case badge vers Floyd a remainder limit to take effect if and when former  limitation cease be not contingent but vest ld raym SC salk SC vin Abr title  remainder W pl more   a raym pale yellow Eq Rep Eq Abr SC I burr Fearns c r  that edition to p p wms t Jones the case be this John Floyd seize of the land  in question in fee upon the marriage of his son settle it to the use of  himself for life afterward to the use of John his son for ninetynine year if  be so long live afterward to the first second three and four issue of John the  son in tail mail remainder to the heir male of the body of John the son  remainder to John the father and the heir male of his body remainder to the  right heir of John the father afterward John Floyd the father make his will  and thereby devise be have issue John the son by one venture and three son by  another venture videlicet Thomas Paul and Peter that the same land after the  death of John his son without issue male shall go to Thomas his son and the  heir male of his body and if Thomas shall die without heir male of his body to  Paul and the heir male of his body and if Paul shall die without heir male of  his body his brother then not be live then to Peter and the heir male of his  body then take notice that he will have the estate continue in his name and  posterity but if there shall be no heir male then he limit it to the heir  female c in the year Paul die without issue in the year Thomas die and leaves  issue under who the defendant claim in the year Peter die have issue the  lessor of the plaintiff in the year John die without issue but have first  suffer a recovery to the same comens use as be limit by the will this seem to  be the effect and substance of the case in which the question be between the  son of Peter the lessor of the plaintiff and the assignee under Thomas and  holt c j give judgement for the plaintiff and deliver the opinion of the whole  court for the plaintiff and the first question be whether the remainder limit  to Peter be a contingent remainder or a remainder vest if it be a contingent  remainder judgement will have be for the defendant and it be object from the  bar that the remainder to Peter be contingent for that the word limit it to he  after the death of Paul without issue male his brother then not be live so  that Peter be not to have the land if his brother be live when Paul die  without issue but the court hold this to be a remainder vest for the word his  brother then not be live be no more than a repetition of what be before  express the devise be to Thomas and the heir male of his body then to Paul and  the heir male of his body then to Peter and the heir male of his body so that  Peter can not take if his brother be live for Thomas and Paul must be dead  before the estate can come to Peter then though it be express in direct term  that Peter shall not have the estate but only after the death of Paul without  issue his brother then not be live which be imply for the estate of Thomas and  Paul can not be determine during the time that they be live such expression or  repetition of word which be contain in the prior limitation shall not make the  remainder to Peter to be contingent then suppose the remainder to Peter be  upon a contingency when Paul die without issue male his brother then not be  live the contingency will have happen and the estate of Peter ought then to  vest but put the case that Thomas have die leave a son and Paul have then die  without issue the brother of Peter then not be live if such construction be  make that the estate of Peter then will have vest violence will be do to the  first word of the will which give a estate to Thomas and the heir male of his  body but the estate of Thomas do not determine during the life of his son and  yet the estate of Peter commence in the life of the son of comens Thomas if it  be to commence when the contingency happen so as to make the estate of Peter  to commence upon a contingency this will contradict the express limitation and  word in the former part of the will beside the intent of the testator appear  to be that the estate comens er p shall continue in his name and posterity and  by such construction as make this to be a contingent remainder it may happen  that the heir female who be not of the name of the devisor may inherit before  the heir male be extinct for the limitation be to the heir female in the last  clause of the will as pub the case Peter have a son and a daughter Paul die  without issue Thomas survive who afterward die without issue here the  contingency do not happen for Thomas be alive when Paul die without issue and  so the limitation to Peter and his heir male will never take effect contrary  to the express intent of the devisor and holt c j cite cro car Spalding and  Spalding which be a express authority in point there a man have three son and  devise land to John and the heir of his body after the death of a and other  land to William and the heir of his body and other land to Thomas and the heir  of his body and if John die during the life of a then his land to go to  William c John do die in the lifetime of a but leave a son of his body and it  be resolve that William shall not have the land because John do not die  without issue for by the limitation to the other son it appear that the  devisor intend a estate tail to all of they and it be not to be construe a  contingent remainder or limitationto John to abridge the express limitation to  he of a estatetail so when a man devise his house after the death of his wife  to his son then as follow and if my three daughter and either of they overlive  their mother and brother and his heir then they to have it and after they I W  and r W c and whether this be a contingent estate and whether it be perform  two of the daughter die in the lifetime of their brother be the question and  it be resolve that this be no limitation contingent but show when it shall  commence cro roll Rep SC bridge SC roll Abr Bulst SC more pl SC fearne con Rem  that edit p infra p a comens but a objection be make by wright sergeant that  here be a executory devise to Thomas and his heir male to commence after the  death of John without issue male and therefore it be void for the limitation  make by the testator be this after the death of my son John without heir male  of his body I give the say land to Thomas and the heir male of his body c so  that Thomas can have no estate until John be dead without issue male and it be  agree by the court that if a man seize in fee in possession devise his land to  another after the death of a without issue it be a void devise for the law  will never expect such a remote contingency as the death of another without  issue and therefore the devise upon such a contingency be void but here be not  a executory but a present devise for John Floyd the father be seize in fee of  the reversion after the death of John his son without issue male which  reversion he have power to dispose of by his will then as he devise that to  Thomas and the heir male of his body after the death of John without issue  male such devise be a immediate devise which be then vest in the devisee and  the word after the death of my son John without heir male of his body only  show when the devise shall take effect in possession and he compare it to the  case   a a lease be make for ninetynine year if the lessee so long live and  afterward the lessor grant the land demise to another for life habendum after  the death surrender or forfeiture of the lessee this be adjudge a good grant  for life and the habendum only show when it be to come into possession it be  also object by wright see to go that here John Floyd the father have but a  estate tail and so can not make a devise of it for by the marriage settlement  the estate be limit to John the elder for life then to John the son for  ninetynine year determinable on his life then to the first second and three  son of John the son in tail male then to John the son and the heir male of his  body remainder to John the father and the heir male of his body remainder to  the right heir of John the father so John the father be seize for life with a  remainder to he ill tail male comens the remainder to he in fee and by  consequence the devise make by he be void and it be agree by the court that if  John the father have no more than a remainder in fee his devise will be void  for he will have give no estate by the will but what the devisees will have  have by force of the estatetail for upon the death of John the son without  issue male by force of the estate limit to John the father in tail male the  land will descend to Thomas and the heir male of his body then to Paul and the  heir male of his body then to Peter and the heir male of be body in the same  manner as it be devise to they and afterward to the heir comens er p general  of the devisor then they will not have take by the will but by descent but in  this case John the father have not the fee in he by way of remainder but it be  in he as his old reversion then as he devise that to Thomas and the heir male  of his body Thomas have a estatetail horse the reversion for when a man create  a estatetail the tenant in tail hold of he in the reversion who hold of the  lord paramount and therefore after this devise John the son shall bold of  Thomas to who the reversion be devise and if the lord avow he ought to avow  upon Thomas as his true tenant and not upon John and for the reason that the  devisor have the reversion in he and not the remainder the devise be good and  this diversity between a reversion and remainder be agree   a if there be  tenant in tail remainder in tail and he in the remainder grant his estate  during the life of the tenant in tail the grant be void for his grantee can  have any benefit by it but if there be tenant in tail reversion in fee and he  in the reversion grant his estate during the life of the tenant in tail this  be good for the grantee shall have the service which the tenant in tail ought  to perform but if the will can not stand with the rule of law the recovery  suffer by John the son be to the same use as the devise will make the estate  good to the lessor of the plaintiff and therefore judgement be give for the  plaintiffAfterwards upon error bring in the exchequer Chamber this judgement  be affirm and afterward a writ of error be bring upon these two judgement in  parliament and in easter vacation will the judgement be affirm there ld raym