bear vers bat es dower consider lemon v Hark ir r S C salk more at large Lutw  plead and special verdict post vol of a estate of which her husband be seize  for life with remainder after a term for year to he in tail a woman shall be  endow vide Ann Bl Com dower the tenant plead that the husband ne unques to be  seisie and dower upon which issue be join the jury find that Ralph Bates  husband of the demandant be seize of the land now demand for life remainder to  a and b trustee for ninetynine year remainder Lord Raymond to the heir of the  body of Ralph Bates c et si c and it be argue for the demandant that the  husband die Lord Raymond er p seize of a estate tail execute for the intervene  estate be for year ought not to be regard that the feoff of the husband will  have discontinue the entail which prove that he be seize of it see Bulstr cro  car roll Abr vin b pl and that his warranty will have be lineal to a son which  prove that the son be in by descent e contra it be argue for the tenant that  dower be allow by the law for the support of the wife and her child and  therefore where by such allowance the wife and her child can be support no  dower can be allow for law non compose useless then dower in these case where  the mesne term may be for a thousand year will be so remote that it will be of  no avail to the wife and as to the objection that the heir be in by descent it  be answer that that signify nothing because if the intervene estate have be  for life the heir have be in by descent and yet in such case without doubt the  wife be not dowable this case be thrice argue at bar and at the first argument  the court doubt because the estate tail be so disjoin by the intervene lease  and though it be vest it be not execute and perhaps they say the feoff of the  husband will not have discontinue the entail at the second argument Treby  chief justice be of opinion for the demandant because at the instant of the  death of the husband there be but a estate for year in the trustee and the  estate tail be in the husband and by he the instant shall be divide in favour  of dower as cro Elizabeth Broughton v Randall but upon the three argument  judgement be give for the demandant upon this reason because the husband have  a freehold and inheritance in he and the intervene estate be only for year  ought not to be regard for at commonlaw such a term be a precarious thing the  freeholder may have destroy it at his pleasure by a feign recovery a descent  which toll a entry do not disturb a term and if tenant for life commit waste  such a intervene term will not obstruct the action of waste as a intervene  estate of freehold will do and therefore all the court be of opinion that such  intervene term will not hinder dower as it will have do if it have be a estate  for life accord to the opinion of Perkins the only authority in the book for  that resolution judgement be give for the demandant Lord Raymond EASTER term  will B R sir John holt chief justice sir Thomas Rokeby sir John Turton sir  Samuel Eyre justice