badger vers lloyd Intr Trin will B R rot Salop S C Com a remainder limit to  take effect if and when former limitation cease be vest not contingent S C  salk as a remainder if a remainderman in tail shall die without issue and none  of several prior remainderman in tail be live S C salk a devise by the  reversioner to take effect on the determination of outstanding estate be in  immediate vest devise of the reversion S C salk r send for cro et pl   a ace  Fearne d Edward field   b d send for sand as a devise after the death of  tenant in tail without issue S C salk cit Fearne d Edward a limitation by the  reversioner to a remainderman of a estate mere coextensive with his remainder  be good S C salk ace   a a similar limitation by a remainderman not S C salk r  send for   a sand a recovery suffer to the use of a will shall enure to those  use if they appear good upon the will though on account of foreign  circumstance they may be void ejectment upon a special verdict the case be  thus John Lloyd senior seize of the land in question in fee convey they by  lease and release to the use of himself for ninetynine year if he shall so  long live remainder to John his son for ninetynine year if he shall so long  live remainder to Elizabeth wife of John the son for her life remainder to  trustee and their heir during the life of the two John for preserve the  contingent remainder remainder to the first c son of John the young in tail  male a remainder to John the elder in tail male remainder to John the elder in  fee John the elder have issue John the young Thomas Paul and Peter John the  elder make his will and recite the settlement aforesaid devise the say land in  question after the death of John the young without issue male to Thomas and  after the death of Thomas without issue male to Paul and if Paul shall die  without issue male and none of his brother live then to Peter and his heir for  ever and in the will there be these word videlicet last my will and meaning be  that all my estate in land whatsoever shall come and descend unto my name and  posterity as be before specify and not to stranger and whichsoever of my son  shall survive and live long than all the rest of his brother Lord Raymond then  he to possess and enjoy all my estate to he and his heir for ever yet if it  shall so happen as I trust in God it will not that none of my son shall have  issue male but daughter then will that their daughter shall inherit my estate  among they John the elder die John the young suffer a common recovery to the  use of himself for life remainder to his wife for life remainder to the heir  male of their two body remainder to the use of the will of John the elder c  and after several Lord Raymond er p argument at bar holt chief justice deliver  the opinion of the other two judge and his own Rokeby justice die last term  the question be whether the remainder limit to Peter be a remainder contingent  or vest if it be contingent then the lessor of the plaintiff have no title if  it be vest then he have a title and we be all of opinion for the plaintiff the  case be no more than this John the elder settle the land in question to the  use of himself for life remainder to John the young for his life remainder to  the first c son of John the young in tail male remainder to John the young in  tail male remainder to John the elder in tail male remainder to John the elder  in fee then the elder John by his will devise the land after the death of John  the young without issue to Thomas in tail male remainder to Paul in tail male  and if Paul die without issue male none of his other brother live then to  Peter and his heir it be urge that these word and none of his other brother  live put the remainder in contingency but we be of the contrary opinion  videlicet that it be vest for if these word have be omit it have resemble all  other limitation of remainder and the word none of his other brother live do  not by any mean qualify the remainder but amount to no more than what be say  before for remainder be limit to Thomas add Paul before precedent to this  limitation to Peter it can never take effect so long as Thomas or Paul live  and therefore these word make no addition to the will and therefore can make a  contingency for so long as John Thomas or Paul live the remainder to Peter can  not take effect and if these word shall be take so strong as to make a  contingent remainder they will destroy the estate tail to Thomas which be  express give by the will for if Thomas have issue a son and die and then John  die without issue and then Paul die without issue this contingent remainder  will vest in Peter and defeat the issue of Thomas though a estate tail be  express give to Thomas by the will which be the express case of Spalding v  Spalding mich car rot cro car where land be devise to b in tail after the  death of a do in the life of a then c shall be his heir b have issue a son and  if b die live a and it be adjudge that this shall be expound if b die without  issue live a and not by way of Lord Raymond contingent remainder because then  it will abridge the former express limitation but that it be a remainder vest  to take effect upon the death of b without issue and web v herring James rot  well cro James pl devise to his son after the death of his wife and if his  three daughter or any of they shall survive their mother and brother and his  heir that then they shall have it for their life two of the daughter die in  the life of their brother adjudge that this be not a contingent limitation but  only a direction of the time when it shall commence so here these word be  explanatory when the remainder to Peter shall take effect in possession and  not restrictive that it shall not take effect unless that happen then if one  consider the other word of the will last c which be in effect that his desire  be that hisestate shall descend to his name and posterity and not to stranger  and that the survivor of his son shall have all and that if his son leave only  daughter that then they shall take equal now if this shall be construe a  contingent remainder it will defeat the testator design and let in the  daughter before the son for if Paul die without issue before Thomas and Peter  die leave issue a son and a daughter and Thomas die without issue the daughter  will take this estate before the son and defeat the will of the testator that  it shall descend to his name and so of collateral kindred quaere of this last  if it be not mistake by the reporter objection by sergeant wright in his  argument that these estate devise by the will be executory devise and void for  John have a estate tail by the limitation in the settlement and these devise  ought not to take effect but upon his death without issue and so the devise be  executory and void answer that indeed these devise will be void if there be no  more in the case it be pell and brown case cro James but as the case be here a  man seize of a reversion expectant upon a estate tail devise it after the  death of the tenant in tail without issue to another in tail this be not a  executory but a immediate devise and the word from and after be only a  declaration when it shall take effect in possession and it resemble the case  of Pasmere v prowse   a where a man make a lease for year if the lessee shall  so long live and afterward grant the reversion to another habendum Lord  Raymond er p to the grantee for life cum per death or forisfacturam of the  lessee or aliter to fall upon and it be resolve that the reversion pass  immediate and the cum per death c be as much as to say to take effect in  possession cum per death c the same point adjudge cro Elizabeth pl which be  confirm sand so here though the estate devise be after the death of John  without issue yet the reversion pass immediate only they will not take effect  in possession till then Lord Raymond but nevertheless present estate in  reversion do pass in fact if John have not have any estate tail in the land  but the devise have be after the death of a stranger without issue these have  be executory devise and void by reason of the remoteness of the possibility  but here they be limit after the determination of the particular estate  objection that the estate tail in John the elder will destroy this devise as  if a be tenant for life remainder to b his son in tail male remainder to a and  the heir male of his body remainder to a in fee a have issue another son c and  devise his remainder after the death of b without issue to c his second son in  tail male it be object that this devise can never take effect and therefore  that it be ill because the estate tail in the father will descend in the same  order and interpose between the estate devise by the will and the devisees  respective will take the old entail by descent which will exclude the new  estate limit by the will and the devise of a remainder which can never take  effect in possession be void so here because the tail devise by the will can  by any possibility take effect in any of the son because they ought to take by  the old entail as heir male to John the father and the devise give no more nor  otherwise than they take by the entail and therefore it be void the which be  apparent by the comparison of the descent for the estate tail devise by the  will expire level ground step with the estate tail in John the elder and  therefore if the fee in John the elder out of which this devise take effect be  a remainder it will be void but here in this case it be a reversion and though  such a bequest of a remainder will be ill Vet it will be good of a reversion  though it can never by any possibility take effect in possession and this be  the express difference in Cholmley case   a and the reason be because tenant  in tail hold of he in the reversion and he of the chief lord if a man make a  feoff in fee to the use of himself for life remainder to his first son c in  tail remainder to himself and the heir male of his body remainder to himself  and his heir he have but a reversion and though the tail devise out of it can  never take effect in possession yet it be a good devise of such estate in  reversion for John the brother will hold of Thomas and Thomas of the chief  lord and the lord shall avow upon Thomas modus et form prediction so that it  create a seignory and tenancy though it can never take effect in possession  and this be a sound diversity but then suppose that this fee in John the  father have be a remainder and so the devise in the will void yet the lessor  of the plaintiff will have a good title for the word of the will sufficient  explain the intent of the testator and the limitation will be good but by  matter dehors videlicet that the devisor be tenant in tail and have not give  any large estate so that when the common recovery come and dock the estate  tail of John Lord Raymond the elder and so remove the impediment the estate  limit in the will be good in point of limitation the remotio impedimenta  revive the will and the title of the lessor of the plaintiff and therefore  judgement be give for the plaintiff ex relation mri Jacob afterward upon error  bring in the exchequerchamber this judgement be affirm ex relation m ri  wilhelmi Tully and afterward a writ of error be bring upon these two judgement  in parliament and easter vacation will the judgement be affirm there ex  relation mri baron bury a in Com the settlement be represent to have contain a  remainder to John the young in tail male after the limitation in strict  settlement and holt c j in state the case post take notice of such a remainder  Lord Raymond er p