case lisle against grey Trinity term car roll if a man with intent to preserve  his estate in his name and blood covenant to stand seize to the use of himself  for life and after his decease to the use of Edward his first son for life and  the heir male of such first son and in default of such issue to the use of the  second son of Edward and the heir male of such second son c and so several and  respective to all and singular the heir male of the heir male of the body of  Edward Edward take only a estate for life SC Pollexf SC Jones SC ray SC lev SC  Freem SC atk ejectment special verdict a covenant to stand seize of land to  and for the use of himself for the term of his natural life and after his  decease to Edward his old son for life then to the first second three four  five and ten son c as be usual and then there be this clause and so several  and respective to all and singular the heir male of the heir male of the body  of Edward c the question be what estate Edward have Mr levinz argue that  Edward be but tenant for life all court will interpret all conveyance accord  to the intent of the party as far as the word will bear it be express limit to  he for life shower KB and there be no inheritance in he at all and another  clause in the deed make it clear videlicet if Edward die without issue there  be provision make for daughter if he have be design tenant in tail there need  not that provision for he will have be able c as for the word themselves in  the last clause on which the doubt arise where the heir male be it be clear it  be only a mistake in the scrivener instead of son to right heir male else it  have be the common limitation for life I confess heir male import a  inheritance yet they may be so qualify as to imply nothing but a estate for  life as if I grant a estate to a man and his heir for the life of another  there heir be so qualify as to make no inheritance so if tenant in tail grant  a estate to a mall and his heir for his life and so here in our case and as to  so several and respective so there only demonstrate what heir and it be as in  a sheriff return such to answer I have know it rule in this court that when a  venire facias have go teaching be per cur and in another venire facias where  per cur have be b see hawk p c ch S where it be say that this be no exception  to a indictment find in the court of king bench or grand session or county  palatine and have often be overrule as to indictment in other court and see  hawk c S shower KB er p omit and it run only teaching be as prius and adjudge  good and so it may be here as it be in   light where a gift to a man et heir  de corpore exeunt remainder to b in form preceding this be rule to create a  tail so here the word so shall restrain and qualify the word so as only to  mean son c on the other side it be argue to be a estate tail execute and that  there be sufficient word to make it so   light feoff to the use of a man self  for life and then to the use of the heir male of his body c this be a good  estate tail vest and execute in himself and the limitation be good by way of  use and though it be a double limitation yet it be good and so be shelly case    there be also cite the case of boreton v Nichols cro car wile justice  compare it to archer case   Scroggs chief justice say that the intention of  the party ought to be respect and it seem to I that heir male be nothing but  instead of son shower KB and Jones justice say the same and they all three  Twisden absent incline to be of opinion that he be but tenant for life  Adjornatur a