Bridgman oh hem v BRABASON in it Tr rot hark ms No fol a and b be lessee of  land for eightyone year if c so long live the term to commence in going to be  and from and after the day of the death of c for thirtyone year from  thenceforth a and b enter before the commencement of the term of eightyone  year which be a dissuasion and suspend the right of assign the interest  termini but be put out of possession by their lessor before the thirtyone year  have begin their seize be purge and that future interest be not disturb so  that their assignment of it by indenture be good eject strong sir place for  seal or signature Elizabeth Riplingham de terris in Eastwell in come Leic  special verdict I S September car demise the premise to Stephen and Thomas  Underwood habendum from Michaelmas next follow for eightyone year if Henry  Portman so long live and from and after the day of the death of Portman for  thirtyone year from thenceforth Bridgman oh Stephen and Thomas Underwood the  lessee the same September the lease be not to begin till six day after enter  the defendant sir Edward Brabason in enter upon they and put they out of  possession and be so out of possession they assign all the estate by indenture  to Elizabeth Riplingham the plaintiff lessor the eightyone year expire by  Portmans death and Elizabeth Riplingham demise to the plaintiff who enter and  be eject by the defendant in this case it be adjudge Nov mich term car two S C  short report in lev keb and in Skinner see infra note h it be refer to in a  early handwriting in the ms report of Thomason v Mackworth No fol as be in a  copy of sir Orlando Bridgmans argument fol which probable be the number of the  report from which the copy in the Hargrave collection be take the case be cite  in Bacon abridgment title lease p Preston on conveyance and chamber on lease  the special verdict be enter full on the record further reference in Mr  hargrave copy of lev be Danvers pl and side Carthew cro James latch and Mod a  that the assignment by Stephen and Thomas Underwood to Elizabeth Riplingbam of  the land be good and I deliver the reason of the resolution of the court which  see in my argument at large Bridgeman C J Harg ms No fol argument at large the  land in question be of two sort some of they be in Bridgman oh er p lease to  one Henry Portman at the time of the lease make to Stephen and Thomas  Underwood under which the plaintiff claim either for his life or for year  determinable by his death whether the one or the other do not appear by the  verdict nor be much material to the case of these there be no case before we  for it appear upon the verdict that they be lease to Stephen and Thomas  Underwood for thirteen year from the day of the death of Henry Portman and  that the lessee do not enter into these and so no seize of they and that they  assign their interest to Elizabeth Riplingham the plaintiff lessor in during  Portmans life which assignment be clear good though off the land and when  Portman die she have this interest termini before entry may lease it the  plaintiff and by his entry he have perfect the lease and so the defendant as  to so much be a ejector and this have be agree on both side touch the rest of  the land in question the case be but Bridgman oh this the earl of meath and  his son the defendant September car lease the same to the underwood habendum  from Michaelmas next follow for eightyone year if Henry Portman so long live  and after the day of the death of Portman for the term of thirtyone year from  thenceforth the two underwood the lessee the same rd of September this lease  be not to begin till the that of September enter the defendant one of the  lessors in enter upon they and put they out of possession they be thus out of  possession and off from the land assign by indenture all to Elizabeth  Riplingham the lessor of the plaintiff the eightyone year afterward expire by  Portmans death and she leas to the plaintiff the question be whether this  assignment make off the land by Stephen and Thomas Underwood to Elizabeth  Riplingham the lessor of the plaintiff be good or not it be but a single point  but the resolution of it require the consideration of several particular as  first what the nature of this term for thirtyone year be whether it be a  remainder expectant upon the term for eightyone year if Portman so long live  or a bare future interest without depend upon it second when the lessee enter  before the eightyone year begin what operation that entry have and whether the  seize make thereby if any be have any influence upon this term of thirtyone  year be it either a remainder or a future interest and therein also as a  corollary it will be considerable what difference there be where both these  term be limit to one and the same person and where the first term be limit to  one and the executory term to another in the three place it will be  considerable when the defendant one of the lessors after the commencement in  point of time of the term for eightyone year and before the time of the  commencement of the executory or future term for thirtyone year do enter and  continue to receive the profit what operation that bath either to purge the  seize or to reduce the term either that for eightyone year which be then to  have be in possession or the other for thirtyone year which be but future  without a reentry of the lessee for if the seize have be at first have in  consequence of the word in consequence of have be insert conjectural by the  editor perhaps a more correct read of the corrupt text may be for if the seize  have be at first and have its operation upon these term c b its Bridgman oh  operation upon these term it will be requisite they be actual reduce or else  the assignment off from the land will not be good before I come to these point  I must say somewhat to the exception which have be take for the first what the  nature of the term be the case be a lease be make to a for eightyone year from  Michaelmas next if b so long live and from and after the day of the death of b  for thirtyone year more it be clear there be no contingency in this estate for  thirtyone year for it be certain b must die and the time be certain limit for  the thirtyone year if a lease be make to I for one hundred year to commence  ten year after the death of b this be a good lease in interest present  assignable by I without question and not contingent and therefore the case of  the earl of Derby cite out of Hutton in napper and sander case fol come not  home to this case there the land be limit to Edward earl of Derby Bridgman oh  er p for life and after to the use of trustee for eighty year if Henry his son  shall so long live and after his decease to Ferdinand his son in tail it be  say the use in remainder vest present and the possibility that Henry may  overlive the eighty year will not make the remainder contingent whether it be  so or no I will not deliver my opinion perhaps there may be a difference upon  such limitation by way of use and at commonlaw for in holcroft case in more be  report p Elizabeth a fine be levy by Holcroft to a and b who by the same fine  render to he for eighty year if he so long live and after his decease to other  use all the subsequent use be void be a estate at commonlaw the freehold not  pass out of the conusees and perhaps here be a difference between a limitation  of use upon a feoff and a covenant to stand seize to use and in my report the  limitation in the earl of derby case be upon a covenant to stand seize but the  ground of the doubt of those case be because a contingent remainder can be  limit or stand without a freehold which reason reach not to our case of a term  dependent upon or limit after another term then the question be whether this  term of thirtyone year be a remainder expectant upon the eightyone year or a  future interest I mean not whether it be a future interest in the first  creation for so it be without question both be to begin at Michaelmas follow  and the lease be make six day before but whether after Bridgman oh Michaelmas  when the lease for eightyone year be to commence this thirtyone year be a  remainder upon it or no for if I make a lease to a for twentyone year to begin  at Michaelmas the remainder to I S for twentyone year more there be a privity  between they and after Michaelmas it be a estate to a in possession if he  enter remainder to I S so that I say the question be whether this term for  thirtyone year shall be take during the eightyone year for a remainder or a  future interest first consider it if the eightyone year be in one and the  thirty thirtyone year in another The clause in square bracket be in the side  page of the manuscript in the same handwriting with the text there be many  other instance of such omit passage be supply in a similar manner c and this  question will go far in the case admit there be any divest of the estate if I  give land to I S for eightyone year to begin present or at Michaelmas for it  will be all one after the term incur with remainder over to another for  thirtyone year this remainder depend upon the first term so that if the first  term be turn to a right the remainder be also turn to a right otherwise of a  future interest and therefore if the lessee for year with remainder over for  year have once enter be oust not only the estate for year but the remainder  for year be turn to a right but if there be lessee for eightyone year and by  another deed a lease be make to another for thirtyone year to begin after the  expiration of the first lease this be by another deed and not depend on the  first lease it be a future interest and the ouster of the first lessee do not  disturb nor alter the future interest but he may grant the same before entry  so a lease may be make by deed between a and b to b for year remainder to c no  party but he can take in that deed a future interest if no party vide  Slingsbys case for Barkeway the clause in square bracket be in the side page  of the manuscript in the same handwriting with the text there be many other  instance of such omit passage be supply in a similar manner c and this  difference appear in our book if a man make lease for year remainder for year  the first lessee enter a release to he in remainder for year be good to  enlarge his estate but if a lease be make for year to begin at Michaelmas and  the lessor before the day release this release be not good to enlarge the  estate but if there be a rend reserve in respect of the privity it may  extinguish it   Litt b so if a man make a lease for year to commence at a day  to come before Bridgman oh the day the lessor be seize yet the lessee may  grant over his interest if a lease be make to a for twentyone year and after a  second lease be make by another deed to the same a for thirtyone year to begin  after the twentyone this be a future interest though no other shall intervene  because not make at the same time with the first nor draw out of the lessors  possession but out of his reversion and though the first term and the future  interest be both grant in one deed yet if upon the grant it be limit as a  future interest it will make no difference from the case where they be grant  by several deed as if by indenture a lease be make to a for twentyone year and  after the expiration of thirtyone year to b who be make party to the indenture  as in such it be requisite not be by remainder Bridgman oh er p this to b be a  direct future interest and do no way depend upon the estate of a and though a  be oust this work no divest of the estate of b the like be where both the  present term and the future or executory term be make to one and the same  party l if a lease for twentyone year be make to a and after the expiration of  that term to he for thirtyone year by the same deed it be a remainder or  rather one entire term in effect it be a continue contract and the ousting of  the lessee extend to the whole as in Potkins case h VIII and the bishop of  bath case lease for a year et such de year in annum Interrog  birth to please  it be one lease for two year and so c c a parson make a lease for three year  and so from three year to three year so long as he shall be parson this be a  good lease for three year and after that for three year and for the rest  uncertain Douglas Rep Bl Rep and burr reference in Mr hargrave copy of lev but  that be not two lease but in effect one entire lease for where a lease for  year be make it be in law as to the execution as a several contract for every  year and the time executory for every year and day and therefore the first or  last or middle year may be grant and yet the rest remain to the lessee and the  reservation of several rend will not alter the case for a man may have as many  several reddendums as he please for every several year and it be the strong  because here it be but one habendum but if a lease for twentyone year be make  to a and after the expiration of thirtyone year that be a further time then to  he for forty year I take it this be a future interest not dependent Bridgman  oh on the first for there be a intervention of the estate of the lessor  between and to this purpose they be in he as if they be in two several person  if he be oust of the term which he have in possession yet this divest not his  future interest he may have surrender the one and can not surrender the other  and he may have assign either and keep the other and to this purpose though  not in omnibus as I shall after show when two jura to run together in One mask  ceque be ac in to visit to apply this difference to our case it come very near  a nicety if the case here have be that the lease be make to a for fortyeight  year either present or from Michaelmas next if Portman so long live and from  and after his death for thirtyone year more I take it this after term blank in  ms f have be either a term in remainder or as one entire continue term for  upon the very creation of the lease by supposition of law eightyone year will  have be long than Portmans life who appear in the case to have be a man who  have long before and then be a occupier of a great part of the land and have  acquire to himself a estate in it and so must be a man of some considerable  age and so tantamount as if the lease have be make for eightyone year if  Portman so long live and after the expiration of that term for thirtyone year  more for if construction shall be make videlicet in case of limitation of a  freehold in the earl of derby case a strong in our case and the law look upon  such a term as eightyone year as void ibidem g for a mortmain and to bring on  a wardship or respect of homage a strong to outlast the life of Portman in the  elaborate argument at the bar in Jerman v orchard Skinner this subject and  case be thus notice in many case the law make a difference between long and  short term of which I may give many instance be I not afraid I have already  spend too much of your lordship time as Br mortmain pl a lease for four  hundred year to a religious house be mortmain for ninetynine year be not so in  croker and Kelseys case Cr James if a feme jointress upon the h lease for  twentyone year it be good if for five hundred year it be a alienation within  that statute and the like difference be take in the common plea mich car in  the case of hem and Brabason where the case be the earl of meath let the land  in question to Underwood habendum from Michaelmas next follow for eightyone  year if a shall so long live and from and after the day of the death of a to  the same lessee for thirtyone year the lessee enter before Michaelmas and  continue in possession till after the lessor enter upon he and he be out of  possession by deed seal off the land assign his interest to the plaintiff upon  who the defendant enter and the plaintiff bring his action there be a special  verdict find and adjudge for the plaintiff in this case it be object that the  term for h the consequence Bridgman oh er p whereof will be that of divest  Bridgman oh or turn to a right of the term for eightyone year will have  influence upon the remain estate to divest and turn it to a right but in our  case the thirtyone year be not limit to begin from the death of Portman but  from and after the day of the death of Portman and so exclude the day of his  death   clayton case Cr savage and Parker case and whether that make any  difference in the case and make it a future interest be next to be consider  and as to this the point will be a lease be make to a for eightyone year if  Portman so long live whether the day wherein Portman die be die within the  year shall be take to belong to the lessor or to the lessee for if it belong  in construction of law to the lessee then the term for thirtyone year  beginning immediate from and after that day there be no intervention of a  estate in the lessor and by consequence no future interest but a remainder of  a term or rather a continuation of one entire number of year as I say before  it be clear the law reject all fraction of day for the incertainty and common  allow he that have part of the day in law to have the whole day unless where  it by fraction or relation may be a prejudice to a three person and therefore  if the first of may a lease be make for a year habendum from the date or make  this take in the day of the date or make contrary to the opinion of clayton  case which make from the date and from the day of the date to be both one and  to exclude the day of the date or make and therefore the lessee shall have all  that day and his lease shall end the last of April accord to the resolution in  clayton case so the year and day within which if a man that be strike die it  shall be murder though the stroke be the first of may in the afternoon that  whole day shall be count part and the year shall end the last of April in  Shelleys case   he die the that of October the first day of the term between  five and six in the morning and after the recovery be suffer because be live  part of the day though he die before the legal time of the term that do  attract the whole day to he Cluns case   rend upon lease be reserve Payable at  easter the lessor die upon that day the rend be Bridgman oh pay unto he before  his death it shall bind the heir though not the king but if he die before  payment his executor shall not have it but the heir upon a special reason  because the payment be voluntary and in strictness of law not due till the end  of the day and the last hour be the time of tender to save damage and demand  to enter for the condition break and so not within the reason of fraction of  day all which enforce this conclusion that he who have by law part of the day  shall in computation have the rest of the day and therefore the lessee here of  necessity have the first part of that day wherein Portman die as part of the  eightyone year if be so long live shall have the residue also because the law  love not partition and then there be no intervention of any estate in the  lessor between the eightyone year and thirtyone year by possibility in law  they shall be take as one estate in berwicks case   the queen make a lease to  he Julii for three life habendum a die destroying a letter to stand open this  exclude the day it be resolve the letter patent be void for if a franktenement  shall pass it must pass at a day to come and so the queen have in the mean  time a particular interest without donor or lessor and this commence of the  lease the next day after the testae be all one in law as if it be to commence  twenty day after but it have be say against that resolution that letter patent  habendum a die act of giving or destroying be good enough for the patent may  be seal and so shall be understand the last instant of the day and so roll  chief justice in wall and dick car say it have be so adjudge however all of  they do agree that where there be no intervene estate between the precedent  estate and that which be limit a die act of giving the one may support the  other and consequent here both term be grant by one and the same deed and no  intervenient estate between they I conceive it be in law one entire estate or  at least a immediate remainder which will have the same effect in law that be  to be turn to a right if the first Bridgman oh er p term for eightyone year be  turn to a right and to be reduce again when the other be reduce and not before  the next consideration be when this lease for eightyone year whereupon this  thirtyone year be to follow be to commence at Michaelmas and before Michaelmas  the lessee Stephen and Thomas Underwood enter what influence this have upon  both these term it can be deny but that the underwood by their entry be  disseizors so adjudge in Clifford case dyer and diverse other case where in  ejectment lease make to begin at a day to come and the time of the entry  appear to be before the day it shall be nought Bridgman oh though it appear  the ejectment to be after the lease shall commence for he still shall be  account a seize and upon that ground and by the same authority it be also to  be hold that though the term or future interest shall commence by course of  time during the seize yet the estate be not divest where the seize be by a  stranger yet it may be doubtful whether here it be a seize for it be not find  that they expel the lessors and Cr Brookbank versus Tuylor a lease be more Apr  for a year habendum a prediction more Apr and in assumpsit for rend he allege  in facto that army dimission be enter the aforesaid Apr and it be hold no  seize because no expulsion allege and the debt be due by the contract whereas  if a seize no rend be due no qd In the manuscript instead of Q which the  editor have after some hesitation insert as the abbreviation for quod the read  be which appear to be a mistake in the copy I acco sit debt solt in many case  a tortuous fee where there shall be a accession of a lawful freehold shall be  resolve and melt into it and in such case the law respect a lesser estate of  freehold by right than a great by tort but that hold not in a lease for year a  rightful term may be drown in a tortuous fee but a tortuous fee can be turn  into a term for year though rightful then when in our case the term for  eightyone year and thirtyone year be both future at the time of the seize it  be the next step to consider when the eightyone year be to begin in possession  and can not in respect of the seize in what condition it then stand whether it  be turn to a right or not and I hold it be not turn to a right I put the  question upon the eightyone year for be the other term a remainder or future  interest I be sure if the eightyone year be not turn to a right after  Michaelmas the thirtyone year which be to follow it be not turn to a right to  clear this point I will consider it first as if the entry have be by a  stranger and then ndly see what the difference be where the entry be by the  lessee himself who ought to have have the possession if a lease be make to a  to begin at Michaelmas and before the day a stranger enter the lessor be seize  yet the future interest of a be neither divest nor turn to a right and he may  grant it over so be Saffyns case and I think though the seize continue till  after Bridgman oh Michaelmas yet after Michaelmas that interest which be  future and now shall commence remain in position quo be not turn to a right  but may be grant over for if the seize at first do not divest if the  continuance of that possession will make no alteration no more than if a man  make lease for year to begin present or at a day to come and the lessor after  continue in possession yet the lessee may grant the same over for the  continuance of possession where there be no precedent wrong to his estate will  not alter it if a lease be make to begin at Michaelmas and before the day the  lessor be seize and the lessor levy a fine and then Michaelmas come and five  year after pass it may be collect out of sander case as it be put in Saffyns  case and the difference there take between it and Saffyns case that this fine  bar not the lessee who have the future interest for it at first do not touch  upon it the truth of sander case Cr be otherwise for it be this he who have a  future interest die the first term expire the lessor enter and levy a fine  with proclamation before administration commit the five year pass before  administration grant the administrator be not bind but in the print case of  Saffyn as it be in my Lord coke it seem to be the opinion in sander case that  the fine levy during the seize and before the future interest commence in time  bind not though future claim be not in five year after Bridgman oh er p but in  the report of Saffyns case Cr the opinion be that if the fine be levy before  the future interest commence yet after it be to commence he be tie to five  year or else shall be bar by that fine levy before his interest commence and  accord be the opinion of c B in evidence in car c b between Luckton and Cowper  see focus v Salisbury Hardres j Dura law ut to see and contrary to the reason  of the print case that a fine shall not bar a estate not then turn to a right  and agreeable be the second resolution in Podger case   no fine shall bar any  estate in possession reversion or remainder not divest nor put to a right and  in croker and Trevithins case cruise on fine Edward cro Elizabeth S C Leon and  see   Litt a and butler note to   Litt b and the touchstone king now in print  Cr in my report of it one point be a gift be make in tail upon condition the  donee shall not discontinue he levy a fine and five year pass yet the court  adjudge that the donor may enter for the title accrue by the fine and in  judgement of law the fine which be the alienation proceed and so not Bridgman  oh within Henry VII c but if the condition have be break before the fine levy  it be otherwise but query of this reason another may be give non to send to he  rei exception pron  interrog  peti dissolution but what the law be in that  case be not the present question I only urge the reason of it to what I say  before that a seize before the future or executory estate commence continue  after the commencement of it alter not the estate in those other case there be  both a seize and a fine not a seize only the principal case of Saffyn be a  lease be make for year then the lessor make a second lease for year to begin  after the first the first lessee expire the second lessee enter not but the  reversioner who have now no just right to enter enter make a feoff and levy a  fine and five year pass and adjudge it bar for there a rule be give where the  lessor or grantee of the future interest may enter present and take the profit  and so his interest be accompany with a present entry and ability to take the  profit which he may transfer to another it may be divest out of he and put to  a mere right not grantable in the case first the lessor enter when he have no  right to the possession and so differ from the case when he make a lease to  begin present yet till entry the lessor be in possession before and have no  reversion lawful continue it second the lessor make a feoff and the feoff be  in of another estate as a feoff upon condition make a feoff absolute a  confirmation of his estate make it free from the condition though it shall not  the first lessee by such a confirmation and the lessee shall vouch as of land  discharge of such a interest but a bare seize before the future interest  commence make none of these alteration see the touchstone the note of the late  edition l but I conceive it be warrant by the reason of Saffyns case that if a  man make a lease to commence at a day to come and be seize and the seize levy  a fine after the time the future interest shall come into a possession that  this fine and nonclaim within five year shall bar he so if the reversioner  have in such case levy a fine which be a feoff of record after the time that  the future interest commence though there have be no feoff as be in Saffyns  case yet the fine itself be a feoff of record and shall turn the future  interest to a right and therefore Bridgman oh with non claim within five year  shall bar p c b Iseham and morris case cro the five resolution warrant this  last thing original note in the manuscript m and so if a man make a lease for  year to begin present and the lessee enter not but the lessor continue the  possession and levy a fine to a stranger the same turn it to a right and  nonclaim by five year make it a bar accord to the rule of Saffyns cite above  but a bare seize before the future interest commence without some alteration  after turn not the same to a right for by the same reason that it do not at  first divest that future interest but that it be grantable over by the same  reason the continuance of that seize without something after do to have a new  influence upon the estate shall not touch or work upon that future interest  when it be in point of time to commence in possession and no such new act  appear in our case then if the seize before the day that the future interest  shall commence commit Bridgman oh er p by a stranger nor the continuance of  that seize after the day shall not turn it to a right nor divest it but that  he may grant it over our next inquiry must be when this seize be commit by the  party himself that be to have the future interest and this seize continue till  after the future interest shall commence in point of time as it happen in our  case how far that will alter the case and I conceive this seize by he that  have the future interest do hinder he so long as that seize continue both  before and after the future interest shall commence in point of time to grant  over his term and therein it differ from the case of a seize by a stranger and  the reason be they be asystatahe can have a fee and a term together he can  qualify his own wrong and have a particular estate or interest by will and a  fee by wrong and keep the wrongful and divest himself of the rightful estate  by grant or assignment but yet I conceive this seize commit by he that have  the future interest before the future interest commence do not either before  or after the commencement thereof turn it to a right I do not deny that he may  do a act to destroy or extinguish his own estate but he can do a act to  himself to turn it to a right for it be against the nature of a right a right  remediless be in law no right   marquis de Winchester case and no remitter lie  upon it if I have a right I have a remedy for that right by entry or action I  can bring no action against myself in this Bridgman oh case if I must have a  right against myself I must bring my action against myself second nor can I  enter upon myself can qualify my wrong and if after a seize I will waive my  possession the disseizee may refuse it because he may recover his cost and  damage in a assize and in this point not in Leon in Rep in carter in cro James  in Goldbs nor in raym the doctrine be probable cite from a manuscript report n  sander case when the person who have a interest in the land enter upon it when  he have no right of entry the law construe it a suspension of his interest not  turn it to a right and if he make a feoff or other act whereby his interest so  suspend can be recontinued be destroy and extinguish such interest but it be  in none of the case turn to a right and therefore it be clear if be that have  a rend out of law or a seignory if he seize the terretenant his seignory or  rend be suspend he can grant this rend or seignory because he be though  wrongful seize of the land itself and his rend or seignory be suspend during  the time but not turn to a right for Self facto that the seize be take away he  be restore to his seignory or rend or common nay more the rend in such case  which shall incur during the seize be recoverable in damage the like law be of  a common in gross for beast certain or profit so here this future interest  remain a suspend interest during the seize commit by he who have that interest  but that seize be purge it be restore to he again in the same state it be at  the time of the seize commit it have be insist on at the bar that the  feesimple though tortuous blank in ms oh have drown this term and some case  put to prove it but I think it be very clear that the seize alone by he that  have the future interest do not extinguish the term no more than in the case  of a seignory rend or common which I before put it be true if such seize will  make a feoff or levy a fine the fee carry with it by way of extinguishment the  lesser lessors in mrs p estate to which he have but a right in a strong case  the principal case of the Lord Sheffield he that have a bare right to a entail  and a defeasible in the manuscript disseizible but see the argument of the  attorneygeneral in Hobart Q possession by treason forfeit both Bridgman oh  Bracebridges case be he lease to Griffith a manor for year to commence at  Michaelmas next Griffith assign this term to Joyce the wife of Bracebridge the  husband make a feoff before Michaelmas his wife survive after Michaelmas this  future term be extinct but in our case there be no act find do by the two  underwood the lessee but bare the seize which as I say before extinguish not  the estate but suspend it from rise during the time and the case put by my  brother archer be upon another ground lessee for year be oust and the  reversioner seize the Bridgman oh er p lessee release to the seize the term be  extinct though the disseizee reenter c c b a here the term as to the lessee be  lawful and by a lawful act transfer which be not in our case and it be extinct  only because of the incompatibility of it to stand with his great estate and  the case put by he out of partridge case Plowden query r by Montagu be speak  of construction a blank in the ms S if one have a right or title to land and  after he come to the possession of these land his right or title be extinct or  suspend in the land because for the time that he have the land it be not in be  and therefore for that time it can be term a right or title I agree it to be  law his right be extinguish not or in the manuscript t suspend but here it be  but suspend only so that as to this point I conclude that by the seize commit  by the lessee the underwood before their future interest commence not the  lease for eightyone year much less the lease for thirtyone year be turn to a  right and yet I conceive for the reason before neither the one nor the other  be grantable over the next thing therefore considerable be where the defendant  sir Edward Brabason one of the lessors after the commencement in point of time  of the eightyone year and before the commencement of the executory or future  term call it so if you please of thirtyone year do reenter and continue that  reentry receive all the profit what operation that have to purge the seize or  reduce the term or make they to be assignable by the underwood of the land  without entry or claim make upon the land and I conceive it clear they may be  assign admit as I have hold they be never turn to a right nay dato send non  concession that they have be turn to a right yet now by this reentry of sir  Edward Brabason it be reduce that both the one and the other may be assign  without a re Bridgman oh entry our question be only of the thirtyone year but  I hold the same though the contrary be admit at the bar of the eightyone year  to which there be a right of present possession that after the entry of sir  Edward Brabason though he continue the possession and receive the profit yet  both the eightyone year and thirtyone year be assignable without a reentry for  first it be to be take upon this verdict that both sir Edward and his father  the joint lessors be seize of a joint estate in fee no particular interest in  they to the contrary appear second that the lessors be seize though they have  not right to the perception of the profit if there have be no seize in the  case yet they may lawful enter to purge the seize in Podger case   and by the  authority therein cite where a lease for year be make and the lessee oust and  the reversioner seize the lessor though he have no right to the possession may  enter in the name of the lessee but in his own right to save his own interest  and the lessee a strong where be that have but the future interest disseize  the lessors they may enter to recontinue their right although the time be  incur before entry wherein the future term shall commence for other remedy  they have not to purge the seize for as I say before the lessee the underwood  they can waive their estate gain by seize and if a stranger shall seize they  this will not revest their estate for the second seize in modus come under the  former seize and shall be liable to his charge so long as the disseizins be in  force and this clear and as both the lessee may enter to that purpose so may  one of they for the law will construe it as the entry of both and either of  they be seize per tout a blank in the ms u have by law a power to do it it may  possible be object that sir Edward Brabason by his receive the profit show his  intent and admit he may enter to purge the seize yet have no right to the  profit he be a wrongdoer by receive they and so it be turn to a right as if  the lessor enter upon the lessee for year it be turn to a right in sir William  Elwys case Hobart b it be say of possessory thing a expulsion may be make  where there be no seize and therefore if the lessor put out the termor there  be no seize commit yet the lessee have lose his estate and have but a right to  it the principal case there be a man have a grant of three avoidances of a  advowson the grantor usurp upon the first avoidance it be adjudge that the  grantor have Bridgman oh er p thereby get all that he Bridgman oh grant out  and the grantee can present all the next term but my Lord coke be of a  contrary opinion and cite it so adjudge hill Elizabeth c that the grantee  shall present at the next avoidance for have the fee rightful he can make a  usurpation to gain a estate as also in respect of the privity he shall not put  the grantee out of possession for the two late avoidances and car c b mention  in Mr butler note to   Litt a n from Lord nottingham ms as leg v archer see  also vin S C leg v sir Anthony agree where it be say the court deny the case  of sir William Ellwayes and tailor to be law see also leg v archer in the  lansdown ms in the British museum No fol r sir Anthony archer case it be  adjudge that where the reversioner have usurp upon the lessee for year of a  advowson it do not take away the term and Hutton say that Elwys his case upon  a writ of error be compound be the law as it will as to the point of  usurpation yet it be clear the entry of the lessor upon the lessee of a term  turn it to a right though it or a descent upon it take not away the entry but  in our principal case when the lessor enter to purge the seize he do notbing  but what be lawful and so differ from the case where the lessor expulse he and  so he can not turn the eightyone year or thirtyone year to a right second the  lessee never have a possession lawful or by virtue of the term as in the case  before put nor can not while that estate gain by seize continue and therefore  that which they have not can not be divest in they three the entry of the  lessor do only remove a impediment and can have no other influence upon the  term and renoto hindrance the case then be as if there have be no seize and be  this that a term be grant to commence at a day to come the lessee enter not  after the day but the lessor continue in possession yet the lessee may grant  or assign his term and there needs not either entry or claim to continue it  more than in that other case or where a lease be make to begin present though  the lessor continue possession yet the grantee may grant it over as in case  the lord seize his tenant or the grantee of a rend the terretenant hindrance  renoto the disseizee be remove by the entry of the terretenant the seignory or  rend be revive without any claim and so here both the term for eightyone year  and thirtyone year be revive so then first I conceive that by the entry of the  lessee before the day both the eightyone year and thirtyone year become to be  unassignable but not turn to a right though Bridgman oh the lessors be seize  and next that by the entry of sir Edward Brabason one of the lessors the seize  be purge and consequent the interest of the lessee who be the disseizors be  reduce to what they shall have be if there have be no seize that be to be  interest assignable before entry but not to be interest in possession till  entry to bring a action of trespass and that the case be no more than if a  lease be make to commence at a day to come the lessors continue in possession  and receive the profit for three or four year yet the lessee may assign from  the ground though they can bring a action of trespass before entry and so the  assignment to Elizabeth Riplingham here off from the ground before entry be  good and she may also lease before entry to the plaintiff and the action upon  the ejectment be by he well bring and as to this conclusion all my brother  agree with I whatsoever variance may be in opinion touch some of the reason  thereof by I give I believe it be understand that though when the judge be  unanimous the chief justice deliver the opinion of the court yet the other  justice be not presume to adopt and concur with every doctrine that fall from  he in the course of that opinion Douglas on election introd p Edward S  Bridgman oh er p