atkins case Norton v FRECKER Hilary term a be seize of a church lease to he  and his heir during life by settlement before marriage limit it to the use of  himself for life and to the first and every other son in tail male a person  may take such estate so grant in fee determinable on life by way of remainder  as a special occupant Richard Norton be seize of the manor of Ixworth in the  county of Suffolk in feesimple and of a church lease in the manor of Alford in  Hampshire and a farm call lanham farm lie in the say manor to he and his heir  during three life grant by the bishop of Winchester Richard be so seize and  have issue one son Daniel intermarry with a daughter of Lord say and seal in  and by indenture date the first of march in that year settle all the premise  to the use of himself for life then as to the manor of Ixworth and lanham farm  to the use of his first and every other son in tail male remainder to his own  right heir and as to the manor of Alford to the use of such child or child of  the say marriage and for such estate as he shall by deed or will appoint and  for want of such appointment to the first and every other son in tail male  remainder to his own right heir there be several child of this marriage and  Richard be the old and upon his marriage with Elizabeth butler a indenture be  make by Richard the father date the d and that of Oct which recite that by the  marriagearticle previous to the marriage the son have agree to settle this  estate and thereupon Richard the father settle the premise in trust for  himself for life remainder to Richard the son for life and if he shall die  without issue male of his body then in trust for raise portion for daughter  remainder in trust for such use as Richard the young shall by his will or deed  direct and in default thereof in trust for such use as Richard the elder shall  appoint and for want of such appointment in trust for the heir executor and  administrator of Richard Norton the elder this deed be execute likewise by  Richard Norton the son atkins er p some time after Richard the father die in  Richard the son likewise die without issue and neither of they make any  appointment upon the death of Richard the son the heir at law of Richard the  father by the first venture who name be Richard likewise enter into those land  the plaintiff be grandson of old Richard by his second marriage and under the  deed of have nothing further be do will have be entitle to the premise in  atkins he apply to the heir at law of old Richard that the church lease may be  renew for the benefit of he and his son upon his pay the fine which be accord  grant and in Richard the heir at law deliver a deed to the plaintiff declare  the trust of this lease to be for himself for life remainder to the plaintiff  for life remainder to his old son in Richard the heir at law die and on his  death the plaintiff enter on the premise and now bring his bill against the  administrator with the will annex of Richard the heir at law in order to have  a account of the rend and profit the defendant by their answer insist on the  statute of limitation but that bar be now remove by a particular act of  parliament of the last session the question upon the whole be whether the  plaintiff be entitle to any relief Lord chancellor I be of opinion the  plaintiff be by virtue of the remainder limit to the first and other son in  the deed of entitle to the manor of Alford and lanham farm if nothing have be  do subsequent to that to bar his right in the case of Wasteneys and chapel bro  par can S c in the house of lord in it be determine that in respect to estate  thus grant in fee determinable on life a person may take by way of remainder  as a special occupant but that as such a estate tail be not within the statute  de gift nor barrable property by a recovery as a estate tail any limitation  depend thereupon be entire in the power of the first taker in tail and may be  destroy by any conveyance or even article in equity and be so determine in the  case of the duke of Grafton v Lord Euston in in which I be counsel myself p W  note SC so Forster v Forster post vol saltern v saltern post vol William v  Jekyl Ves black v black p W in note har   Litt a n the deed in amount to a  good disposition by Richard the young of all the interest claimable by he or  any other in remainder after he and clear so with regard to lanham farm the  tenant for life and the remainder man in tail of a interest vest have join in  the conveyance and limit the estate to other use and as to the manor of Alford  though no remainder be vest in Richard yet the father and son both join amount  to a good disposition of it I be likewise of opinion that the deed of will in  a court of equity operate as a execution of the power which old Richard have  of limit the use to his child by the deed of and so the use of the deed of be  destroy that way likewise and with regard to the transaction in there be no  evidence of any concealment or suppression of the plaintiff title the  plaintiff bill for a account of rend and profit be improper and premature the  possession never have be recover against Richard the defendant ancestor and in  this respect the proceed in equity be the same as at law where trespass will  not lie for mesne profit till the possession be re atkins cover by ejectment  that even suppose the court shall now have be of opinion that Richard the heir  at law of old Richard have no right and ought to be consider only as a trustee  for the plaintiff yet as he be in possession claim the estate as his own right  and insist on his own title this court can decree a account of rend and profit  without have any regard to the recovery of the possession see Curtis v Curtis  bro Charles Rep dorm v fortescue post vol the bill dismiss N B Lord chancellor  say in this case no executor be compellable either in law or equity to take  advantage of the statute of limitation against a demand otherwise well find  atkins er p