Bulstrode termin trin James banc king cowper plaintiff against FRANKLINE  defendant enter Termin Trin James b r rot l trespass and ejectment Ro Rep cro  James more n godb in the limitation of the use be void Ro Abr term hill James  b r c in a action of trespass and ejectment upon non culp plead the party be  at issue and go to trial the jury find a special verdict upon which verdict  the case be brief this S one John Walter be seize of soccage land in feesimple  convey this land by deed of feoff unto Thomas his son in this manner S to he  and to the heir of his body habendum to the use and behoof of he and his heir  for ever who afterward devise all this by his will to one under who the  plaintiff claim the point move in this case be first what estate Thomas the  son have by this feoff limit in this manner whether he have a estate tail or  in feesimple the second question whether tenant in tail may be seize to  another use notam that this case be argue and long debate by counsel of both  side termin Hillar James b r with some opinion of the judge herein and then  coke chief justice whether tenant in tail may be seize to a express use I  Bulstrode er p have much stagger herein but in this Mr Plowden be always  confident that he can not to a imply use without all question he can stand  seize in this case we be to judge like judge upon the fabric of the deed a  feoff at the commonlaw make to one and to the heir of his body be a feesimple  conditional afterward the limitation be to the use of he and his heir these be  to be such heir as be name before as if a feoff be make to one and to his heir  as long as I S shall have heir of his body to the use of he and his heir no  new heir by this be to have this land but the heir of his body if a man be  seize of land to he and to his wife and to the heir of he who levy a fine  without any consideration this shall be to the use of such heir as the estate  before be and so in this principal case upon the composition of this deed the  meaning be that he shall have but a estatetail and no feesimple dodderidge  justice if land be give to one and to his heir as long as I S shall have issue  of his body the remainder over this be a feesimple determinable and the  remainder be void croak justice here his meaning be to make a restraint heir  prediction dodderidge be not this here a feesimple within the statute of h cap  of will clear it be coke agree herein with he for a determinable feesimple be  devisable within that statute but if the same be limit to one and to his heir  during the life of another this be not devisable within the statute and so be  the difference Bulstrode and to this purpose see Elizabeth dyer fol plea  Cassandra case we be here judge of the law to this purpose be the case of  Odiham remember pars fol b in doctor Bonhams case where carter be plaintiff  against Ringstead Hillar Elizabeth c b rot where a be seize of the manor of  staple in Odiham in comitat south in fee and also of other land in Odiham in  fee suffer a common recovery of all and declare the use by indenture that the  recoverer shall stand seize of all the land and tenement in Odiham to the use  of a and his wife and to the heir of his body beget he die and his wife  survive and enter into the manor by force of the general word adjudge that  these shall not extend to the manor which be special name here in this  principal case it be to the use of he and his heir these shall be the heir of  his body dodderidge before the statute of h cap of use S in h brook title  feoff to use plea it be hold for clear law that tenant in tail can not stand  seize to the use of another it be now to be consider whether the statute of h  cap have make any alteration in this or not coke the statute of h do only  execute old use but do not create any new use dodderidge the case in Elizabeth  dyer fol be good law coke agree with he herein dodderidge by the use another  estate may be than what be before coke I have always think that tenant in tail  by express limitation can stand seize to the use of another dodderidge without  all question he can be seize to a imply use but the question here will be  whether he may be seize to a express use if land be give to one and to his  heir and if he die without heir of his body the remainder over this be a good  remainder by Assisar plea coke at this time incline to be against the  plaintiff afterward S termin pasch James b r this case be move and argue again  with some opinion of the judge further herein it be urge for the plaintiff by  George croak that wherever way data here be a good estate tail and if one  bring a ejection strong for the whole have title but unto a moiety yet as it  have be here adjudge against Bracebridges case in Plowdens commentary he shall  have judgement for a moiety dodderidge in h brook before remember it be  adjudge by all that tenant in tail can stand seize to the use of another croak  by express limitation it may be to the use of another Haughton justice this be  a great question and very considerable Bulstrode er p croak the intention of  the party be here to be regard Haughton it be agree that before the statute of  h this be no good use dodderidge the case in h be before the statute of use  the reason then be that if he do execute a estate accord to the use the issue  may reduce this back again by his formedon Haughton the law will not suffer  nor compel one to de a void thing dodderidge this case be put in Walsingham  case in the commentary the whole court then say to the plaintiff that his best  way will be to have a judgement for a moiety as a coheir the court incline to  be of opinion that tenant in tail can be seize to the use of another and so  for this time the case be adjourn afterward S in this term of Trinit James b r  this case be move again and the judge brief deliver their opinion herein coke  the estate here be a estate tail and this subsequent use thus limit Bulstrode  do not alter the estate and this be the strong be make to the party himself  and I be very clear of this opinion and this be strong than if it have be to a  stranger this here be to the use of he and the heir of his body it be a ill  office of a interpreter to confound the intent of the party who make the deed  the statute of gift conditional say Finis Self jure sit nullus I also be of  opinion that tenant in tail can be seize to a use he can execute any use no  more than a corporation h brook case before remember and h fol in Dockwrayes  case to this purpose croak agree with he herein and for the same reason and  that these last word in the deed be more by way of explanation than of  limitation and these word ought to be apply to the sense and meaning of the  party and de not enlarge the precedent estate no more than a warranty shall do  and so of the use here and as for the second point it be very clear that  tenant in tail can be seize to the use of another dodderidge agree with he  herein it be clear that this estate as the same be limit by the deed be a  estate tail and for the second point be it by way of limitation before the  statute of h or after the statute tenant in tail can be seize to the use of  another before the statute S h brook before remember be a resolution of all  the judge that he can be seize to the use of another in the second part of  Plowdens commentary fol in Walsingham case it be there say by manwood that if  one be seize in fee and at this day make a gift in tail to one to the use of  another in fee now by this the cesti and use who have the land by the statute  of h have one feesimple in the land determinable upon the be ten tail and the  donor another but note there by Plowden that this can be so by law for that a  use can be limit upon a estate tail as it be adjudge in h brook feoff to use  plea and brook case fol l plea and the true reason why before the statute of h  tenant in tail can stand seize to the use of another be because he can be  compel to execute this and if he de execute it his issue may fetch it back  again by his formedon for as it be in the statute of Westmin cap de gift  conditional will a giver in paper svan manifesto to press out de for the rest  to watch and this be not to be alter here it be limit to be to the use of his  heir this ought to be such heir as before be express in the first part of the  deed and this to be so be a very plain case and so this land then be to  descend and come unto the two daughter as coheir and so the plaintiff ought  only to have judgement for a moiety as for that which belong unto one of the  daughter under who he claim Haughton agree herein in opinion with he upon the  resolution in h and no difference there will be whether the same be before or  after the statute of h of use the case in h overrule this case also this use  here do not alter the nature of this estate contrary to the first limitation  coke I be always of this opinion that tenant in tail can execute a use and  that by the statute of Westminster cap if a fine be levy Finis Self jure sit  nullus the court all agree clear herein judgement be enter for the plaintiff  but only for a moiety which belong to one of the daughter and coheir under who  the plaintiff claim the whole Bulstrode er p