case the mayor and commonalty OF norwich against johnson if a lessee die  intestate during the term and a stranger enter and take possession he thereby  become a executor de son tort of the term and if he commit waste therein he be  liable as executor de son tort to a action of waste SC show SC comb SC lev  Jones vent more Mod Com dig Mod stram stram Peer wms term Rep a writ of error  be bring to reverse a judgement give for the plaintiff in the common plea in a  action of waste the declaration be that the plaintiff demise a barn to one  take for a certain term by virtue whereof he be possess and be so possess die  that the defendant be his executor who enter and make waste by pull down of  the say barn the defendant plead that take die intestate and that he do not  administer the plaintiff reply that he enter as executor of his own wrong to  this plea the defendant demurrer and the plaintiff join in the demurrer Mr  Appleton of Lincoln inn argue for the plaintiff and say that a action of waste  will not lie against the defendant because the mayor and commonalty c have a  remedy by a assize to recover the land upon which the barn stand and a trover  to recover the good or material and that such a action will not lie against he  at the commonlaw because he neither be tenant by the courtesy nor in dower  against who waste only lie so that if the plaintiff be entitle to this action  it must be by virtue of the statute of Gloucester Edward c but it will not lie  against the defendant even by that statute because the action be thereby give  against the tenant by the courtesy in dower for life or year and Triple damage  c but the defendant be neither of those and this be a penal law which not only  give Triple damage but likewise the recovery of the place waste ought  therefore not to be take strict but accord to equity modern tenant at  sufferance or at will by elegit or tenant by statute staple and also pernors  of profit be never construe to be within this statute and therefore a  particular Act Henry c be make to give he in reversion a action of waste where  tenant for life or year have grant over their estate and yet take the profit  and commit waste vern vern Prec Chan Mod pale yellow e r case t t Peer wms  Peer wms Peer wms a then the question will be what estate this executor de son  tort have gain by his entry and as to that he argue that he have get a  feesimple by seize and that for this reason the plaintiff I as bar from this  action for if the son purchase land in fee and be seize by his father who make  a feoff in fee to another with warranty and die the son be for ever bar for  though the seize be not do with any intention to make such a feoff yet he be  bind by this alienation roll Abr b so where a man make a lease for life and  die and then his heir suffer a recovery of the same land without make a actual  entry this be a absolute seize because the lessee have a estate for life but  if he have be tenant at will it may be otherwise Mod case t t ld ray c but  admit that the defendant be not a seize then the plaintiff must bring their  case to be within the statute of Gloucester as that he be either tenant for  life or year Mod d if he be tenant for life he must be so either by right or  by wrong he can be so by right because he have no lawful conveyance make to he  of this estate beside it be quite contrary to the plead which be that he enter  wrongful neither can he be so by wrong for such particular estate as for life  or year modern er p can be gain by seize and so be Heliars case   a then if  this shall be construe a estate for year it must be gain either by the act of  the party or by the act of the law but such a estate can be gain by either of  those mean first it can be gain by the act of the party because a executor de  son tort can have any interest in a term and for this there be a express  authority in this CourtKendrick v burgess more b which be thus videlicet a  lease in reversion for year be grant to a Mari who die intestate his wife  before she have administer sell this term to the defendant and afterward she  obtain letter of administration and make a conveyance of the same term to the  modern plaintiff and judgement be give for the last vendee because it be in  the case of a reversion of a term for year upon which no entry can be make and  of which there can be no executor de son tort though it be admit by the court  that such a executor may make a good sale of the good before administration  grant neither can any entry or claim make the defendant a executor de son tort  of a term for year because a wrongful entry can never gain any estate but a  feesimple for it be not to be satisfy with any particular or certain estate as  for life or year it can be gain by act of law because that abhor all manner of  wrong if it shall be object that though this executor do not gain any estate  for his own benefit yet he in the reversion may take he for a seize and it  shall be in his election either to make he so or a tenant for year to this it  may be answer that the defendant do not claim by colour of any grant if he do  then he may be a seize at the election of he in the reversion and this be the  very difference take in the case of blunden v Baugh cro car roll Abr Jones  latch see also I burr burr Cowp c so likewise if it be object that the  defendant be a occupant and therefore punishable for waste but the reason be  not the same because the entry of a occupant be lawful and he gain a estate  for life which be not this case a executor de son tort be not a person take  notice of in the law in respect to he in the reversion but in respect of the  creditor of the intestate see Edward v Harben term Rep d and therefore if what  he do may be advantageous to they the law will make a construction upon it for  their benefit but if such a person shall be within the intention or meaning of  this statute then the natural consequence will be first Oat the place waste  will be recover second that the plaintiff will also have Triple damage both  which will be a manifest mean to defeat the creditor of their debt for these  reason he pray judgement for the plaintiff in the error modern it be argue by  the counsel on the other side that it be plain that the defendant be executor  de son tort for such must that person he who intermeddle with the intestate  estate where there be no rightful executor or administrator now a man may be  executor of his own wrong of a term for year as appear even in that case cite  out of more on the other side and if so the defendant must be liable to this  action the statute may be expound as well against a wrongful as a rightful  executor it be plain here be a seize and the law be now settle that it shall  be in the election of he in the reversion to make it so this defendant will  justify one wrong by another for he confess that he have commit a seize and  therefore will not be answerable for commit of waste as to the objection that  a executor de son tort be liable only in respect of creditor and that if he  shall be punish for waste it will be a injury to they because of the Triple  damage recover against he the reply be that such damage must be answer out of  his own estate for even in the case of a rightful executor if he commit waste  he will be Chargeable in a devastavit de good not common with others coulter  case   a this be not proper a penal but a remedial law and as such may be  construe accord to equity it be true tenant by elegit or by statute be no  within this statute because waste by they commit be no wrong for if they shall  fall the timber it sink the debt and the cognizor may have a to know facias ad  to sum up modern er p curian it will be a infinite trouble for he in the  reversion to seek his remedy for waste do if the law do oblige he to stay till  there be a rightful administrator and it be not to be doubt but that there may  be a executor de son tort of a term for year this be a remedial and yet a  penal law and therefore shall have a favourable construction the judgement be  affirm