c KIMPLAND v Courtney S c Eq can ab Lord keeper upon a appeal ante case S c  possibility assign a possess of land for a term of year devise the say land to  b for year if she shall so long live and after the decease of b devise the  same to c and c assign his interest to d and the question be whether this  assignment be good freeman it be object that it be not because it be but a  possibility because in the eye of the law a estate for a man life be great  than a term for year and the length of the term will not alter the case and  although by presumption the term for year will last long than the life of b  yet b may outlive the term and then he be to take a estate for life by the  devise and although in Lampetts case and Matthew man case it be hold that a  term may be devise to one for life the remainder to another yet it be there  hold that the remainder man have but a possibility which be not assignable but  the Lord keeper have take time to consider of the case hold the assignment to  be good and say this be a strong case than Lampetts because the first devise  be for a term for fifty year only the devisor have a remainder in he for the  residue of the term but in Lampetts case the devise be for life the devisor  have nothing but a mere possibility and he say this be the case of sheriff and  Wrotham cro and be like Locrofts case Rep it seem now quite settle that a  possibility may be assign and that a contract for that purpose will be carry  into execution in equity Warmstrey v Tanfield Charles Rep gore v Bickerstaffe  Charles can but the expectance of a heir presumptive or apparent the feesimple  be in the ancestor be not a interest and therefore not a possibility capable  of be make the subject of either assignment or contract Carleton v Leighton  Meriv do v tomkinson Mau and Sel cite in the rector of Chedingtons case and he  hold that b take no estate for life by implication but in case he have  overlived freeman er p the fifty year then the executor it will certain be  difficult to raise a estate for life by implication where a estate for year be  express give but if c who be not to take till after the decease of b be the  executor of a it will be not less inconsistent with the testator express  intent to allow he to take otherwise than as trustee for the next of kin  before the time fix for the commencement of his beneficial interest a devise  after the death of the devisor wife will give the wife a estate for life by  implication if the devisee be the testator heir gardener v Sheldon Vaugh Upton  v Lord Ferrer Ves post c p or the devisor shall have hold it during the life  of b as which a devise be make to a and the heir male of his body if he die  without issue then to b and his heir this will not enlarge the estate of a so  as to make he tenant in tail general such a implication instead of be  necessary to make the will consistent will be contrary to its obvious intent  and it be to answer the intention of the testator that recourse where  necessary be have to implication Coryton v Helyar Cox can Reg lib a fol on a  bill of review bring this decree be affirm for he shall have it only to he and  the heir male of his body freeman de term S mich in curian porter