case mark against mark if a devise land to b for life with remainder to c in  fee provide that if d pay l to c his executor or administrator within three  month after the death of modern report er p b that then d and his heir shall  have the land and d die in the lifetime of b yet if the heir of d pay the l to  c within the three month after the death of b he shall have the estate S c Eq  ab S c Prec Ch S c stram the testator by his will bear date on the twelve day  of April devise land to his wife whether for life remainder to his second son  Daniel in fee provide and nevertheless that if his three son Nathaniel shall  within three month after the death of the wife pay the sum of five hundred  pound to Daniel his executor or administrator then he devise it to Nathaniel  and his heir Nathaniel die in the lifetime of the wife afterward the wife die  and Daniel enter the question be whether the heir of Nathaniel shall be allow  to perform the condition by payment of the money and so be let into the land  the reason why this be a point pure at law come to be speak to in a court of  equity be that by reason of marriagesettlement mesne encumbrance c it become  uncertain to who the heir of Nathaniel admit by law he may perform the  condition be to make the tender and therefore he bring his bill in equity for  relief and direction which bill be file within the three month limit for the  performance of the condition modern report this term Parker Lord chancellor  assist by sir Joseph Jekyll decree in favour of the plaintiff sir Joseph  Jekyll speak first to the follow effect the question at law to be resolve in  this case before any decree can be make be whether the plaintiff as heir of  Nathaniel can enter upon the estate upon payment or tender of the money I be  of opinion that be may and that this be a act not personal to Nathaniel but  what may be perform by the heir if this have be a condition the law have be  plain so so be Litt sect feoff upon condition that the feoff shall pay such a  sum at such a day c feoff die before the day c yet the heir though not mention  may tender c nay hold sect that a second feoff who have only a privity of  estate may do it but this be not the case of a condition but of a executory  devise in the case of a condition the heir have a right antecedent to the  performance of the condition and he do not gain a new estate but revests a old  one by the performance of the condition pron  interrog  opposite direction yes  here for upon performance of the condition the payment of the money to speak  in the language of the law a new create estate vest in the heir   light b Lord  coke word be these that a condition which be to create a estate be to be  perform by construction of law as near the condition as may be and accord to  the intent and meaning of the condition albeit the letter and word of the  condition can be perform the case before we be a case upon a will where the  law have ever allow the great latitude of construction in support of the  intention of the testator nobody can doubt but that the intention of the  testator be to give the land to Daniel only in the nature of a security for  five hundred pound and that Nathaniel be to have the feesimple modern report I  be of opinion Nathaniel have such a future interest or possibility in the  inheritance as may descend to the heir though it never vest in the ancestor  Lampets case a   a be a express authority that a future interest in a term  shall go to the executor and it seem to I to fall in with the reason of that  case that a future interest in a estate of inheritance shall descend to the  heir before the statute de gift the donor have but a possibility barrable  after issue at the pleasure of the donee but yet this possibility be  descendible to the heir b Inst b a case be put c   light c where the heir  shall be in by descent of a estate which can never vest in the ancestor during  his life land give to a and b so long as they live joint together the  remainder to the right heir of he that die first a die the heir of a shall  have the land by descent and yet the remainder do not vest during the life of  a for the death of a must precede the remainder in the case of oat v Frith d  hob d it be say that the heir be in representation in point of take by  inheritance eaden mask cum he that goes before that the law be the same in  case modern report er p of a act execute by way of use be plain from the three  point in Shelleys case e   a e and the rule there lie down be applicable here  videlicet that the heir shall be in by descent where the land may possible  have vest in the ancestor the case of spring v Caesar f roll Abr f be a strong  case to prove that in a conveyance by way of use the heir may pay the money if  the ancestor die before the day as to the case of bret v Rigden a Plowd a that  be not applicable to this case for there be no complete devise because the  ancestor to who the devise be make die in the lifetime of the devisor there be  no devisee at the time when the will be to take effect but here there modern  report be a complete devise and of such a interest or possibility as may have  vest in the ancestor but it be object that the heir have his election whether  he will pay the money or not true but as this election be in favour of the  heir it ought not to be turn to his prejudice the four reason give by Lord  coke in his commentary upon Littleton b Litt sect b be all applicable to the  case in question I be therefore of opinion that the heir may pay the money and  shall take the land as a executory devise and by way of descent and though  before the case of Lloyd v Carew c Eq Abr Prec Ch show p c c it seem to have  obtain for law that no executory devise of a fee upon a fee shall be allow of  unless upon a contingency to happen during the life of one or more person in  be at the time of the settlement and consequent the limitation to Nathaniel  will have be void because dependent upon a contingency to happen within three  month after the death of the wife yet since that case which go through the  house of lord and be report shower case in parliament the law be now settle  that in case of a contingency that can in the nature of it precede the death  of a person a reasonable time may be allow subsequent to the decease of that  person for performance of the condition and a fee limit thereupon be good in  that case a year be hold no unreasonable time a strong not three month which  be the present case the plaintiff have good equity to be direct and  indemnified in the payment Parker Lord chancellor I be of the same opinion  with the master of the roll and in what view soever I consider the present  question be the more confirm in it though the word of the will be only that  Nathaniel shall pay and not Nathaniel and his heir yet this be only a plain  mistake in the will which be a conveyance that the law suppose to be make when  a man modern report be weak council and therefore allow great favour to be use  in its construction the plain intention of the testator be to provide for his  child to the one be intend to give five hundred pound to the other the land at  commonlaw if a have make a feoff to b for life remainder to c in fee upon  condition that if b shall pay so much money to c that then a shall have the  land a have a right to take advantage of the performance of the condition  which right vest in a the ancestor and be in its own nature descendible to the  heir but not assignable if mark the testator have make a feoff to Daniel upon  condition that if the testator shall pay so much money to Daniel then  Nathaniel shall have fee this be a condition the right of perform which  descend to the heir of the testator and the heir will be at liberty to take  advantage of it for the limitation of the fee over to Nathaniel will be void  by a particular maxim of the commonlaw which will not allow a fee to be limit  upon a fee a but see carpenter v smith Pollexf and Fontblanques treatise of  equity a or by that other maxim which exclude a stranger from take advantage  of a condition since the statute of will b Henry c and Henry c b and statute  of use c Henry c c executory devise and spring use have be allow of these be  first allow of with respect to the testator or party himself afterward it come  to be allow of to other person and therefore at this day in devise and  limitation of use a estate may modern report er p be limit over to a three  person upon the defeasance of a former estate in fee if the condition be not  too remote in point of time and though there have be word find out to save in  appearance the maxim of the commonlaw yet in effect and in truth the very  benefit and advantage of the condition be pass over to a three person  notwithstanding the maxim of law that a stranger can take advantage of a  condition modern report in this will the case be nothing but this the testator  give the land to Daniel redeemable upon the payment of five hundred pound and  be give the equity of redemption to Nathaniel Nathaniel therefore seem to I to  have a equity of redemption that remain open to he in a court of equity as  well after the time limit as before indeed there may have be a difference  between this case and the case of a common mortgage where though when the day  be pass and so the legal estate be absolute vest in the mortgagee yet in  equity a right to redeem remain have Nathaniel be here to come for relief  against the heir at law but this be not the case for he come for relief  against a three person who have the estate vest in he for no other purpose but  to make the estate redeemable the question that remain be whether this  advantage be not lose by the death of Nathaniel before the day which import  these two objection first that the payment of this five hundred pound be  personal to Nathaniel and therefore not to be perform by anybody else second  that the contingency shall have happen in the lifetime of the ancestor for the  heir be not to take by purchase but by descent as to the first point I be of  opinion that this be a act not personal to Nathaniel payment of a small trifle  sum may be consider rather as a ceremony than a valuable consideration and  this I take to be the ground upon which the two judge go who in the case of  spring v Caesar d Jones winch d hold the payment of the ten shilling to be a  personal act for when the sum come to be considerable as here it be five  hundred pound the payment of it be never esteem a personal act and this appear  throughout Englefields case e Counterfeit e modern report the section of  Littleton f Litt sect f so often quote be a express authority that this be not  a personal act so that I be of opinion that if the heir pay the ancestor do to  all intent and purpose of this will pay in he who be his representative as to  the second point that the heir must take by descent and not by purchase I be  of opinion that he do take by descent or in nature of descent in wood case  quote Rep a it be hold that the heir shall be adjudge to take in course and  nature of a descent where neither right title nor action but only a use or  possibility descend that may upon the performance of the condition have vest  in the ancestor and then the heir will have claim by descent and it be lie  down as a rule in Shelleys case that where the heir take anything that may  have vest in the ancestor there although it first vest in the heir and never  in the ancestor yet the heir shall be esteem in by descent here be a right to  the performance of this condition vest in the ancestor a right by which the  estate may possible have vest in the ancestor a right that may have be release  by the ancestor but not be release descend to the heir and therefore the heir  may be proper say to be in by descent since the right to perform the condition  of which the vest of the land be but a consequence do descend to he the case  of the feoff in the section of Littleton be parallel in all respect to the  present case parallel as to the condition as to the performance as to the  effect of the performance and differ only as to the person who be to take  advantage of the performance of it and this be supply by the statute of will  which give the three person as good a title to take advantage of it as the  feoff have by the commonlaw