carpenter and smith ante Polixphen for the plaintiff in banc king on special  verdict by which jane cappel be find tenant for life the reversion of part to  John p William be seize in fee of other part and convey to the use of himself  for life the remainder to John in fee and if be die in life of William then to  the heir of William and first he conclude the fee limit to John and if he die  that it descend to the next heir of William do not make any alteration in the  estate of John be no condition at commonlaw nor no conditional limitation by  way of use the first must be by express intendment as   light in a feoff si to  touch make no condition unless the estate be si non but per curian these word  always in a use make a conditional limitation and car the earl of ken and its  all one as a limitation till marriage and if marriage then over which be good  enough so John estate be out of door John and mary die before William as to  William its as a fine levy to the use of conusor for life the remainder to his  heir and the heir of that heir which be sufficient word of purchase on cro  archer case also the contingent use of the fee Keble simple be a abeyance as  Cr Chudlies case dyer more as the fee will have be at commonlaw and the use in  abeiance be not execute by the statute so the particular estate of William be  not destroy by accession of the inheritance because first no feesimple resort  to William for by the fine the whole feesimple be in the conusees and can not  come out but by the statute of use and the use for life be execute in William  and the rest in abeyance do not draw any estate out of the conusees nor do it  resort by implication or construction but by a future use as to the last will  or after the death of I S the estate remain untouched in the conusor as in cro  Leonard Lord paget case until the futurity come in be every owner have the  estate and use distinct and may convey one and retain the other and where no  present disposition be make the estate remain not by reflection but by the old  estate as feoff to the use of the feoff remainder to I S in tail the remainder  to the heir of the feoff be a void remainder to the feoff so cro Fenwich  Mitford hinder not the case in question which be by way of contingent use and  at the commonlaw though the intent be never so plain no use will rise but by  express word roll Nevil case and   Corbets case Cr Seagood Holmes also here be  no intent any use shall resort to the conusor nor can there be two use on foot  together in be   light and here the use to the heir and the heir of the heir  be a use in be though in abeiance as the freehold on occupancy so there can be  any other use to William and his heir but per curian this be labour in vain as  in first resolution   in Lewis bowl use the use must be somewhere therefore do  revert but this fee in William be but by construction of law which shall never  prejudice any other estate which the merger here must do and   Lewis bowl case  therefore shall not be merge also the lease and release by William after do  not destroy the estate of will though a feoff will as   archer case for as    Keble er p Seymors case lease and release destroy no estate nor passes no more  then he may without prejudice to other but as the releasors estate be subject  to the contingency so be the releasees as   Bredons case where if the conusee  have least and release to I S he will have have no great estate than the  conusor have the future use of that part whereof jane Capel be tenant for life  by the fine of William after her death on winch bukle simons case and weal low  case in chancery cro pound cro be not Keble destroy by destroy the particular  estate of William because it depend not thereon and the conusees can destroy  it nor be it disturb here be no dissessin feoff or alienation without notice  as   Chudlies case dyer nor turn any use to a right nor the estate of the  feoff displace as by the release of William nothing have be divest out of  feoff before the statute nor since levins for the defendant the estate that  William take be for life express of what be in possession and by implication  for life of what be in reversion and Inst no matter whether it be the old or  new use and this be Fenwick and Mitfords case more pl Cr and Leonard and so it  be hold in Bipus and Mitfords case and Leonard pl Leon pl also the estate  limit to John be a base fee and another fee over upon contingent spring use Cr  Bolton the estate in William on this limitation to the heir of John and his  heir do revest in William notwithstanding   archer case which be to the heir  of the body of the son as roll and not to the heir general so   shellies case  and roll be a limitation over as here which revert but the court deny this the  lease and release admit the heir a purchaser do destroy the contingent use the  privity   be destroy and no possession remain to support the use roll Wig and  Villars the same with the Lord cook case Godbolt pl a grant of a reversion be  hold to destroy but that it recite the particular limitation and more pl Cr  Winston and Bouls case a lease for year destroy the execution of the use and  though it do not destroy yet this release do binder the rise of the use till  the feoff reenter to revest it for till William die the whole estate be  transfer and the feoff be not seize nor can not enter nor be privy hale chief  justice say the plaintiff can not have judgement in title only to the late  part unless he have title to all its plain the limitation to William be a good  contingent take effect within the compass of one life videlicet if John die  William live also the heir pasch Pausly and Lowdal and pasch James Egertons  case be adjudge a purchase but if it have be proximo heir or to the heir of  William without go over the heir be the root and nothing be in the ancestor  also on   Lewis bowl case the use Keble in abeyance be not in feoff nor in  frown because there be no body to take it therefore must report back to  William the lease and release though it do not divest the remainder yet it  confound the particular estate which do as much destroy the contingent as a  surrender of the tenant for life before the contingent happen however the  particular estate fall by death or otherwise the contingent be destroy  otherwise many settlement will be shake on this reason Cr Pigot and smith fine  by the tenant for life and be in remainder destroy all contingent but bargain  and sale by a bare tenant for life will not destroy as to the other part it  depend not by way of remainder nor arise out of the estate of William as  fenwick case be but as car earl of ken case and Ventris case this be a future  contingent use that can not be destroy by feoff of William nor do his lease  and release suspend it because as sir Edward cook case Godbolt it do do appear  that this be upon valuable consideration nor no notice so be by grant a  feesimple passes determinable when the contingent happen Twisden justice  conceive the lease and release do not destroy the contingent in regard the  same privity remain the release be without valuable consideration and the  freehold be not disturb which by wile be agree where the use be in gross as  upon janes part but contra where the use be on contingent remainder as in  William part as on conveyance by a to b for life the remainder to the next  heir or first son of b and his heir till b have a son the use return to a and  by surrender of b the contingent be destroy and garret and Blizards case it  Keble er p be agree that by a confound of the estate for life though the seize  be not disturb the contingent be go so hale chief justice and wile be contra  Twisden Adjornatur