clxxxiii wiseman case in the court of ware before the Lord treasurer master of  the ware Wray chief justice Anderson and periam assistant to he the case be  that wiseman be seize of certain land hold by knightsservice in capite have  issue by a former wife who die and make a feoff in fee to the use of her who  shall be his wife for life and afterward to the use of himself and of his  issue of the body of such wife to he beget the remainder over wiseman take a  wife and have issue and die if now live the wife the issue shall be in ware be  the question it be argue by coke that be shall not be in ware and first it be  agree of both side and also by the justice that it be a remainder and not a  reversion and that at the commonlaw the descent of a remainder during the  estate for life do not entitle the king unto wardship and there we be to see  if upon the statute of h the last branch of it where two or more person hold  any land of the king by knightsservice joint to they and the heir of one of  they and he that have the inheritance thereof die his heir be within age in  every such case the king shall have the ware and marriage of the body of such  heir so be within age the life of the freeholder or freeholder of such land  notwithstanding see h that the father to prevent wardship may alien and take  to he and his son and the heir of the father which mischief be intend to be  remedy by the say statute but these word shall not in construction thereof  extend far than the word especial because they cross the commonlaw and go to  charge the inheritance of other and therefore they shall be take strict and  not by equity as the statute of west cap cum quis avoid law wife of oneself  concordat be quod de for the rest to cut woman or he heir non to carry apart  near those inferior in rank lifetime heir who warrantizare to withhold that  statute be take strict for if the vouchee vouch over the second vouchee shall  have his age quod vide e also the stat of Leonard er p west enact that where  the seize die seize the disseizee shall have his writ upon the seize against  the heir of the seize of what age soever he be so the heir of the disseizee  yet it be hold e if the seize leas for life and die and the lessee be implead  and make default after default upon which the heir of the seize pray to be  receive be within age be shall have his age notwithstanding the say statute  which shall be take strict because it control the commonlaw and charge the  inheritance of the subject so Leonard upon the statute of west cap that none  shall vouch out of the line upon that statute although the tenant to the  action against who the praecipe be bring be bind by the statute yet tenant by  receipt be at large and he may vouch at the commonlaw h h for these statute go  in abridgment of the commonlaw and therefore shall be take strict now accord  to this statute it be of the same nature as the other before remember and  therefore shall not be extend in construction beyond the letter as sir Roland  hill case grandfather father and son the grandfather seize of land ut above  make a feoff in fee to the use of himself for life and afterward to the use of  the son in fee the grandfather die the father die the son shall not be in ware  causan how above for this statute shall not be construe by equity and by it  the word thereof preferment of child shall not extend unto the child child but  to the child only of the king tenant who make the conveyance and the word in  this statute or otherwise shall not be intend to other person than be remember  in the statute there be a case late where the statute be construe in such a  manner quod vide Elizabeth Thornton case a lady seize of land in chief make  conveyance of her land for the advancement of her bastarddaughter the same  conveyance be not within the statute see also the Lord Powess case Elizabeth  dyer so in the case of sir Hugh Calverley the law be take that where the  husband die seize in the right of his wife and they levy a fine unto the use  of the husband and wife for the advancement of the husband such conveyance and  disposition be not within the statute of h Popham contrary and as to the case  of make this statute it be not to overthrow a foundation as it have be say but  it be rather a gratuity of the subject to the king for his bounty towards they  for whereas by the statute of use use be execute in possession so as the  subject can not dispose of their land by their will as before the use now by  this statute the king be please to give his royal assent to a Act by which  land may become devisable in respect of which the subject add to this Act the  last clause to give he wardship where it do not lie before by the commonlaw  and that as a recompense from the subject for the king bounty and therefore it  ought to be construe beneficial for the king and to prevent covin and fraud be  not the scope of this statute for if three purchase land unto they and to the  heir of two of they now it be uncertain who heir shall inherit for non constat  which of they shall survive and therefore no covin be averrable in such case  and yet if the survivor of two to who the fee be limit die his heir within age  such heir shall be in ware so if such land be give to two and to the heir of  he of those two who shall first come to the church of Paul now it be uncertain  which of they shall first come to the church of Paul yet if he who first come  to the church of Paul die his heir within age he shall be in ware which case  prove that covin and fraud be not the cause of make this statute but only the  thankfulness of the subject unto the king for his bounty as abovesaid foe if  this Act have not be make the subject shall not have power to dispose of their  land for the advancement of their child but all shall descend so as now the  king have lose the wardship and primer seize of two part of the land of his  tenant and have also lose the averment of covin which he have by the commonlaw  where estate be make by the king tenant for advancement of their child in  respect of which loss the subject give unto the king wardship in case where  the land continue in jointure as to that which have be say that this statute  shall not be take by equity I conceive the contrary the word of the statute be  in every such case I e in every like case not Leonard only where two or more  person hold joint to they and the heir of one of they but also in every the  like case as the case now in question and in every case where the life of he  who have the freehold be the sole impediment quo minus the heir have not the  land by descent in demesne and it Leonard er p may be resemble unto the  statute of marlbridge of collusion which speak of lease for year quas to give  up uolverint ad terminus a year and vet a lease for life or lease for year be  within the say statute for the statute be make in restraint of a ill liberty  that the tenant have by the commonlaw in prejudice of their lord which see e  blow and as to the word otherwise that may be construe for payment of his  legacy and as to equity enlarge the statute speak where many hold and to the  heir of one yet if two hold to they and the heir of one of they the same be  within the statute and as to equity restrain he put this case land be give to  the husband and wife and the heir of the body of the wife who have issue the  wife die the issue within age he shall not be in ware and yet he be within the  letter of the statute but because that other matter that the estate for life  in the husband be a impediment quo minus he shall be in ware it be a maxim of  the commonlaw that the father shall have the wardship of the son and heir  apparent therefore he shall not be within the meaning although he be within  the letter of the statute so if land be give to my villain and to another and  to the heir of my villain who die seize his heir within age I seize the  villain and claim the remainder be shall not be in ware and yet he be within  the letter of the statute but I conceive in our case the king shall have two  ware simul semel the heir general of wiseman and the issue in tail the heir  general by the commonlaw by reason that his father be the king tenant who  dispose of his land for the advancement of his child and therefore the queen  shall have the three part in ware and also the heir special shall be in ware  for that part of the statute and it be no new thing to have two wardship for  one and the same land as h of the heir of beneficiary who use and also of the  feoff and if the tenant die seize have issue a daughter who be his heir the  lord seize the daughter and marry her and afterward a son be bear he shall  have the wardship also of he so of the heir of the seize and disseizee and be  say if land hold in chief be lease for life the remainder to a in fee a die  his heir within age he shall be in ware and that by reason of these word in  the statute in every such case it be not the same case but the like case for  if be who have efee die so as the freehold survive to the other now the estate  become as a estate for life the remainder over it be adjourn   weeden baldwin  case Elizabeth in the exchequer