bear versus Amherst and Norton sussex c b see Smithwick v Hayden lr ir devise  Danv Abr b p Eq ab p ejectment for land of the demise of Peter Underwood upon  not guilty plead the jury find a special verdict to the effect follow Stephen  Norton seize in fee of the land in question the that of February make his will  in write and by it give diverse legacy videlicet l to c item I give to my  brother Anthony Norton per annum item I give all my land in ken and Sussex to  one of my cousin Nicholas Amhersts daughter that shall marry with a Norton  within fifteen year and I make Nicholas Amherst my executor Nicholas Amherst  bad three daughter Elizabeth whether and mary Stephen Norton the defendant  marry Elizabeth the lessor of the plaintiff marry the heir at law and the sole  question be if the heir at law or the devisee shall have the land Bridgman  chief justice here be two thing to be consider here be a devise to one of the  daughter of Nicholas Amherst who marry with a Norton if this devise be not  void for the uncertainty if it have be to one of the daughter without more say  it have be without question void for two may marry with a Norton but as to  this point all agree that the devise be good notwithstanding the uncertainty  as to the second point admit the devise be good in respect of the person yet  if it be good altogether because here be a immediate devise to one of the  daughter who marry with a Norton be timited to Nicholas Amherst to gather rend  c and then to Nicholas for fifteen year and then to the devisee that shall  marry with a Norton as to the first although the word be not who shall first  marry with a Norton yet it be all one with they for these reason first the law  supply these word in a deed   b the bishop of bath case in the king grant if  two construction be make and one make the grant void then the other shall  stand so here it be agreeable with the reason of the law because a thing which  once vest shall not after be divest non prsumitur plurality that more than one  shall marry with a Norton and the word in the will fix in a single person and  there be a difference when there be incertainty in the Raymond sir t event and  when in the person as in all case of contingency and as to tailor and Sayers  case cro Elizabeth that be not law as to the second point if it have be  immediate devise to the daughter then if a devise to such of the daughter as  shall marry a Norton be good Nicholas his interest for fifteen year be  determinable upon the marriage of one of the daughter with a Norton as to the  first construction without question there may be a contingent executory devise  without a estate precedent timited to that because it leaves a estate in the  devisor and his heir till the contingency happen and where it be to a stranger  till such a thing happen there be difference betwixt they the reason of law  hold in both if I covenant to stand seize to the use of such a son as I S  shall name it be a good conveyance if he nominate   b mildmay case   a man  case and here it be to be consider if Amherst have a estate for fifteen year  here he leaves nothing to the heir because Nicholas have the profit till  marriage and then to the daughter and then it be a devise make to one for year  the remainder in contingency which be void   a Popham the case of the earl of  Bedford but here be a contingent certain as Bulstr Robert case and jay and  brown case in c b the question be if good by immediate devise dyer pl a devise  to a infant in ventre sa mere be not good so a devise to a college which be  not yet erect hob cunden and clerk in a executory devise it be not void but  shall descend to the heir in the mean time although in a conveyance a freehold  can commence in going to be yet in a use or a devise it may as a devise or  feoff to the use of a after my death remainder over be a good conveyance  because it rise out of my estate mich car b r long against smith b in case of  a devise cro Elizabeth Raymond sir t er p Hainsworth versus pretty and pain  case devise to I S for fifteen year remainder to the right heir of I d be not  good but for fifteen year remainder to the first son of I d be good because  the devisor take notice that he have not a son and intend a future act and the  law aid he which be weak council so here the devisor intend future as to the  other point that if it be a immediate devise it be a devise to a infant in  ventre sa mere for year if it be with a remainder over it be good by way of  executory devise a estate in going to be and a contingent precedent make a  executory devise these executory devise be ground upon the commonlaw as  Goodcheaps case e a cite Raymond sir t in the Lord Stafford case   b   a h a  bro devise and the word of the statute of h be not that h devise to any person  or person but at his will and pleasure and see cro James Blandford versus  Blandford and so he conclude for the defendant and judgement be give accord in  the case of one Ferrars against who a information be exhibit for forgery it be  resolve by all the justice that although the jury be charge and swear in the  case of a plea of the crown yet a juror may be draw or the jury dismiss  contrary to common tradition which have be hold by many learned in the law