case low v BURRON Lord chancellor Talbot Eq can ab pl a estate pur autre vie  may be limit to a in tail remainder to b for this be only a description who  shall take as special occupant during the life of beneficiary and vie the bill  be for a account of the rend and profit of diverse message and land in  Warrington in Lancashire on this ease John casson seize of a estate for three  life in the premise by his will date the that of January devise they to his  daughter mary mollineux for life remainder to her issue male and for want of  such remainder to one low under who the plaintiff claim mary mollineux by  lease and release convey the premise in consideration of her marriage with  Edward Burron to the use of herself and her intend husband and the heir of  their body remainder to the heir of her husband Burron in mary die peer  William er p without issue and the plaintiff claim under the person in  remainder now bring this bill for a account of the rend and profit the  question be first one have a estate for three life and devise it to a entail  remainder to b whether peer William this remainder be good second suppose it  to be good whether a by such lease and release can bar it as to the first it  be say and so agree by the court that the limitation of a estate pur autre vie  to a and the heir of his body make no estate tail in a for all estate tail be  estate of inheritance to which dower be incident and must be within the  statute de gift whereas in this kind of estate which be no inheritance there  can be no dower neither be it within the statute but a descendable freehold  only also the Lord chancellor hold plain that this be a good remainder to b on  a S death without issue finch v Tucker vern it be no more than a description  who shall take as special occupant during the life of these three beneficiary  and vie see chaplin v chaplin post as if the grantor have say peer William  instead of a wander right of general occupancy I do appoint that after the  death of a the grantee they who shall happen to be heir of the body of a shall  be special occupant of the premise and if there shall be no issue of the body  of a then b and his heir shall be the special occupant thereof and that here  can be no danger of a perpetuity for all these estate will determine on the  expiration of the three life peer William so if instead of three there have be  twenty life all spend at the same time all the candle light up at once it will  have be good for in effect it be only for one life videlicet that which shall  happen to be the survivor for which reason it be very improper to call this a  estate tail since at that rate it will not be liable to a forfeiture or  punishable for waste the contrary whereof be true   roll Abr Inst dly the Lord  chancellor say that though by a lease or by a lease and release a may bar the  heir of his body as in some respect claim under he yet he incline to think a  can not bar the remainder over to b who be in the nature of a purchaser and  will be no way subject to the encumbrance of a any more than if the estate pur  autre vie have be limit to a for life remainder to b for life in which case  plaint a can not bar b especial by this conveyance of lease and release which  never transfer more than may lawful pass whereas the convey away or bar the  remainder limit to b admit it to have be a good remainder be do a wrong to b  and deprive he of a estate which be before lawful vest in he nay indeed it  seem to he as if no act which a can do will be capable of bar this limitation  over to b in regard there can be no common recovery suffer thereof it be only  a estate for life and his lordship say that this as he remember be determine  in the peer William case of sir Hardolph Wasteneys in the house of lord upon a  appeal from this court but notwithstanding all this yet it appear that the  right of the plaintiff and of those under who he claim have accrue so long  since as the year now near thirty year ago during all which time the peer  William defendant possession have be unmolested and the statute of limitation  be plead though it be urge that the plaintiff have not the lease in his  possession and that the defendant in his plea have set forth that the lease  have be renew and though it be moreover insist that however the plaintiff may  be disable from bring a ejectment he may yet bring a bill in equity the Lord  chancellor declare he will grant no relief in the case of so stale a demand  and therefore allow the plea Reg lib b fol for which reason it have be  determine that where a lease for three life have be grant to a man and his  heir and such grantee die leave a infant heir the parole shall not demurrer by  the Lord Talbot in another branch of the cause of chaplin v chaplin that July  vide post the objection against this remainder be good be for that when the  lessee have devise the premise in tail he then have nothing leave in he but a  possibility which he can not devise or limit over as if a man be seize in  feesimple and at commonlaw have grant land to one and the heir of his body  this be a conditional fee and forasmuch as the donor have only a possibility  of reverter he can not limit it over now if at commonlaw a estate in fee can  not be limit over after a estate give to one and the heir of his body much  less shall a estate for three life be limit over after such a failure of issue  and as to the notion that in this kind of limitation the heir of the body of a  take only as special occupant and that a man may name as many special peer  William er p occupant as he please by the same reason it may be argue that  this estate for life may be limit to a and his heir and if a die without heir  then to b and his heir which certain will be a void limitation to b and in  presumption of law the continuance of the issue of a man body may be for ever  from whence it shall seem that after the lessee for three life have grant or  devise the premise to a and the heir of his body he the lessee have nothing  but a possibility which he can grant or limit over note this appear from the  reporter ms to have be the opinion of Mr web a eminent conveyancer late of the  Inner temple however the law be settle as above it be observable that at law  there can be no general occupant of a rend as if I have grant a rend to a for  the life of b and a have die live b the rend will have determine roll Abr salk  but there may have be a special occupant of a rend as if I have grant a rend  to a and his heir for the life of b and a have die live b and leave a heir  such heir will have be a special occupant yet if a man have grant a rend to a  his executor and assign during the life of b and afterward the grantee have  die leave a executor but no assignee the executor shall not have have the rend  in regard it be a freehold the same can not descend to a executor more roll  Abr car sir Richard butler et all v Chiverton agree and admit by Jones justice  et cur and by the counsel on both side that the rend be extinct though there  seem to have be no sound reason for this distinction but as to rend grant pur  autre vie the statute of fraud and perjury have make a alteration for by that  statute any estate pur autre vie be make devisable and if not devise away  shall be asset in the hand of the heir if limit to that heir if not limit to  the heir it shall go to the executor or administrator of the grantee and be  asset in their hand so that if since that statute a rend be grantee to a for  the life of b and a die live b a s executor or administrator shall have it  during the life of b for the statute be not only make to prevent the  inconvenience of scramble for estate and get the first possession after the  death of the grantee but likewise for preserve and continue the estate during  the life of the beneficiary and I and it be reasonable since the grantee may  by deed have dispose of the rend during the life of the beneficiary and vie  that though by his die without have make any such disposition in nicety of law  this estate will have determine yet by the statute that interest which pass  from the grantor ought to be preserve and shall go to the executor or  administrator of the grant during the life of the cestuique vie and the  statute in this case do not enlarge but only preserve the estate of the  grantee by the Lord keeper Harcourt in the case of Rawlinson v the duchess of  Montague et all that December though this be not the principal point Wastneys  v chapel bro p c but it seem now that any alienation by the quasi tenant in  tail will be sufficient to bar the remainderman although if no such act be do  the remainderman will still take as special occupant baker v Bayley vern  Norton v Frecker atk Forster v Forster atk saltern v saltern atk William v  Jekyll ves black v black Cox black v Luxton t r coop Sch Lef ex part stern Ves  Ripley v Waterworth Ves Campbell v Sandys Sch Lef grey v mammock Eden Dillon v  Dillon ba be and in the above case it be decide that a disposition by will do  not bar the remainder the follow case have be take from the register book the  late earl of Arlington devise in it all a leasehold estate be the manor of  Tottenham alias Tottenham court in Middlesex and hold for three life of the  cathedral church of saint Paul London to the duchess of Grafton his only issue  for life remainder to the duke of Grafton for life remainder to the first and  every other son of the duke by the duchess in tail male remainder to the heir  female of the duke by the duchess in tail remainder to the right heir of the  duchess afterward in the say lease be renew agreeable to the above limitation  the duke of Grafton die and his son the present duke bring his bill pray that  the leasehold premise some of the life whereby the same be hold be drop may be  renew and settle on the duchess for life remainder to the plaintiff the duke  and his heir for that otherwise it will tend to a perpetuity the Lord Euston  the duke be old son be then a infant of seven year of age and the cause be  hear the d of August the court conceive that they can not do it till a fine  sur to go away have be levy by the plaintiff the peer William er p duke of  Grafton and the defendant sir Thomas Hanmer who have marry the duchess and the  duchess of Grafton and the matter be refer to a master and it coin on  afterward saint December on the report by which it appear that a fine have be  levy and that the master have settle a lease and release be a assignment of  the lease of to new trustee thereupon the Lord chancellor Macclesfield order  that the say lease and release shall be execute and that the new lease shall  be to these new trustee in trust for the duchess for life remainder to the  plaintiff the duke and his heir during the life in the lease duke of Grafton v  Hanmer and indeed it seem reasonable that the first tenant in tail improper so  call shall be allow to bar the limitation over for though the original estate  be only for three life yet it be the interest of both landlord and tenant that  the lease shall be renew and it be the doctrine of the court of chancery that  all such new lease be subject to the old trust the estate may by this mean  continue for ever without any possibility of be bar see also baker v Bailey  vein