case lynch against spencer Hilary term Elizabeth roll a husband feoff a  stranger upon condition that he shall give the estate back to the husband and  wife in tail this be a estate tail within Henry c and if the wife demise for  life though without warranty or accept a fine sur conusance and thereby grant  and render it for year it be a discontinuance within the statute and the  conusee of the issue in tail with remainder in fee may enter for the  forfeiture although by a special verdict the issue be only find to he the son  of the donor I roll Abr and more   b   light dyer ante post cro James hendl  vern Leon blow cro car yely l wood a roll Abr dyer   Ent b more say the  opinion of the court be in favour of the queen croak Elizabeth er p con Bac ab  Com dig cruise on recov more   Leon and godb dyer yely   light cro James  cruise on recov roll Abr   more Leon dyer hob cro James a defect of find a  special verdict supply by intendment Cowp Doug term Rep Ejectionefirmce of a  lease of sir George brown upon not guilty a special verdict be find sir  Richard bridge be seize of this land in fee and thereof feoff one Winscomb and  other upon condition that they shall regrant it to he and his feme in tail  remainder to the right heir of sir r brown who regrant it accord sir r brown  and his feme have issue a brown their son Sh r brown die a brown levy a fine  with proclamation to sir g brown the lessor and his heir to the use of he and  his heir the mother afterward let it to the defendant for his life and die sir  G Brown afterward enter croak Elizabeth upon the defendant pretend his entry  to he congeable by the Henry c and let it to the plaintiff upon who the  defendant reenter and oust he et si c this be argue by Glanville and draw for  the plaintiff and by Savil and Kingsmill for the defendant first whether this  be a estate tail within the statute because they be donee by feoff as also for  that this gift vary from the condition for the condition be that the gift  shall he make by the advice of his counsel and it be not do by the advice of  his counsel second whether a lease for life only and hein without a warranty  he a discontinuance within the statute?Thirdly whether sir g brown he such a  person as may take advantage of this forfeiture by the word or equity of the  statute or if it he give only to the heir who have disable himself to take  advantage thereof by reason of this fine?And all the justice resolve clear for  the plaintiffAs to the first there be no great doubt but that it be a estate  tail within the statute for that gift by the feoff be give by the provision of  her husband and to make the gift in tail by the advice of his counsel be no  material part of the condition but be make unto he without advice of his  counsel it be we will enough second a lease for life without warranty be clear  a discontinuance within the intention of the statute for although the word be  that if the woman alien discontinue release or confirm with warranty c yet it  be not thereby intend that a warranty be requisite to all those act but it  shall refer to release or confirmation which otherwise without a warranty be  not any bar or discontinuance and therefore it be rule in the court of ware by  the advice of Wray and Anderson that where such a feme tenant in tail accept a  fine and thereby grant and render the land for year there be not any  discontinuance nor warranty and yet it be rule to he within the statute for  otherwise the statute shall he utter defraud and it be so rule by the advice  of all the other justice of England so every act which be a discontinuance of  itself although it he without warranty be within this statute three they also  all resolve although it he a new case and the more difficult that sir g brown  be a person who well may enter for the forfeiture within this statute for it  be clear that by this fine levy with proclamation by a brown be issue in tail  in the life of his mother the estate tail be bar thereby and it be quasi a  give of the estate tail to the conusee and at the leastwise the remainder in  fee pass by that fine to sir g brown so as he have the remainder at the time  of this discontinuance make and the tort be do unto he and then he be within  the word and intent of the statute to enter for the forfeiture for the statute  be that all discontinuances shall he void and that it shall he lawful for he  to who the reversion or remainder be to enter c so the word of the statute be  clear and it will he very hard to restrain the intent thereof that the entry  shall he give to the heir only and although the proviso be that it shall not  extend to alienation or discontinuances make by assent of the heir so therein  be intend that the statute do not give advantage to any but to the heir to who  the authority be give to assent croak Elizabeth will he unreasonable to tie  the general word croak Elizabeth er p by such a special proviso and this  assent may as well he give by he in reversion or remainder where there be not  a heir as well as by the heir and clear as this case be a brown who be heir  can enter for he give all his authority title and interest by his fine to sir  g brown whereby he be the person who ought to enter Anderson say that after  this fine levy the feme who wonder S in may well he say quasi tenant in tail  after possibility of issue for no issue of she can inherit and so it be where  baron and feme be tenant in special tail and the baron levy a fine with  proclamation and die have issue the feme enter she be quasi tenant in tail  after possibility c for no issue have by her can inherit the entail by reason  of that fine and so upon these reason they all resolve for the plaintiff a  objection be make that a b be not find to he son and heir of sir Richard  bridge and then his fine convey nothing to sir g brown and although e he find  to he son to sir Richard bridge and his wife that may he true if he he his  second son and so there be not a sufficient title find for the plaintiff but  all the court resolve that this be in a verdict be well enough for be find to  he son and none other find to he heir he may well he intend to he son and heir  of sir r bridge wherefore it be adjudge for the plaintiff vide