case Pybus against Mitford if a covenant to stand seize to the use of the heir  male of the body of the say a beget or to be beget on the body of b his wife  with reversion to his own right heir a shall take a estate for life by  implication in order to make a good remainder in tail S C ante S C post S C  keb S C lev S C ray S C vent S C Freem post Prec in Chan salk Mod ld ray salk  Mod Peer wms pale yellow Dev hale chief justice deliver his opinion wile  Rainsford and Twisden justice have first deliver their S hale I think  judgement ought to be give for the defendant whether the son take by descent  or by purchase I shall divide the case first whether the son do take by  descent second admit he do not whether he can take by purchase we must make a  great difference between conveyance of estate by way of use and at commonlaw a  man can convey to himself a estate by a conveyance at commonlaw but by way of  use he may but now in our case here do return by operation of law a estate to  Michael for his life modern which be conjoin with the limitation to his heir  the reason be because a limitation to the heir of his body be in effect to  himself this be perfect accord to the intention of the party it be object that  the use be never out of Michael he have the old use and so it must be a  contingent use to the heir of his body but I say we be not here to raise a new  estate in the covenantor but to qualify the estate in fee in himself for the  old estate be to be make a estate for life to serve the limitation further  objection be that it shall be the old estate in fee as if a man devise his  land to his heir the heir be in of the old estate but I answer if be qualify  the estate the son must take it so as in Hutton fol so in this case be a new  qualification roll Abr James if a man make a feoff to the use of the heir of  the body of the feoff the feoff have a estatetail in he panel v fen a more cro  Elizabeth a Englefield venglefield b more Poph   jenk Leon b second I conceive  if it be not possible to take by descent this will be a contingent use to the  heir of the body objection be that it be limit to the heir when no heir in be  why I say it will have come to the heir at commonlaw if no express limitation  have be and it can be intend that he do mean a heir at commonlaw because he do  special limit it