Adam versus TERTENANTS OF savage hill Ann B R S c salk ante ld raym lease and  release by a to trustee and their heir to the use of a for year remainder to  the use of the trustee for year remainder to the heir male of a s body  remainder to his right heir be void for want of a freehold Chan Rep Mod salk  holt lily Ent Mod Cas Faresl in a to know facias on a judgement against  tertenants it be find by special verdict Salkeld er p that one savage be seize  in fee convey by lease and release to trustee and their heir to the use of  himself for year remainder to the use of the trustee for twentyfive year  remainder to the heir male of his own body remainder to his own right heir the  question be whether savage be tenant in tail or only tenant for year and the  court hold the limitation to the heir male of the body to be void because  there be no precede estate of freehold limit to support it and it shall not be  imply contrary to the intent of the conveyance and if it can be imply it must  be out of the estate give to the heir of the body which can be because this be  a new use whereas a result use be always from the old estate and parcel of the  old use and here the estate take effect by transmutation of possession out of  the seize of the trustee and Salkeld not like Fenwick and milfords case a  where the owner covenant to stand seize to the heir of his body and yet per  Powel I Even in that case if there have be a express estate limit to the  covenantor it have be otherwise b a the case allude to be pibus v Mitford vent  b vide pibus v Mitford vent Penhay v Harrell vern rawley v holland vin Eq ab  tippin v cousin Carth Mod Fenwick v Mitford more else v Osborne p W Southcott  v Stowell Mod Mod will v palmer burr Bl the general conclusion from which be  thus state by Mr Fearne the inference afford by the several case seem to be  that when the use be not limit away during the whole life of the grantor and  there be a use limit which can commence till after his decease as be the case  of a limitation to the heir of his body take by itself whether that use be  limit in the first instance as in pibus v Mitford or be precede by limitation  for term of year as in Penhay v Harrell or by use of the freehold or  inheritance that may determine in the grantors life as in will v palmer the  use result to the grantor for life immediate in the first case and in  remainder expectant on the precede use in the other where there be no express  use limit to the grantor himself inconsistent with such a implication vide  Butl   light a