case baldwin against smith Trinity term Elizabeth roll if a devise he make to  a for life and to his right and next heir male and the heir male of the body  of such right and next heir a take a estate for life and the remainder over be  contingent though he have a son live at the time of the devise if herefore a  enter and make a feoff in fee the remainder be destroy ante I   b   light a  more hob   Leon roll ab lev vent side will Fearn replevin the issue be whether  the land be the freehold of one king nt upon special verdict it be find that  Francis archer be seize of this land in fee hold in socage and devise it to  Rohert archer his son for life and after to the right and next heir male of  the say Rohert and to the heir male of the body of such a right and Dext heir  male of Rohert and find further that at the time of this devise Rohert have  issue John his old son the devisor die Rohert enter and feoff ken with  warranty John enter ken reenter after Roherts death and John reenter upon he c  el si upon all this matter the estate of ken he lawful or not and that John be  to he bar be the question first whether this he a estate tail or for life only  in Rohert second whether this warranty descend upon John be a infant as it be  find he be shall bind he because he can not enter during the life of his  father three the warranty descend and the right of remainder vestin all at one  time which of they shall he prefer draw for the avowant move that it be a  estate tail in Rohert because the remainder be limit to his next heir male  immediate as in the case assize devise to one et uni hceredi de corpore c be  take to he a estate tail the remainder also shall otherwise he in aheyance  which the law avoid if it also be not a estate tail it be void for the  remainder shall never he in be during the particular estate But all the  justice Owen absentee hold that Rohert the father have but a estate for life  for so be the word plain and the right heir shall take it as a purchaser  Heaumond hold that John shall take it and the remaindershall vest in he  present live the father for the remainder be limit to the right and next heir  of the father which word be in a will shall he take accord to the intent of  the devisor videlicet to he who be then heirapparent for he be in the  intention of a plain man the right and next heir but Anderson and Walmsley  against he in this point croak Elizabeth er p and thatthis remainder shall he  expectant but t be admit by they that this remainder be depend upon a infant  be good enougb Anderson hold that the warranty shall not bind for a warranty  shall not bind a right but where he who shall he bind thereby have time to  avoid it by his entry and therefore ib be adjudge in the queen hench where  land be give to baron and feme for their life the remainder to the next heir  male of the body of the baron the remainder to the baron and feme in tail the  baron levy a fine with warranty that the fine shall not bar the heir male for  he have not time to avoid it during the life of the baron Walmsley hold that  this feoff of itself destroy the remainder so as it never shall come in be the  warranty also destroy the remainder and it be not like to a former right and  if the make of a collateral warranty he a tort it be before the right accrue  unto he and therefore the remainder here be not to he croak Elizabeth regard  as a ancient right and I have the report of a case in this court where a feme  tenant for life the remainder to the right heir of the baron the baron make a  feoff with warranty the opinion of dyer and other be that the right heir of  the baron shall he bind thereby Heaumond the warranty can bar if there he a  remainder in expectance because a warranty ought always to bind he who have  right of entry or of action and here he have not any of they in his father  lifetime but the feoff of itself destroy it because it never come in be el  adjournatur afterward in Trin Elizabeth t be adjudge for the avowant that this  remainder by this feoff and warranty a be destroy and bar vide I