case forster versus forster march as a tenant for life and the person in  remainder in nature of a tenant in tail of a freehold lease may certain join  and bar the next in limitation so he who have both the interest in himself may  also bar the entail of such a lease so Norton v Frecker ante vol saltern v  saltern post William v Jekyl Ves black v black p W n har   Litt a n Charles  Forster the father of John and Francis Forster make a settlement upon the  marriage of his old son John of a freehold church lease hold by the life of  Frances the wife of Charles and John the son and Gabriel a three son in trust  to permit the say John to enjoy for his life and then his intend wife for life  and after be subject to a charge for young child portion in trust for the heir  male of the body of John Forster and in default of such issue in trust for the  heir male of the body of the say Charles Forster the father and in default of  such issue to the right heir of the say Charles Forster there be some other  limitation but these the most material the say Charles the father be dead and  the wife of John be dead and the only son of John by his say wife be also dead  and there be daughter of the marriage the defendant Catherine and two other  daughter of John make a settlement of the church lease under which the  defendant claim and levy a fine sur to go away and afterward die without male  issue atkins upon the death of John without issue male the plaintiff Francis  Forster claim title to the leasehold premise insist that by this settlement  John his elder brother be only tenant for life and that the limitation to the  heir male of his body be word of purchase and create a contingent remainder to  his heir male and that the limitation to the heir male of the body of his  father Charles be a contingent remainder to take effect in the person who  shall be the heir male of the body of the father at the time of the death of  John and that John can not be the heir male of the body of his decease father  within the meaning and operation of the deed because a life estate be express  limit to he and in the case of a descendible freehold it vest in the heir not  as heir but as special occupant and that John can never take as occupant under  the description of heir male because the occupancy can not arise till after  his own death and therefore that the heir male who be to take the contingent  remainder must be the plaintiff vie the heir male of Charles the father at the  death of John the tenant for life and that if John be but tenant for life his  settlement and fine sur to go away can not bar the contingent remainder which  ought to take place in the plaintiff e contra it be insist that the limitation  to the heir of the body of the father be not a contingent remainder but word  of limitation of the estate and must mean the heir male at the death of  Charles the father that John be the heir male be the old son and that his wife  be dead and his son be also dead his life estate and the limitation to he as  heir male were unite and in case of a estate of inheritance he will be tenant  in tail in possession and in case of a descendible freehold he have the whole  interest in he and may dispose of it as he please and bar that e plaintiff S  Lord chancellor be of this opinion and say as tenant for life and the person  in remainder in nature of a tenant in tail of a freehold lease can certain  join and bar the settlement so the same person who have both these interest in  himself as John certain have may also bar the entail of the freehold lease  atkins er p and though it seem absurd that the person who have can express  estate for his life shall also be the occupant which occupancy in strictness  do not arise till the death of the tenant for life yet in reality the  limitation which in the case of a estate of inheritance will create a estate  tail do in the case of a freehold give the party the whole interest so as to  empower he to dispose of it and he principal rely upon it that that e son of  John be dead and the remainder to the heir male of Charles the father vest  thereupon in John to who the estate atkins for life be limit he be to be  consider in nature of tenant in tail and may dispose of it and put this case  suppose a second tenant for life of such a freehold lease remainder to the  heir of the body of the father the tenant for life and the elder brother the  heir male of the father may certain bar the entail and therefore where the  same right be in one and the same person he can certain do it N B as to  descendible freeholder vide   Edward Seymors case roll Abr as to intails of  freehold lease vide Wasteneys versus chapel decree by Lord Harcourt wms and  the duke of Grafton versus sir Thomas Hanmer wms as to the heir male be word  of purchase vide peacock versus Spooner vern vide web v web p W Ves Hodgson v  Bussey ante and Dufforne versus goodman vern Reg lib a fol