case pierce against smith Trinity term James roll on a devise for term of year  make to executor for the payment of debt and legacy with remainder to I b in  tail and that if I b give security for the payment he shall have the land  immediate if I b enter and after payment of some of the debt and legacy levy a  fine and five year pass yet the term for year be not bar SC Mod SC comb SC  Carth ejectment special verdict find that one basket be seize in fee make his  a say quere and see Stannion v Davis salk Mod peacock v bell sand lev Waldock  v Cooper will Winford v Powell ld ray Roland v veil Cowp Trevor v wall term  Rep a see this case cite in Brigstock v Stanion ld ray thus dade and other be  farmer of the Irish revenue of the crown hill become security for they for the  payment of the rend and they covenant to indemnify he upon which hill bring  covenant against the defendant and show that they be in arrear in their rend  whereby he be force to pay great sum of money upon which declaration the  defendant demurrer and the opinion of the court be with the defendant because  the declaration be too general for it have not specify what sum he expend but  Treby chief justice say that he be counsel in the cause and that no judgement  be give in it shower KB er p will and devise the land in question to his five  executor for ninetynine year for the payment of his debt and legacy with power  to make lease c and after the determination of that term then to his brother  John basket and his heir and the testator do further will that if the brother  give security for payment c he shall have it immediate the testator die John  basket with the assent of the executor enter and make some lease and take the  profit then he levy a fine and five year pass and then he die above five year  since the debt unpay et si c and whether the fine be a bar to this term for  ninetynine year and whether it be divest and turn to a right at the time of  the fine levy if it be not the fine will be no bar if a entry be make upon a  term for year with a intent to displace he and usurp the possession that do  turn it to a right but it must be a actual expulsion and without the consent  of the party if this term be not divest it be not bar accord to the case of  Margaret Podger a and seymour case b the reason why a man be bar by a fine be  because he do not make a claim and he that be in possession need not make a  claim c now here be nothingto put the executor out of possession the entry of  John basket shower KB the brother W into these land do no way divest the term  but rather affirm it beneficiary and trust be always tenant at will to the  trustee basket be but a tenant at will and that because he come in by their  assent now a man can be a wrongdoer where the party agree to it blundel v  Baugh d be express in it and by Littleton e this be but a execute and affirm  the term but then they say he take the profit and let parcel of the land to  pay debt this be no divest no evidence of divest it be but a contract it  divest nothing it turn nothing into a right he demise parcel to undertenants  for year but it be not find that they enter and then it be only a contract  here be no intent to turn the term into a right the lessee claim only for one  or two year not for ninetynine much less for a long these underleases be good  between the party but as to the termors for ninetynine year they be but  licence from John basket to enter it be not a divest but at election f and  since they do not admit themselves dispossess the law will not judge it so g  Blundells case be cite in latch and roll Abr and approve there a Litt Inst  freeman v barn side a term that be not to attend the inheritance can be bar  say that case latch it be not the intention but at the election of the party  who interest be to be divest Fermors case   be sufficient for I the fraud  there afterward in pay the rend be not the occasion of the judgement for the  fine operate what it can at the time of levy it Bulst then consider the  inconvenience will be great if a mortgagor let his land by lease and then levy  a fine this will not bar the mortgagee term Henry gold for the defendant the  word of Henry c make it plain so that we be within the letter of the law after  the engross it be to conclude as well privy as party then come three save the  last be to such person such action c there be three case where fine be no bar  where there have be fraud where a incapacity in the party and where the  interest be not divest a interest for year though not execute be bar Saffins  case I fraud be not to be presume if not find and so be the case of crisp v  Pratt king and the case of the chancellor of Oxford l this be not a lease at  will as be Blundells case there it be say that he a   Brownl Brownl b   c Inst  d cro James Jones latch e light sect f Peaseley v Blackman roll Abr g dyer  Leon h   light cro car roll Abr f n b side I   king cro car l   see also cro  Elizabeth lev more cro James Brownl Jones shower KB er p enter and occupy at  will here it be that he enter by consent but shower KB also that he take the  profit and not say by the like consent a entry by consent shall never vest any  thing as in the case of bastard and mulier m but take the profit be more but  suppose it a lease at will whether it be a divest or displace or seize it be  all one if the party be out of possession n so that entry or claim be  necessary that be enough to make a bar accord to Margaret Podger case tenant  in tail be lessee at will he levy a fine it must pass and carry away his  estate in possession as well as his estate in tail for a fine be a feoff upon  record a fine can work by fraction but must carry away the whole Saffins case  be full to this then the termors entry be necessary and consequent claim be  necessary and interest may be bar though never turn to a right as be side he  cite Isham v morris cro car for it seem strong for he vide mayor and  commonalty of London v Alford cro car holt chief justice where a entry be  necessary to vest a interest such right will be bar that be the true reason of  the resolution a devise vest a interest without entry then if they be divest  of this be the question here be five year nonclaim after John basket death who  be tenant at will where there be act do and a possession continue against a  termor a fine may bar but where another person continue the possession by five  year it may be a question to be argue again oh