case the king and queen against kemp grant of a office by the king after the  death surrender or forfeiture of the former grant of the same office be good S  c Mod S c salk S c comb S c skin S c Carth S c holt S c ld ray to know facias  out of the PettyBag office to show cause why a patent of the twentyseventh  year of Charles the second to Kemp of the office of searcher to the port of  Plymouth shall not be repeal the case be king Charles the second the  twentyfifth of July in the twelve year of his reign by letter patent grant  durante bene plea to John Martin the office of searcher and afterward by  letter patent on the nineteenth of June in the twentyfifth year of his reign  recite the former grant grant to William friar for his life the same office  from and after the death surrender or forfeiture of Martin after which friar  surrender his letter patent and in consideration of that surrender the king by  other letter patent the twentyfourth of December in the twentyseventh year of  his reign grant this office to h Kemp for life from and after the death  surrender or forfeiture of Martin and then in the same letter patent recite  all other grant grant the say office to r king for his life from the death  surrender or forfeiture of h Kemp or any other way or mean by which the office  may come into the king hand or disposition and the question be whether these  letter patent to Kemp be good the validity whereof depend on the grant to  friar for if the grant modern report to he be void the king will be deceive in  the consideration of his grant to Kemp which be the surrender of friar letter  patent and it be adjudge for the defendant by Samuel Eyre justice and holt  chief justice and that the letter patent to friar be good Eyre justice there  have be two objection make first that a estate for life can depend on a estate  at will second that friar estate can by rule of law commence after the death  surrender or forfeiture of any estate at will which Martin have as to the  first this be not like a grant of land which be in be wherein a freehold may  take in possession or be support by a particular estate in be this office be  no long in be than it be grant by the king as to the second friar estate may  have a good commencement though it be object that the king be deceive in his  grant this difference be to be observe in all case where the king be say to be  deceive in his grant if the matter which be false in the letter patent be  suggest on the part of the grantee and that to the prejudice of the king there  the king shall be say to be deceive in his grant so as to make it void but  where the word of the letter patent be word of the king a see will will modern  report er p although the king appear by his inference to be mistake even in  the law yet the king shall not be say to be deceive so as to avoid his grant  if the king grant a estate in possession when he intend only to grant it in  reversion or where the thing grant be of a great value than it appear in the  grant to be of these be the suggestion of the grantee and the death of the  king in these case shall make the grant void but if the king be not deceive by  any matter suggest by the grantee but be only mistake in his own affirmation  or surmise although it be in the law itself such grant be good and such  construction of they shall be make as tend to their support and upon this  difference the book be plentiful Henry dyer b a cro brown   auditor curl case  Mod Rep so that where be be not so deceive the grant shall not be void if by  any construction it can be make good now to apply this apt the king be not  here any way deceive in his grant for the precedent letter patent be true  recite the suggestion of the party be true the king do intend to grant this  office to friar only here be a improper limitation of the commencement to be  after the death surrender or forfeiture of Martin but these be the word of the  king and if they may have any good modern report construction they ought to  take effect the intent of the king seem to have be that Martin shall have a  estate for life and the new grant take effect after his death and there be no  reason why the grant of a office may not take effect after the death of tenant  at will because the place may by possibility determine after his death but  suppose the commencement whole void as no commencement at all yet the king  mind appear it shall commence on the determination of Martin grant whensoever  it happen accord to the opinion in   earl of Rutland case holt chief justice  the grant to friar be good it have be say to be void because it be make to  begin on the death c of Martin now as for the death of Martin that be certain  good because it may well enough commence from thence the next thing be whether  it can commence from the surrender for it have be insist on that a estate at  will may not be surrenderable and it be very true that a estate at will in  land between common person be not a surrenderable estate because it be at the  will of both party and either party may determine his will without the  formality of a surrender and therefore there be no surrender at all in law of  a estate at will in land between common person but when the king grant a  office at will that be not at the will of both party it be only at the will of  the king to determine the interest in the office that the grantee hold of the  king without any surrender for if it be a office of trust for the profit of  the king he be punishable by fine for the refusal of it and of that he can  divest himself without a actual surrender though it need not be prove so it be  do by two chief justice hale and Pemberton who have a estate at will in their  office and make a actual formal surrender by deed enrol in chancery and if the  king determine his pleasure it must be by writ of discharge under the great  seal or by constitute a new person then on the commence on the forfeiture of  Martin it be say that a tenant at will can forfeit his estate but only  determine his will now I say the king tenant at will may forfeit for it may be  the king will not to determine the estate until a forfeiture he will first  inform himself by inquisition on record whether the party have well behave  himself or no before he will determine his interest which be sir I savage case  when there be a conviction on record it be a forfeiture though if he be a  officer for life there must be a to know facias modern report but suppose the  king shall determine his will during the life of Martin without surrender or  forfeiture then friar grant shall not commence during the life of Martin and  in the mean time the king may grant it to who he please but then the question  arise if the king can grant a office to commence in going to be when there be  no other estate in be to continue until the office shall take effect or  whether the king grant a office to commence on a contingency a year hence or  the like and I be of opinion be may for though a freehold can commence in  going to be that be to be understand where it be derive out of a inheritance  if there be a office in fee and the king have the inheritance there a freehold  can no more commence in going to be by letter patent than by livery of seize  so be   berwick case but if it be a new thing create by the king he may  constitute it in what manner be modern report er p please as a rend de to make  new may be grant and create to commence in going to be or on a contingency as  in the case of Edward the second quote in corbet case   for it be a creature  of his own and he may dispose of it as he please now though there be such a  officer as a searcher yet in regard there be no estate at all therein but it  remain in the king to create a estate the estate the king give be a new estate  and therefore subject to such a disposition as he think fit it be true there  be not many precedent of such disposition until of late day but why a grant in  going to be shall not be good in such a case as this be it will be hard to  assign a cause and therefore judgement for the defendant modern report  michaelmas term the seven of William the three in the king bench sir John holt  Knt chief justice sir William Gregory Knt sir Thomas Rokeby Knt sir Samuel  Eyre Knt justice sir Thomas Trevor Knt attorney general John hawles Esq  solicitor general