Burchett versus DURDANT mich W m Carthew t Jones vent vent raym error in  parliament upon a judgement in the exchequerchamber which be in affirmance of  a judgement in ejectment bring by Durdant against Burchett in b r the case be  on devise in haec word sacred scripture I give unto John Higden and his heir  during the life only of Robert Durdant my land in d upon trust to suffer the  say Robert Durdant during his life to receive the rend and profit the say  Robert Durdant commit no waste and after the decease of the say Robert Durdant  I do give the say land unto the heir male of the body of he the say Robert  Durdant now live and to such other heir male and female as he shall hereafter  happen to have of his body c at the time of this devise and at the death of  the testator the aforesaid Robert Durdant have only one son name George  Durdant and then live after the death of the testator the say John Higden and  Robert Durdant join in a feoff and fine of the premise to Burchett the  plaintiff in error and the defendant in error be lessee of the son and heir of  George Durdant holt KB the general question be whether George Durdant the son  of Robert take a present remainder in tail by this will as a purchaser and so  vest in he immediate upon the death of the testator or else a contingent  remainder videlicet if be happen to survive his father Robert Durdant for if  so then it be bar by the fine and feoff above because the remainder can not  commence at the time of the determination of the particular estate as in the  common case of remainder limit to the right heir of I S and the particular  estate determine live I S but all the three court videlicet of king bench  exchequerchamber and parliament hold clear that it be a remainder vest in  George Durdant immediate upon the death of the testator and that the word in  the will now live be a sufficient description of the person of George Durdant  and that the other word videlicet unto the heir male of the body of Robert  Durdant do not only help to make up the description of the person of George  but be a good limitation of a estatetail to he as in the case above where it  be limit to the right heir of I S there the word heir serve not only to  describe the person but to limit the estate wherefore the two former judgement  be affirm and there be the like judgement in parliament concern part of the  same land in ejectment between Jones and Richardson another purchaser of  parcel under Higden and Robert Durdant