CCCCXXIX Maidwell and andrews case covenant traverse Maidwell bring a action  of covenant against Andrews and the case be this that r be seize of land and  lease the same for life render rend and afterward devise the reversion to his  wife for life and die Andrews the defendant take to wife the wife of the  devisor the devisee of the reversion afterward Andrews Leonard er p bargain  and sell the say reversion to one Marland and his heir during his own life and  afterward grant the rend to the plaintiff and covenant that the plaintiff  shall enjoy the say rend during his term without to some place fixed by law  impediment of the say Andrews his heir or assign or any other person claim  from the say Marland Marland die seize and the same descend to b his heir and  the breach of the covenant be assign in this I in the heir of Marland who have  the rend by reason of the grant of the reversion to Marland ut above the  defendant plead the grant of the reversion to Marland per scribe without say  seal his adorned with small figures hic in curian lengthen without hoc that  the say reversion and rend descend to b and thereupon the plaintiff do  demurrer in law and the cause of the demurrer be assign by Yelverton sergeant  the grant of Leonard the reversion be plead per scribe and he do not say  adorned with small figures f or a reversion can pass without deed although it  be grant but for year and a bare write be not a deed without seal of it and  therefore the plead ought to be per scribe suum adorned with small figures or  per factum suum for factum suum imply the ensealing and delivery it ought to  be plead hic in cur lengthen for the court be to see such deed to the end they  may know if it be a lawful deed without razure interlining or other defect the  defendant have traverse the descent where he ought to have traverse the die  seize for of every thing descendable the die seize be the substance and the  descent be but the effect wonder and although the grant of the reversion be  but for the life of the grantor yet the estate grant be descendable as e  tenant by the courtesy leas his estate to one and his heir the grantor die his  heir enter and a good bar against he in the reversion and see e action annuity  grant to one and his heir for the term of adother man life the grantor die  live beneficiary and vie the heir of the grantor bring a writ of annuity and  it be hold maintainable and he say that where the die seize be confess and  avoid by the other side there the descent be traversable and not the die seize  and that be the case betwixt Vernon and grey in a avowry Vernon convey the  land from the Lord Powes to he as next heir to he because the Lord Powes die  seize in his demesne as of fee without issue and the plaintiff convey from the  say Lord Powes by devise and traverse the descent to the avowant for the die  seize be confess and avoid by the devise Elizabeth dyer see h in trespass the  defendant say that t be seize and die seize and that the land descend to he as  son and heir and that he enter the plaintiff say that t be seize and take to  wife king and they have issue the plaintiff and die seize and the land descend  to he and traverse the descent to the defendant and see sir William Merings  case h but if the party do not claim by one and the same person or the die  seize be not confess and avoid there the die seize shall betraversed and not  the descent Glanville sergeant be the bar insufficient or not if the  declaration be not sufficient the plaintiff shall not have judgement and here  be not any breach of covenant videlicet that the plaintiff shall enjoy it  without any lawful impediment of the defendant his heir or assign or any claim  by Marland and then if the heir of Marland can make any lawful claim then  there be not any breach of covenant assign and he say because it be not show  that the land be not hold in socage the devise be not good for it may be that  the land be hold in capite but admit the devise good that when Andrews bargain  and sell unto Marland and the tenant never attorns then nothing passes and  then the heir of Marland can make any lawful claim or lawful impediment periam  justice here Marland be assignee of Andrews and if be or his heir make claim  although that the assignment be not sufficient in law yet because be have  colour by this assignment his claim be lawful and so there be a breach of the  covenant and although it be not allege that the land devise be hold in socage  yet the devise be good for two part of the land Anderson justice if it be good  but for two part then be the reversion apportion and the rend destroy and so  Marland have not any rend by his purchase of the reversion and so he cant  lawful disturb the plaintiff the law do create his apportionment which grow by  the devise and therefore the rend shall not be destroy but if it have be do by  the act of the party it have be otherwise and I will Willing hear if the heir  of Marland be assignee of Andrews for otherwise be be not within the word of  the covenant for Marland have a estate to he and his heir for the life of  another Leonard now after Leonard er p the death of Marland his heir be a  special occupant and vide h Elizabeth rot in the common plea such a heir shall  not have his age cro pasch Elizabeth in the common plead