assign wherein be authority give that he may assign three the  limitation be there if he die without issue unmarried which be upon the matter  that if he die within the term for if he be not marry he can have issue but in  the case here he may have issue and yet if that issue shall die without issue  in his lifetime it shall remain which the law will neither expect nor will  suffer yet the justice and baron by the assent of Tanfield all agree that  judgement shall be affirm and in Hilary term James it be affirm a