case Dalston versus coatsworth at the roll Eq can ab pl where a deed or will  be suppress by the heir the party claim under such deed or will decree to hold  and enjoy and the heir or suppressor of the deed c convey the plaintiff bring  a bill for relief against the suppression of a deed by which the plaintiff  uncle have settle a term in such a manner as that after his and be wife peer  William er p death which wife be the defendant without issue the same be to  come to the plaintiff for the residue of the term the plaintiff uncle be dead  without issue and the defendant the wife have burn the deed the defendant by  her answer but faint deny it videlicet that she do not remember she ever burn  or destroy the say deed the witness swear the limitation of the settlement to  be in trust for the husband for life remainder to the defendant his wife for  life remainder to the heir of their body by one witness remainder to the issue  of their body by another and for want of issue by the defendant and her  husband remainder to the plaintiff object for the defendant that the  limitation of the trust of the term be to the heir of the body of the  defendant and her husband or to the issue of the body of the defendant and her  husband remainder over to the plaintiff such a remainder peer William over of  the trust of the term be void in law and therefore suppose the deed to have be  suppress yet it can not be it to be admit profit the plaintiff or make he any  title but by the master of the roll it be true where a term be limit to a man  and wife for their life remainder to the heir of their body and for want of  such issue remainder over this remainder over be but of a term be void but on  the other side a term may be limit in the follow manner videlicet to trustee  in trust for the husband and wife for their life and afterward for their child  or for their issue and for want of such child or issue live at the death of  the say husband and wife then to go over to the plaintiff and such limitation  be good vide Stanley v leigh post Vol two now since a term may be limit in  such manner I will intend it to have be so limit in the present case for every  thing shall be presume in odium spoliator vide vern then his honour consider  in what manner the decree shall be pronounce and he cite the case in hob more  the king and Lord Hunsdon v countess dowager of Arundel where the king and his  farmer under he claim title by the attainder of Francis Dacres who attaint of  high treason and be suppose to be tenant in tail by virtue of a deed not  extant but vehement suspect to be suppress and with hold by some under who the  defendant claim and therefore it be decree by the then Lord chancellor Lord  Ellesmere with the assistance of the two chief law ice coke and Hobart that  the king and his farmer under he shall hold the land until the defendant  produce the deed and the court make far order thereon his honour say that sir  John Trevor peer William his predecessor have order this decree to be search  for the term be mention in the report but it can not then be find however that  he himself have since order far search to be make have find the same under the  name of Hobart attorneygeneral v l see also this case particular state in the  case of Cowper v Lord Cowper Vol ill so that now any person may have access to  the say decree that the next case of this nature be that of Sanson v Rumsey  townclerk of Bristol vern where the defendant Rumsey have article to give a  portion to Sanson with his daughter and the defendant have the deed in his  custody the plaintiff sue for the portion and set forth the purport of the  article by his bill the defendant pretend in his answer that the article do  vary from what the bill set forth and afterward burn the article all which be  make to appear he be commit and continue under confinement till he have admit  the article to be as the bill have set they forth which commitment be only by  a interlocutory order and the cause never hear the next be that of Hampden v  Hampden hear the that of December where the plaintiff claim as devisee under  the defendant father will by proof it appear that there be such a will though  no exact account be give of the content thereof but inasmuch as the court be  satisfy the defendant have suppress the will and for that though no exact  proof be make of the content the defendant may clear this by produce the will  therefore it be decree that the plaintiff the devisee shall hold and enjoy  until the defendant produce the will and far order this cause be first decree  by the late plaster of the roll then affirm by the Lord chancellor on appeal  and afterward by the house of lord bro p c and Edward bro p c peer William er  p peer William the last case be that of Woodroff and Burton February and be  thus a devisee bring his bill against the heir and it be make to appear that  there be such a will as the plaintiff have suggest and that the defendant have  destroy it the Lord chancellor Parker decree the defendant to convey the  premise to the plaintiff in fee and to deliver up the possession which his  honour say seem to he to be the most effectual and reasonable decree but in  the principal case the court say there can be no decree for the possession nor  any present conveyance to the plaintiff it be only a remainder of a term after  the defendant death but let the defendant assign over the term to trustee in  trust for herself for life and afterward for the plaintiff and let her bring  the deed relate to the title into court and pay cost Reg lib a fol enter of  easter term Bates v hear I dick Eyton v Eyton vern Toml p c Kenrick v Hudson  ib coke v hellier ves sen bowl v Stewart Sch l