abbot versus burton Trin Ann c b comens S c h seize of land a part of a mother  limit several estate with of his right heir the heir a part of a mother shall  have it be the ancient use Mod   cro car lev cro Elizabeth S C Rep a Q show  Inst I S be seize in fee of certain land descend to he a part of a mother  covenant to levy a fine thereof to a and b to the use of they and their heir  to the intent that a common recovery shall be suffer against the say conusees  to the use of I S for life remainder to his wife for life remainder to his  first second and three son in tail c remainder to the right heir of I S the  fine be accord levy and then the common recovery be suffer against the  conusees of the fine as tenant to the prcipe with voucher of I S afterward I S  and his wife die without issue and the lessor of the plaintiff be heir of I S  a part of a mother and the defendant heirgeneral this matter be find upon a  special verdict in ejectment the question be whether this limitation of the  remainder to the use of the right heir of I S do create a new estate  descendible to the heirsgeneral or be only the ancient use and the resolution  of the court deliver by Trevor c j be for the plaintiff that it be the ancient  use and that there be no difference when upon the conveyance of a estate any  part of the use result by implication of law and when it be refer by express  declaration to the party from who the estate move for Salkeld er p there be no  reason that a great alteration shall be wrought in a use which a man by  express and plain word reserve to himself upon a conveyance of his estate than  when the law make a construction of this intent to reserve it not from express  word but from other circumstance Salkeld and presumption which in the  consideration of law do as strong and manifest declare his mind and for this  be cite the case of Godbolt and freestone lev but the difference whereby that  case be endeavour to be distinguish from the case in question be this that be  upon a feoff to the use of the feoff for life remainder to his first second  and other son in tail remainder to the right heir of the feoff and adjudge  that this remainder be to the heir of the feoff a part of a mother accord to  the ancient estate and use which the feoff have before the feoff and the  reason be because this remainder of the use do arise out of the estate which  immediate move from the feoff and be no more than what the law will have  reserve if no use at all have be declare of the remainder but in the present  case the use limit in remainder to the right heir of I S do not arise out of a  estate that move immediate by that conveyance from I S but out of the estate  of the conusees who be seize in fee both of the estate and use by the fine and  do by the common recovery convey over that estate out of which all the new use  and the remainder in question arise to this the chief justice say that the  fine and common recovery be both to be take as one entire conveyance a consist  of these several part and direct as to the use of they by the same covenant  that though the conusees have a seize in fee of the estate and use vest in  they by the fine for a special purpose and upon that seize the common recovery  be have and in strictness the estate pass by it be her estate yet upon  consideration of the whole conveyance the estate do original move from I S who  be the conusor of the fine and for that reason if there have be no limitation  at all of this remainder of the use upon this recovery he take it to be very  clear that so much as remain unlimited shall result to the conusor and his  heir and not to the conusee in who the estate be not vest with a purpose to  create he any interest but in order to forward and complete the conveyance of  the conusors estate which be take as one conveyance then do the use limit upon  the common recovery as proper arise out of the estate that move from the  conusor of the fine as if he have make a feoff or fine or any single  conveyance to that use judgement for the plaintiff a note Estatestail can be  bar where the reversion be in the crown raym a vide cro James burr burr a vide  do ex they crow v Baldwere t r note to price v Langford ante Salkeld  revocation