case grace spark against nicholas spark Michaelmas term Elizabeth roll a let  we to b for year if he so long live with remainder after his decease to his  executor or assign for ear his administratrix be entitle to this term ante  post roll ab roll ab yely more vide   light b note ejection firm upon a  special verdict the case be Nicholas spark seize in fee by indenture let we it  to William spark for year if he live so long the remainder after his decease  to the executor or assign of the say William spark for year croak Elizabeth er  p William spark die intestate his wife the now plaintiff take letter of  administration and enter claim the term Nicholas spark the lessor now  defendant ousts her el si c the sole question be whether this remainder for  year vest in William spark or if it fail because he have not make any executor  and all the justice deliver their opinion several that this term vest in  William spark and that the plaintiff shall have it as admistratrix to he and  it shall he asset in her hand for the intention of the lessor appear that the  executor or assign of William spark shall have it so by the word assign it be  intend that William spark may dispose and make a assignment thereof and  therefore it vest in he and shall go to his executor or administrator as  assign in law and as a thing which come to they from their testator and not as  a perquisite by themselves for Walmsley say it never yet be question by any  that if these two term have be in one clause but that they shall have vest in  William spark as if it have be hahendum for year if he live so long and for  year after his decease to his executor but it be here devise to William spark  for year if he live so long remainder to his executor for year yet  notwithstanding it be all one and the executor shall have it as executor and  it shall he asset in his band it be in the testator to dispose of and it be  afterward adjudge accord note that in this case Walnisley say the difference  betwixt this and c r nmer case in Elizabeth dyer be because it be there limit  by way of use and by the party himself so he show his own intent that it shall  not vest in himself but in his executor but here the limitation be by a  stranger wherein there be not any intention appear but that it shall vest in  the lessee himself and by this difference all the book be reconcile a