badger versus lloyd Trin will B R Rotulo ld raym S C comens S c ante raym side  far in ejectment a special verdict be find videlicet John Lloyd the elder  convey laud by lease and release to the use of himself for ninetynine year if  he live so long remainder to his son John for ninetynine year if he live so  long remainder to Elizabeth the son wife for life remainder to trustee to  support contingent remainder remainder to the first second three c son of John  the son in tailmale remainder to John the father in tail remainder to he and  his heir John the elder have issue the say John Thomas Paul and Peter and  after make his will whereby recite this settlement be devise these very land  after John the son death without issuemale to Thomas and after the death of  Thomas without issuemale then to Paul and if Paul die without issuemale none  of his other brother be live then to Peter and his heir for ever John the  elder die and John the son suffer a common recovery and the lessor of the  plaintiff who claim by the devise and the recovery also be the only son of  Peter and the defendant be a purchaser under a fine from Thomas the title  depend upon these three point saint whether the remainder devise to Peter be  contingent dly whether it be a immediate estate vest or executory dly whether  the intails there devise be not vain and fruitless such as never can take  effect and therefore void Salkeld the first question arise from the word and  none of his brother live and the court hold that these word do not alter the  case because they say nothing but what be imply and understand before the  sense have be the same if they have be omit and then this have be like all  other limitation of remainder and it be plain the limitation to Peter can  never take effect till all be dead to construe it otherwise will be to destroy  all the express estate before devise vide cro cro a the second question arise  from this objection that John the father have a estatetail in remainder with a  reversion in fee expectant this devise of his can take effect till the old  estatetail be spend so this devise if ever it take effect be to commence after  a die without issue which be a void executory devise the court agree that if a  may seize in fee do devise his land to a and his heir if I S a stranger die  without issue this be a executory devise because there be no precedent  particular estate aliter if I S have be tenant in tail of the land the  reversion to the devisor as in this case for here be a immediate devise of a  present reversion and the word after or from and after be only to denote when  they be to take effect in possession   cro sand a to the three point holt c j  agree that the estatestail devise to John Thomas and Paul can never take  effect because the estatetail which be in the devisor must descend to they and  will always interpose and keep back the estatetail devise which be no large  must spend cequis step with the old entail and therefore it can never have  effect upon which reason he agree that such a devise of a remainder will be  void but he hold it otherwise of a reversion which be also in this case  because there be a signiory and a tenancy create for tenant in tail must hold  of he in reversion and be of the supreme lord so that this devise have a real  effect as to the tenure which be alter hereby vide   and so there be a sound  diversity n the judgement of the court be that it be a remainder vest in Peter  and this judgement be affirm upon error both in the exchequer Chamber and  house of lord judge Blencowes ms I vol ld raym a vide burr Fearne a vide can  tempt ld Talb Fearne Salkeld er p