case nightingale and other v earl ferrers see tanner v Radford sim n sir  Joseph Jekyll master of the roll the father tenant for life remainder to the  son in tail with remainder over the son be a infant and on a advantageous  proposal for the son marriage the father and infant son join in marriage  article and the father only covenant that within a year after the son come to  age the father and son will join in a fine and recovery of the family estate  to diverse use the infant son seal the deed and within a year after he come to  age join with his father in a fine and recovery the infant son seal of these  article not sufficient to declare the use of the fine and recovery Robert late  baron afterward earl Ferrer be seize for his life only of his family estate  with remainder to his first c son in tail male successive the Lord Ferrer peer  William er p have several son the first of who name Robert be a infant about  seventeen and a very advantageous match be agree upon betwixt the say old son  and the only daughter of sir Humphrey Ferrer article be enter into date that  of September and the Lord Ferrer and his old son Robert be party to and seal  the say article whereby the Lord Ferrer covenant that he and his say old son  shall within a year after the son shall come of age by fine or recovery or  such other good conveyance or assurance as the young lady counsel shall advice  convey and settle the bulk of the family estate as to all the premise except  the manor of astwell and Falcott to the use of the Lord Ferrer for life and as  to the manor of astwell and Falcott from the time of the fine and recovery  suffer and as to the rest of the premise from the death of the Lord Ferrer to  the use of the say Robert peer William Shirley for life remainder to his first  c son in tail male successive remainder to the use of his young brother for  their life successive remainder to their first c son in tail male successive  with a power to the Lord Ferrer the father to revoke all the use except those  limit to his old son and his then intend wife and their issue male the  marriage take effect and the infant old son have thus during his infancy seal  this deed together with his father afterward come of age and pursuant to the  covenant within the year after come of age videlicet in Michael S term then  next follow join with his father in levy a fine and suffer a recovery but  there be no deed after the most diligent search to be find for lead the use of  this fine and recovery afterward the Lord Ferrer revoke the use of all the  premise limit to his young son and their issue except as to the manor of  astwell and Falcott Robert Shirley the old son soon after die as do also his  say wife leave issue only one daughter since marry to the present earl of  Northampton and the late earl Ferrer and also the son that be elder than the  present earl Ferrer who have be find a lunatic be dead without issue male this  matter be former stir before the Lord king who be of opinion that the say  article can be intend as preparatory only to something further and will not of  themselves amount to a declaration of the use but now come on again before his  honour on behalf of the present earl Ferrer it be object that peer William  these article that be execute by the Lord Ferrer the father and his infant son  be sufficient to declare the use of the fine and recovery first for that a  infant deed be not void but only voidable for which reason a infant can plead  non be factum to his deed as a feme covert may second because when the infant  in the principal case seal the deed though there be no covenant from he to  levy the fine and suffer the recovery and declare the use thereof these  covenant be only his father yet the infant son seal and execute the deed have  this effect videlicet to show consent to the deed and consequent his agreement  that the fine and recovery shall enure to the use of the deed and suppose that  after this declaration of the use by the father the son have say no more in  the deed than that he consent and agree that the fine and recovery shall be to  these use this will have be sufficient to have declare the use and sure thus  much be imply by the infant son have execute the deed three that a very slight  thing and word though very improper will yet serve to declare the use of a  fine or recovery which require no set form of word for that purpose but only  enough to show the intent of the party now here be sufficient evidence of such  intent and though this be do by a infant yet when the infant come of age and  have within the exact time limit by the article levy a fine and suffer a  recovery as his execution of the deed before show his original intention to be  that the fine c shall be to those use so his join with his father in the fine  peer William and recover that as soon as he come of age manifest a continuance  of such intention and as a proof that a infant deed be not void but voidable  only the common case be mention of a infant make a lease reserve a rend this  lease be liable to be avoid but if the infant come of age and accept the rend  such acceptance affirm the lease and make the same unavoidable fourthly the  infant son continue in possession of the manor of astwell and Falcott after he  come of age to which manor he can have no title during his father life but  under the article and deed of use of this recovery be say to be a sufficient  assent to the article five suppose the son have be a infant as well at the  time of the recovery as peer William er p when the article be execute this  have be good and the recovery unavoidable after he come of age and it sure can  not make the case worse that the son be of age when he suffer this recovery  far that the infant suffer a recovery in compliance with the father covenant  be strong than a matter in pais as in the case before put of a infant accept  of rend after he come of age upon a lease make during his infancy master of  the roll though slight word will declare the use of a fine c yet here be no  word at all use by the infant son who do it be true join with his father in  execute the article but it be the Lord Ferrer the father only who covenant  that he and his son will levy the fine and suffer the recovery to these use  the most then that can be make of this case be that here be a fine and  recovery by the father peer William and son the one tenant for life the other  a remainder man in tail and the use be declare by the father the tenant for  life only which can no way affect the use of the remainder in tail neither can  it be reasonable to interpret the son seal a deed so blind and uncertain in  its nature to divest such infant son of the inheritance of this great estate  and to make he but tenant for life thereof the case put of a infant affirm a  lease for year make during his infancy by acceptance of the rend after he come  of age be not similar because there the rend be in lieu of the profit of the  land whereas in the principal case no rend be reserve nor a inheritance give  to the son in return for the inheritance of this great estate which the other  side will construe he out of say vide cannel v buckle ante vol as to the  contract of infant in consideration of marriage beside this be a stale point  give up by earl Washington the present earl elder brother who give the earl  and countess of Northampton pound to join in a fine and recovery to resettle  the whole family estate which accord have be do in a solemn manner and some  provision though a small one have be make for the unfortunate present earl the  lunatic wherefore the master of the roll agreeable to the opinion of the Lord  kin disallow and overrule this claim as likely to put the lunatic earl to a  unprofitable expense and a unsuccessful suit sir Peter temple tenant for life  remainder to his son Richard temple for life remainder to his first c son in  tail sir Peter temple by indenture tripartite between sir Peter of the first  part Richard of the second part and I of the three part covenant to levy a  fine of the premise but Richard the son do not join in any covenant in the  deed nor in the fine but seat the deed and by hate chief justice this can be  no surrender in regard the remainder man can surrender but only release to the  tenant for life and the bare seal the deed by Richard the son will neither  surrender nor release his estate consequent the contingent remainder to the  first c son be preserve there be a right of freehold subsist in Richard the  son for the support of this right hate v Risley keb