case ware against WALTHEW Hilary term James roll land give by deed of feoff to  a manservant in consideration of his faithful service and to a female cousin  of the donor in tail general a marriage be afterward solemnized between they  be not within the Henry c and therefore a alienation of they by the wife after  the death of her husband be not a forfeiture post if a woman with her second  husband alien to the issue who by fine convey it to another and after the  death of her husband the woman enter and avoid her alienation and then  discontinue neither the heir nor the conusee shall take advantage of the  forfeiture land appurtenant to a house pass by the word property a declaration  in ejectment for land in Coefield on a lease of land in little Sutton within  the manor of Colefield be support by a verdict find a seize of land therein  mention in Sutton Colefield vide cro car Copland v Wyatt where this cause be  cite et vide Plowd in throckmorton case for the plead in this point ejectment  of a message and fifteen acre of land four acre of meadow and fifty of pasture  in Sutton Coefield of a demise of Edward Willoughby for three year upon not  guilty plead the jury find a special verdict that John bishop of Exeter be  seize in fee de infra scribe messuag et property hic postea mentionat in  Sutton Colefield in the county of Warwick videlicet de infra script messuag  peremptory or urgent call Marlepithall ac de close peremptory or urgent call  Barbiclose c continent sharp prati et pasture who are et tempore quo c croak  throw to be parcel tenementi infra script et such seisitus tam pro good  slavery do by Nicholas turnor his domestic servant as for diverse other  consideration he move the April Henry devoted to tenement that to the say  Nicholas turnor and one syble Yardley his cousin by charter of feoff which be  find in haec word omnibus c to know I a saying beforehand bishop tam pro good  et faithful slavery I per Nicholaum turnor household member meum per more aged  lapse it is better how pro to visit other cause et gaze of looking movent to  hand over et confirmasse a saying beforehand Nicholas et sibyllae Yardley  kinsman I One tenement recently in tenure Willi tailor in little Sutton infra  dominium de Sutton Colefield cum omnibus terr et tenement eiden tenement  spectant nor One cottag Nup in tenur John Burling cum omnibus croftis terr et  tenement eiden pertinent habendum et tenendum dict tenement et collag cum  omnibus the dawn pertinent say beforehand advance nicho et sibyllae et heir de  substantial object nest procreate and it be find that the say message and  close be inter alian cognitan by the name of a tenement and occupy under the  rend of fifteen shilling and that the say Nicholas turnor be then servant to  the bishop and the say syble be his cousin and that a marriage a see Elizabeth  c croak James er p be then intend to be solemnized betwixt the say Nicholas  turnor and syble which be have accord and they have issue John turnor and  William turnor but afterward Nicholas turnor die syble survive take to husband  Francis Clapham they the Elizabeth feoff the say John turnor afterward Francis  Clapham die syble reenter and after John turnor levy a fine of those tenement  sur conusans de law come Ceo c to the defendant syble afterward in Elizabeth  feoff of those tenement the say William turnor her second son John turnor  enter and in Elizabeth feoff the defendant and afterward one Richard smith  cousin and heir of the say bishop enter and in Elizabeth let to the defendant  for year William turnor enter upon he and feoff Edward Willoughby lessor to  the plaintiff who enter and let to the plaintiff upon who the defendant enter  the first question be whether this gift in this manner be a gift within the  statute of Henry c for if it be a jointure within that statute and as purchase  by the husband then this feoff by syble to her second son be a forfeiture  whereof the old son and his conusee may take advantage and it be resolve that  it be not a jointure within the statute aforesaid for it be not a gift by the  husband nor by the ancestor of the husband and the consideration of the  service of the husband be not say to be such a purchase as the law intend for  it be no consideration which be recite in the king patent if it be false will  make it ill as it have be adjudge and it be not so valuable as that the law  will intend it to be the purchase of the husband but a voluntary gift of the  bishop and although the deed be for diverse other consideration there be no  other express or name therein that general cause shall not alter the case as  it be hold in mildmay case   a also the croak throw name syble his cousin in  the deed be not material because it do not appear to be any consideration of  the deed but be by way of addition to her name yet in regard it be find in  fact that she be his cousin and that there be a marriage intend between they  at the time of the gift which afterward take effect it shall be intend to be  as well the cause of the gift as the service of the husband also if it shall  be construe the purchase of the husband vet Tanfield say that that can be but  for the moiety at most for they take by moieties be purchaser before the  coverture so for the moiety the wife can be a jointress within the statute and  so it be resolve Elizabeth in the court of ware in one Edmund case where the  father give land to his son and to a woman who he intend to marry in tail they  intermarry and have issue the husband die the wife survive alien that it be a  forfeiture but for the moiety but William deny it to be law and say that in  such case it be a forfeiture for the entire second it be resolve admit it be a  jointure within the statute of Henry c yet as this case be neither the heir  nor the conusee shall take advantage of the forfeiture by the alienation to  the young son for when the heir be feoff by the second husband and the wife  and afterward the husband die and the wife enter she defeat that estate and  when the heir levy a fine to the defendant that fine give no interest but only  by estoppel because the heir have nothing at the time of the fine nor the  conusee yet the heir have give his right to the entail and conclude himself  that he can enter and the conusee can enter because he have nothing but by  estoppel and no reversion and therefore there be difference between this case  and that of sir George brown there the heir in tail have a reversion in fee  expectant and by his fine give that reversion to the conusee so he have the  reversion of the estate of the conusee and may well enter in respect of the  prejudice but he have not so in this case three it be move whether by this  habendum the land appurtenant to the message pass or not?And they resolve that  it do by the name of property fourthly it be move that this verdict do not  maintain the declaration for the declaration be of land in Sutton Coefield and  the verdict find the seize of land in Sutton Colefield and the deed be of land  in parvan Sutton infra dominium de Sutton Colefield so neither the verdict nor  deed agree with the declaration for the will where the land lie therefore no  judgement ought to be give but all the court resolve that the verdict find  seize de infra script messuag c that be quasi a express averment and find that  Sutton Coefield and Sutton Colefield et little croak James er p Sutton infra  croak throw dominium de Sutton Colefield be all one and that they be all in  one parish and that Sutton Colefield be a hamlet within the parish of Sutton  Coefield and this be in a verdict when the jury find quod devoted to property  infra scribe by name in the deed shall be intend all one and so it appear be  the intent of the juror wherefore it be adjudge for the plaintiff