case tempt Hardwicke hooker and hooker where a remainder in tail or fee come  to or descend on tenant for life either by his own act or the operation of law  the two estate be so consolidate that it shall seem the intermediate  contingent estate be destroy or if they do open on the contingency happen they  be suspend till that time and the wife of the tenant for life with such  contingent remainder shall have dower Barnard b r Kel pl S c recognize do  Scudamour Bos p discuss lemon v mark ir r a question in dower send by the  court of chancery for the opinion of this court the case be this William  Hooker the elder and ux and William Hooker the young and ux by their deed date  the that of July covenantee to levy a fine to the use of the conusees in fee  the fine be levy and afterward the conusees by lease and release to convey to  young and Goadvoy for the use of William Hooker the elder for life and to his  wife if she survive then to William Hooker the young for life who be the son  and heir apparent of William Hooker the elder remainder to his first and other  son in tail remainder to his daughter in tail remainder to Hooker the elder in  fee with power to Hooker the young to settle on any other wife William Hooker  the elder and his wife die without other issue in the lifetime of William  Hooker the young who wife also die he have two other wife and the last be the  plaintiff and be be dead without issue the question be whether this last wife  be entitle to dower in these land sergeant Bellfield the question will depend  on what estate Hooker the young have at the death of Hooker the elder for by  the deed it be plain he take only a estate for life but apprehend that the  remainder in fee descend and come to he on the death of Hooker the elder the  plaintiff will be plain entitle to her dower Lord Hardwicke c j it do not  descend to he Bellfield serj think it will be the same for both estate be so  consolidate as to make he tenant in fee but it have be object that though the  estate be consolidate yet that they may open again to let in the contingent  remainder case tempt Hardwicke er p as be hold in Lewis bowless case in the I  that report page and therefore that Hooker the young be in effect but tenant  for life and consequent that the plaintiff his widow can be no way entitle to  dower in these land but say the reason of Lewis bowless case be because all  the claim appear by the same deed but here this be a matter entire dehors the  deed beside as Hooker the young die without issue there never be any occasion  to open the estate and by his death the contingency be entire determine but  apprehend the contingent remainder be destroy on the death of Hooker the elder  and that the fee fall on the estate for life can not but drown the estate for  life so as to stop the contingent remainder which as they can not take effect  on case tempt Hardwicke the death of Hooker the elder never shall afterward  cite vent ken and harpool though Jones the case be not true state but the  point adjudge prove the same thing it be error of a judgement out of the king  bench in Ireland harpool be seize in fee convey to the use of himself for life  remainder to his old son for life remainder to the first and other son of that  son in tail remainder to himself in fee the father die before the first son be  bear and whether the descent of the reversion in fee to the son do prevent the  contingent remainder be the question the estate by some act of the father be  forfeit to the crown and the first son claim under the entail but it be hold  he have no right and that they need not consider the statute from whence the  forfeiture arise for it be clear that the contingent remainder be destroy by  the consolidation of the estate for life and the remainder in fee it be argue  that it be not because the inheritance come to the son by act of law and the  opinion in Cordalls case in cro Elizabeth pl be cite but Twisden take it sore  and say it be shake the foundation of all estate insist on this as a case in  point but admit there may be a open think the fee be so far execute as to  entitle the wife to dower estate in dower be very much favour in law the wife  of a man seize of a defeasable or base fee shall be endow till the estate be  defeat so be Seymors case in the that report page if a seize die seize the  widow shall be endow as long as the estate continue fazakerley e content the  question will be whether the husband have such a estate in these land as will  in all event entitle the wife to dower it can be controvert but the father in  this case have make his son a purchaser and that a man may make his heir  purchaser if he part with the whole estate cite Mitton and Twiford not  elsewhere mention apprehend the present case very different from the case of  ken and harpool vent because there the fee be vest in the grandfather and  therefore descend to the tenant for life as his heir and so merge that estate  but this case be not so in Wiscots case   the distinction be take where the  fee and the estate for life be limit by one and the same conveyance and where  they come in by different title as if a man make his estate to three and to  the heir of one of they there one of they have the fee yet the jointure do  continue for all be but one entire case tempt Hardwicke estate create at one  time this plain show that a estate for life be not to be merge in a remainder  in fee if the different title arise from the same deed as they do in the  present case in plunket and Holmes t raym it be say though the fee descend it  shall not confound the estate for life but there shall be a hiatus to let in  the contingency when it happen so be Lewis bowless case where notwithstanding  the estate be consolidate yet it be hold that they shall open to let in the  contingent remainder if the husband in this case have leave a son nay if the  son have be bear after his death it must have defeat the estate in dower or if  the child have die shall the estate have be revive as to the case of the seize  his estate be to be consider in law as a rightful estate at least till the  contrary be make appear it may as well be say that the wife of a heir to who a  executory devise be make shall be endow Lord Hardwicke c j suppose the  contingency on the executory devise never happen case tempt Hardwicke er p  fazakerley if such a contingent limitation shall entitle person in dower or by  the courtesy it will let in the great confusion to estate in the case of  Boothby and Vernon Mod which be in chancery Mr Vernon devise to his sister for  life who be his heir at law and to the heir of her body but if she have none  then remainder over now there the estate descend to her till the contingency  for there be no one else can take and yet they will not let the husband be  tenant by the courtesy by I roll Abr let f if a seize in fee of land covenant  to stand seize thereof to the use of himself and his heir till c his middle  son take a wife and after to the use of c and his heir a die by which it  descend to b the elder son of a who have a wife and die and after c take a  wife it seem the wife of b the elder son shall not be endow of the say estate  of her husband because his estate be end by a express limitation there be case  where it have be hold that if there be a possibilty of another estate to take  effect it shall defeat the estate in dower so be roll maid pl case tempt  Hardwicke beside here be no possibility that the issue of the marriage in this  case shall take by descent or inheritance they can only take under the deed by  purchase and then the rule in   light I a may be consider if a woman take a  husband seize of such a estate so as by the possibility it may happen that the  wife may have issue by her husband and that the same issue may by possibility  inherit such estate she shall have her dower otherwise not Lord Hardwicke c j  ask why the issue can not take by descent of the reversion fazakerley if they  can yet of a reversion a wife can be endow apprehend therefore that the estate  in the present case be such a estate as a woman can be entitle to dower for  the case of ken and harpool vent which be urge by Mr sergeant Bellfield not to  be parallel to this case because the fee there descend upon the estate for  life be in the last argument deny by Mr justice reeves to be law he say it be  find on wood and Ingersole cro James which in fortescue and abbot lev be  resolve not to be law he insist that the case of plunket and Holmes be strong  for the defendant and that so be archer case cro Elizabeth direct in point see  the former argument per tot sergeant Bellfield in reply urge that Fazakerleys  argument insinuate as if the intent of the party be to govern but take it to e  so it can be presume but that at the time of make the deed it be well know  that William Hooker Jun will be heir to his father and that eastern instant on  the death of the father the estate will be consolidate allow plunket and  Holmes and Boothby and Vernon both to be law yet apprehend they will not  affect or come up to the present case if the contingent remainder in this case  have not be destroy by the fee fall upon the estate for life admit that the  issue must have take by purchase but as that estate be defeat and as a  contingent remainder once destroy can never revive the issue shall take by  inheritance as heir at law to their father the rule in   light will not  prevail Lord Hardwicke c j the general question in this case be saint whether  the contingent remainder be destroy by the reversion in fee fall on the estate  for life and dly admit that it be not and that there may be a open whether  this possibility will destroy the dower case tempt Hardwicke be incline to  think the remainder be destroy the collect the intent of the party by any  subsequent act dehors the conveyance ought not to be take into consideration  and therefore to say any other matter than what appear upon the face of the  conveyance to have be in the contemplation of the party can be of any weight  ken and harpool vent though Jones S c be a very strong case in Purefoy and  Roger sand the express opinion of hale and the judge be that the purchase the  remainder in fee by the tenant for life total destroy the contingent remainder  and that it can never be let in again though the particular estate be revive  but suppose it be not so and that there be a possibility of the estate be open  in this case to let in the contingent remainder yet do not think it will  defeat the dower case tempt Hardwicke er p the distinction in the lawbook be  that where a remainder come in it shall work no wrong do notfind that any of  the book say that if the estate open during the tenancy in fee that the wife  will not be endow in Cordalls case cro Elizabeth it be say that it be resolve  the estatetail in that case be not execute for the probability of the mesne  estate that may interpose and that therefore as it be always disjoin during  the life of the tenant in tail his wife can not be endow but in sand this case  be deny to be law and have see note of a like case in the common plea where it  be likewise deny to be law by Bridgman but think the judgement in Duncombe and  Duncombe lev be right though Mr justice levinz seem even to doubt there in  Edward III it be hold that the wife of a tenant in special tail after  possibility as who have the remainder to he in tail general shall be endow  notwithstanding stand the tenancy in special tail and think therefore that the  present case be a proper case for the wife to have her dower find the book  general so and that there be no case against it but Cordalls case which have  several time be deny to be law and if my brother open space satisfy I will not  put the party to the expense of a further argument page I here be nothing but  a possibility which have never happen nor can now happen to distinguish this  estate from a estate in fee therefore think the wife plain entitle to dower  probin I the distinction take in this case may be allow and yet the widow be  entitle to dower beside it be impossible now the contingency ever shall happen  case tempt Hardwicke lee I ken and harpool be to I a very strong case the word  of the book be a vest sub modus but here there be a actual limitation to the  right heir which make the estate vest and if a absolute vest there never can  be a openingto let in the remainder but be a utter destruction of it Lord  Hardwicke c j the case of Boothby and Vernon do not come up to this case for  the wife there be but a bare tenant for life with a possibility to her issue  cur all clear of opinion that the widow in this case be entitle to dower  judgement for the demandant see sand c n where the learned editor observe that  this case be recognize by Lord Eldon in donc Scudamour Bos pull the way of  consider the case cite and mention in the very elaborate note refer to seem to  the annotator to remove the doubt and explain the difficulty draw by Mr Fearne  from they in his essay on contingent remainder see Fearne count Rem that edit