case davis against speed Hilary term will mary roll if husband and wife seize  of land in right of the wife levy a fine to the use of the heir of the husband  beget or to be beget on the body of the wife with remainder to the right heir  of the husband the remainder be void for it be a future use and there be no  particular estate for life limit in the conveyance to support the contingent  remainder SC show c p SC holt SC salk SC skin SC Mod special verdict in  ejectment for land in the county of Southampton the case appear to be thus a  feme sole be seize in fee of the land now in question afterward marry William  horn the say William horn and Ann his wife do by deed indent modern er p  covenant to levy a fine thereof to jollop and Stanley and their heir c to the  use follow videlicet to the use of the heir of the say William horn lawful  beget or to be beget upon the body of the say Ann remainder to the right heir  of the husband the fine be levy they have issue one son who die in the  lifetime of his father and mother without issue then Ann die and afterward  William horn die without issue Frances cockey who be the lessor of the  plaintiff be sister and heir of William horn and the sister and coheir of Ann  have convey their interest to the defendant speed the question be whether the  heir of the wife shall have this land the objection why the right heir of the  husband shall not have it be because there be no particular estate for life  limit in this conveyance to support the contingent remainder which be  therefore void and the old use remain to the heir of the wife but it be argue  in his behalf that this be a settlement by way of use which like a will be to  be construe accord to the intent of the party and for this purpose the law  will raise a estate for life in he by implication which be unite with that  estate be modern have by the settlement itself will create a estate tail in he  and so the remainder will be good and to prove this the case of Pybus v  Mitford Mod a be cite videlicet Mitford be seize in fee have issue Robert by a  first venture and Ralph and jane by his second wife he covenant to stand seize  c to the use of his heir male beget on the body of jane reversion to his own  right heir the father die the old son enter who title the plaintiff have and  the question be whether any use do arise to the second son three judge against  the opinion of Twisden justice hold that a estate for life do arise to Mitford  by implication because a limitation to the heir of his body carry the use to  himself in who his heir be all include and the old estate in fee which be  leave in he be then qualify and turn into a estate tail this be the opinion of  my Lord coke in the case of lane v panel   light roll Rep a where he say if a  feoff be make to the use of the heir of the body c it be a estate tail execute  in he because he have a estate for life by implication it be not material to  object that a use can arise in this case by implication because the husband  have no estate but in right of his wife for a use may arise as well to a  stranger as to the feoff because they both join in the deed as well as in the  fine beside he have a estate for his own life as tenant by the courtesy and  whenever the husband have a estate in right of his wife in plead it be always  say that seized fuer in of his ut de fee c but if no estate for life arise  immediate by implication then this may be good by way of a spring or  contingent use to the heir of the husband and that till that contingency shall  happen by his death the use must still remain in the woman and her heir e  contra there must be a particular estate find out to support these remainder  or otherwise they be void and the estate be as it be before the fine levy  which operate for the benefit of her who have the old estate of her before if  this have be a conveyance at the commonlaw there can have be no question make  because the freehold if any can be put in abeyance and it be plain it be in  abeyance here because there can be no right heir of William horn while he be  live it be true this be a conveyance by way of use which before the statute be  consider only as a trust but now modern by unite the possession to those use  they be govern by the know rule of the commonlaw for a use be a estate and  must take place either in possession or in going to be as it be limit and  therefore where a fine be levy to the use of b for life cro Elizabeth b and  afterward to the use of the child of c bring into existence this limitation  shall extend to none of his child bear afterward because no future use be  limit to they in this case a use be intend to be raise in present time to the  heir of William horn now they can not take as heir during his life therefore  there be no person capable of take it must be void if it be design to operate  in going to be then there must be a particular estate somewhere to support the  remainder till the contingency happen which estate must be either express or  imply it be plain that here be no particular estate express then if it shall  arise by implication it can be in the husband because there be no word which  modern er p show any such intent but if a imply estate for life shall arise by  construction of law it must be in the wife and then she die before her husband  that estate be determine before the remainder to his heir can take place and  therefore shall never arise neither can any estate remain in the feoff for by  one branch of the statute the possession be give to the beneficiary and use  and by another branch all the right be take out of the feoff and give to the  beneficiary and use so that nothing remain in they and it will be a very  absurd thing if it shall for if a feoff be to the use of himself and his heir  till a three person pay one hundred pound and then that he will be seize to  the use of that person and his heir now if any thing shall remain in the feoff  before the payment of the one hundred pound it must be a feesimple and then  there will be two feesimples of the same land to avoid which the statute must  be construe to take the whole estate out of they and fix it upon the land  which by operation of the statute shall give the use to every person in his  turn accord to the limitation of the party Leon a and therefore it be agree in  chudleighs case   b that the statute do not transfer the possession to any use  but such as be in be because it can be execute to a bare possibility of a use  neither can it be limit against the know rule of the commonlaw see roll Abr  cro Elizabeth c modern curian this be a future use and no particular estate to  support it and no such estate can arise until the wife die without issue and  so the remainder be void and afterward in easter term judgement be give for  the defendant speed accord that no estate shall arise by implication to the  husband such a thing be never think on in a deed nor in a will but of  necessity there be a writ of error bring upon this judgement in parliament but  it be affirm