case TAPNER against MURLETT and prior see quested v Michael l I Ch Brookman v  smith lr ex Milman v lane king b a estate for year can be couple with a estate  in fee upon a ejectment the follow case be make at the assize for the opinion  of the court sir Thomas milner seize in fee of land do by lease and release in  consideration modern er p of the marriage of his daughter convey they modern  as follow to trustee for the use of himself till the marriage take effect  remainder to sir I Farrington who be to marry his daughter for ninetynine year  if he so long live remainder to trustee to preserve contingent remainder  remainder to his daughter for her life remainder to the son in tail general to  daughter in tail general and for want of such issue to the use of I Farrington  his heir and assign for ever I Farrington die without issue and before his  death make a will by which he devise the premise in question to John Murlett I  Murlett die and devise they to Joseph Murlett the defendant in tail Elizabeth  the wife of I Farrington die afterward without issue Joseph Murlett levy a  fine in Trinity term which be record in Hilary term follow from which time the  proclamation be begin to be make and continue to the Trinity term follow in  which term the plaintiff bring a ejectment three proclamation only be then  pass but the four be afterward make the plaintiff make no other proof of a  entry at the trial but by this ejectment the plaintiff be the heir at law of I  Farrington the devisor and I Murlett the defendant claim under I Farringtons  will and prior under Murlett the question be first what estate I Farrington  the devisor have in he at the time of his devise to Murlett second what be the  operation of this fine levy by Joseph Murlett three whether this entry by  ejectment be sufficient to avoid the fine the court say they shall give no  opinion as to the first two point only that I Farrington at his death have a  estate for year with a fee expectant and that a estate for year be not such a  estate to which a fee can be couple but his heir must take as purchaser and  not by descent but the chief justice say he doubt whether the word assign  though it do not alter the estate will not give I Farrington a power to  dispose of it and then the person nominate by the will of I Farrington to take  may be understand to be his assign but say he do not give this as his opinion  only as a doubt that arise with himself as to the last question they be all of  opinion clear for the defendant that where one get into possession and levy a  fine either at commonlaw or on the statute the person who be out of possession  must make a actual entry and that the bring modern a ejectment be not a  sufficient entry in this case to bar the fine see accord Berrington v  Parkhurst stram brown p c fitchet v Adam stram oat v Brydar burr Goodright v  Caton dougl but this only applicable to a fine with proclamation for a actual  entry be not necessary to avoid a fine at commonlaw Jenkins v Pritchard will  Musgrave v Shelly will a it be hold that a fine be say to be engross when it  be bring to the chirographers and engross by they and that it can not be  proclaim till it have be so engross that it be a good fine from the time of  levy that be from its be enter in the king silver office to all intent except  bar on the statute of non claim Henry c from which the fine must be compute  from the last proclamation make videlicet five year after the term it be last  proclaim in