case Scudamour against cross Trinity term car roll in the exchequer Chamber if  a man seize in fee give and grant bargain and sell alien feoff and confirm  certain land to his daughter in consideration of blood and marriage he thereby  raise a use by way of covenant to gland seize S C lev S C vent S C keb ante  lev vent roll Abr Mod Mod Mod Mod fitzg l ld ray ld ray bring wms modern er p  ejectment on a special verdict it be find that a man by deed do give and grant  bargain and sell alien feoff and confirm to his daughter certain land but no  consideration of money be mention nor be the deed enrol there be likewise no  consideration of natural affection express other than what be imply in name  the grantee his daughter there be no livery endorse nor any find to have be  make nor be the daughter in possession at the time of the deed make the  question be whether this be a void deed or have any operation at all in the  law and what be wrought by it in the king bench it be adjudge by the whole  court to be a good deed and that it carry the estate to the daughter by way of  covenant to stand seize a the case upon which the court give judgement be  state to be as follow Nicholas hook be seize in fee and in consideration of  affection to his daughter make a deed to his daughter enrol within six month  whereby in consideration of affection and for her portion and preferment and  other valuable consideration he bargain sell alien feoff and confirm to the  say daughter the land in question with a clause of warranty and a covenant for  further assurance and that the indenture be make for the consideration  aforesaid and no other S C lev and in two other report of S C the deed be  state to be for and in consideration of natural love augmentation of her  portion and preferment of her in marriage and other good and valuable  consideration S C vent S C keb see also Mr hargrave note   light a Nelbourn v  Simpson will Wilkinson v Tranmer will a upon a writ of error before the  justice of the common plea and the baron of the exchequer the case be argue at  sergeantsinn by sir William Jones against the deed and modern by sir Francis  winnington in maintenance of it Jones before the statute of use Henry c a man  may either have retain the possession and have depart with the use or he may  have depart with the possession and have retain the use or he may have depart  with they both together the statute unite the possession to the use but leaves  man at liberty to convey their estate by put the possession out of themselves  and limit a use or by raise a use and let the possession follow that now how  shall it be know when a estate must pass one of these way and when the other  that must appear by the intention of the party express in the deed some  conveyance contain word that look both way some one way and some another if  the word look both way then have he to who the estate be intend to be convey  election to take it whichever way he like best a man in consideration of money  grant feoff bargain and sell and in the deed there be a letter of attorney to  make livery and it be resolve to be a good conveyance by way of bargain and  sale if the deed be enrol a Heywards case   a to b Adam v steer cro James roll  pl a where the word be only proper to pass a estate by way of use there you  shall never take a estate at commonlaw cro James in the case of Adam v steer b  cro James b the case of Denton v Fettyplace be there cite that by the word of  bargain and sale without attornment a reversion passes not c vide cro James dr  atkins case c if the king bargain and sell c no use can arise because the king  can stand seize to a use d more d on the other side where the word be proper  to pass the estate at commonlaw there nothing shall pass by way of use a  quaere be make in dyer e dyer b e whether or no if a man in consideration of  mutual affection c release to his brother who be not in possession a use  thereby arise to the relessee but this to be light be resolve in a manuscript  report that I have of that case videlicet that no use do arise the case of  ware v Lambert f cro Elizabeth f and of Osburn v churchman g cro James g be  the case in question in roll second part h roll h a man in consideration of  marriage do give and grant to his wife after his decease to her and the heir  of her body c and it be resolve that nothing pass this case be much strong  than we for there be but one way to make this good videlicet by raise a modern  use for as a con modern er p veyance at commonlaw it can be good because a  freehold can be grant to commence infutur and yet rather than recede from the  word of the party the deed be Adjudzed to be void he cite foster v foster  Trinity term I finch Ch Rep lev side ray keb I which himself have argue in the  deed here in question there be word proper to pass a estate in possession give  and grant there be likewise a clause of warranty of which the grantee shall  lose the benefit in a great measure if he be in the post for then he shall not  vouch and there be opinion that be can rebut as in spirit v hence king cro car  style king there be also a covenant that after the seal and delivery and due  execution of c the party shall quiet enjoy c now what execution can be mean  but by livery and seize fox case l   Brownl l have be object in which it be  resolve that the reversion in that case shall pass by way of bargain and sale  though the word of the grant be demise set and to farm let alrwords proper to  a commonlaw conveyance I answer the consideration of money there express be so  strong a consideration as to carry it that way but the consideration of  natural affection be not so strong and so the case be not alike the  consideration of money have be hold so strong as to carry a estate of  feesimple in a use without word of inheritance winnington contra he insist  upon the intention of the party the consideration of blood and natural  affection and the necessity of make this deed good by way of covenant to stand  seize because it can not take effect any other way the clause of warranty and  covenant for quiet enjoyment be say be but form of conveyance and word of  clerk but the effectual word be those that contain the inducement of the party  to make the conveyance and the word that pass the estate a Plowd query roll  Abr pl   light Poph a in foster case which have be cite against he be say the  deed be as unformal to pass the estate one way as another in Osburn v  churchman b cro James b be say this point be start but that the resolution be  not upon this point it come in question neither upon a special verdict nor a  demurrer Tib v Purplewell c roll Abr c answer all objection against our case  and be in form and substance the same with it he cite a case of sander v savin  d raym lev d adjudge in the modern late time in the common plea videlicet that  where a man seize in fee of a rentcharge grant it to a kinsman for life and  the grantor die before attornment it be resolve that upon the seal and  delivery of the deed a use arise wherefore be pray that the judgement may be  affirm turner chief baron of the exchequer turner and Littleton baron and  Atkins Wyndham and Ellis justice of the court of common plea be for affirm the  judgement Vaughan chief justice of the common plea and thurland puisne baron  against it the six judge argue first that in a covenant to stand seize those  word of c covenant to stand seize to the use of c be not absolute necessary  and that it be sufficient if there be word that be tantamount second that no  conveyance admit of such variety of word as do this of a covenant to stand  seize e three that judge have always endeavour to support deed ut res to  greater extent to be strong gub m to pass away fourthly that the grantor in  this case by put in plenty of word show that he do not intend to tie himself  up to any sort of conveyance five that if the word give and grant have be  alone in the deed there will have be no question and that if so then utile per  inutile non to make faulty six that every man deed must be take most strong  against himself seven that the word give and grant enure sometime as a grant  sometime as a covenant sometime as a release and must be take in that sense  which will best support the intent of the party eighthly that the very point  of this case have receive two full determination modern er p upon debate and  that it be a thing of ill consequence to admit of so great a uncertainty in  the law as now to alter it ninthly that there be here a clear intent that the  daughter shall have this estatea deed a good consideration to raise a use and  word that be tantamount to a covenant to stand seize wherefore the judgement  be affirm thurland puisne baron say the intention of the party be not a sure  rule to construe deed by that if land be give in marriage to loosen ab omni  slavery the intent of the giver be to make a gift in frankmarriage but the  commonlaw that delight in certainty will not understand his word so because he  do not say in book maritagio in our case the modern first intent of the father  be to settle the land upon his daughter his second intent be to do it by such  or such a conveyance what conveyance he mean to do it by we must know by his  word the word give and grant do general and natural work upon something in be  strain construction be not favour in the law nor ought heir to be disinherit  by force and strain construction if this deed shall work as a covenant to  stand seize it will be in vain to study form of conveyance it be but throw in  word enough and if the land pass not one way they will another he cite  blitheman v blitheman a cro Elizabeth and   a and dyer and say pi field v  pierce b roll Abr march b be late than that of Tib v Purplewell c roll Abr c  and of better authority Vaughan chief justice accordant it be not clear that  the word give and grant be sufficient to raise a use but suppose that they be  by a force exposition when nothing appear to the contrary will it thence  follow that they may be take in a sense direct contrary to their proper and  genuine sense in such a place as this where all the other part of the deed be  whole inconsistent with and will not by any possibility admit of such a  construction he mention several clause in the deed which b say be proper only  to a conveyance at commonlaw he appeal to the law before the statute of use  and say that where a use will not arise by the commonlaw there the statute  execute no possession and that by such a deed as this no use will have arise  at the commonlaw but the judgement be affirm d see the case of garnish v  Wentworth carter vent more Leon roll Abr and see a essay on use and trust by f  W sander p d