case ATWATERS against birt see hell v Holtby lr Eq a feoff to use with a  proviso that on payment of twelvepence and procure the assent of the feoff the  use shall cease give they a authority therefore if one of they die performance  to the survive feoff be not a revocation roll ab Noy roll ab lane   vent ray a  second limitation of use revoke must pursue the original power dyer a vent  ejection firm upon a special verdict the case be one Rohert Stanton seize in  fee of the land in question feoff thereof Thomas Molyns and three other to the  use of himself for life and after to the use of Richard his second son in tail  remainder to George his old son in tail remainder to his right heir with a  proviso that if he pay twelveponce at any time to the say Thomas Molyns and  the three other and good and sufficient cause be show unto they by the say  Rohert Stanton the father of the abuse by Richard the son and that so by the  say Thomas Molyns and three other recite their name shall he think convenient  that then the aforesaid use shall cease and then to he to the use of he and  his heir one of the four feo ffees die Rohert Stanton pay the twelvepence to  the other three and show cause of abuse by Richard his son which be approve by  the three he then declare by a new deed that the say Thomas Molyns and the  other two feoff for good consideration express in the deed shall stand seize  of the say land to the use of himself for life and after to new use c and  whether these use shall take effect or not be the question first whether this  he a good revocation of the first use one of the feoff be dead second admit  that they be revoke whether it he a good new limitation of the last use as to  the first all the court resolve that it be not a good revocation for it be but  a authority which be give to revoke and it be to he do by the assent of the  four and any of they be dead the authority be determine and shall not survive  and for this reason as Popham say the commonlaw before the statute of Henry c  be that if one devise his land to four to sell and one of they die the  survivor because they have a interest may sell but if he have devise that  three shall sell his land and one of they die the survivor because they have  but a mere authority can sell vide Edward pl Elizabeth dyer second admit that  the first use be well revoke yet they hold that this second indenture be not a  sufficient limitation of the new use and raise of they for although the  consideration therein he sufficient videlicet blood and affection yet he do  not covenant to raise they out of his own possession but that his feoff shall  he seize c and none other but they shall stand seize and he have not any feoff  and therefore no use can arise and although it be say that it shall he expound  as a will accord to the intent of the party forasmuch as he have not feoff  that he himself shall he seize c it shall not he so in construction of deed  and so there do not any use arise and therefore the lessor of the plaintiff  have not any title whereupon it be adjudge for the defendant croak Elizabeth  er p croak Elizabeth michaelmas term and Elizabeth in the common plea sir  Edmund Anderson Knt chief justice Thomas Walmsley Esq George Kinorsmil Esq  Peter Warhertan Esq justice sir Edward coke Knt attorneygeneral sir Thomas  Fleming Knt solicitor general