case kirkman against thompson a conveyance of land by a husband or his  ancestor to a husband and wife be within the protection of Henry c though  money and marriage be blend in the consideration post more Jones cro car dyer  lend vern cro Elizabeth Pigot on recov cruise on recov a gift to husband and  wife and the heir of the body of the wife convey a estate for life to the  husband and a estate in special tail to the wife a fine levy by husband and  wife of the wife jointure be not within the Henry c ejectment upon a special  verdict the case be that one Richard Greycroft be seize in fee of the land in  question and by indenture covenant with Richard bowl as well in consideration  of two hundred pound pay by the say Richard bowl as in consideration of a  marriage betwixt Leonard his son and Ann the daughter of the say Richard bowl  to convey the land to the use of the say Leonard and Ann and the heir of the  body of the say Ann to be engender and to his right heir the marriage take  effect the father die before the assurance Leonard in performance croak James  er p of his father covenant make the assurance accord afterward they have  issue Richard the lessor and afterward Leonard feoff one Woodroff Leonard and  his wife levy a fine to the say Woodroff under who the defendant claim Richard  Greyeroft enter as for a forfeiture by the statute of Henry c the question be  whether this entry be lawful or not first this be a conveyance as well make  for money for the father of the wife as for a marriage riot be find express to  be a jointure whether it shall be say to be a jointure within the statute of  Henry c and it be resolve that it shall for the conveyance be by the husband  or his ancestor in consideration of a marriage although it be conjoin with a  consideration of money be within the statute and it shall be expound as a  jointure within the letter and intention of the say statute croak throw second  it be move whether this be a estatetail in the wife only or in the husband and  wife for if it be a estatetail in the husband as well as in the wife then it  be clear a good alienation out of the statute and it be hold a estatetail in  the wife and but a estate for life only in the husband three which be the  principal question this be a jointure within the statute whether the  alienation by the wife with her first husband who limit it be a forfeiture  within the statute for it be move that this statute intend to provide for the  issue of such wife who be inheritable to the say entail and it be as a  advancement settle by the ancestor of the husband and therefore although the  first husband who make the limitation join in the assurance he have but a  estate for life it shall be a forfeiture in the wife but it be resolve by all  the court that it be not any forfeiture within the word nor within the intent  of the statute first not within the word for the word be if any woman be sole  or with any aftertaken husband c and here she be not sole and this husband who  convey it be he who be marry to the wife before the conveyance but Doderidge  justice say if that conveyance have be a conveyance by the father to the wife  before marriage and afterward she have take the son to husband it will  peradventure have be a more difficult question second it be hold to be out of  the intent of the statute because the husband who make the assurance join with  the wife in the alienation and this statute be in restraint of the commonlaw  be to be take strict and the statute do not intend but to provide that  disinherison shall not be to the heir of the husband contrary to his intent  but here this be with his intent may well stand with the statute and be not  any alienation against the purview thereof wherefore it be adjudge for the  defendant