a seize of a estate for three life devise the same to m his daughter for life  remainder to her issue male and for want thereof remainder to l m by lease and  release convey the premise in consideration of her marriage with e b to the  use of herself and her intend husband and the heir of their body remainder to  the heir of her husband m die without issue and the plaintiff claim under l  the person in remainder bring his bill for a account of the rend and profit  one question be one have a estate for three life and devise it to a in tail  remainder to b whether this remainder be good say arg and agree per cur equity  case abridge er p that the limitation of a estate pur auter vie to a and the  heir of his body make no estatetail in a for all Estatestail be estate of  inheritance to which dower be incident and must be within the statute de gift  whereas in this kind of estate which be no inheritance there can be no dower  neither be it within the statute but a descendible a freehold only and Lord  chancellor Talbot hold plain that this be a good b remainder to b on a s death  without issue it be no more than a description c who shall take as special  occupant during the life of the three beneficiary and vie as if the grantor  have say instead of a wander right of d general occupancy I do appoint that  after the death of a the grantee they who shall happen to be heir of the body  of a shall be e special occupant of the premise and if equity case abridge  there shall be no issue of the body of a then b and his heir shall be the  special occupant thereof and that here can be no danger of a perpetuity for  all these estate will determine on the expiration of the three Lives So if  instead of three there have be twenty life all spend at the same time all the  candle light up at once it will have be good for in effect it be only for one  life videlicet that which shall happen to be the survivor for which reason it  be very improper to call this a estatetail since at that rate it will not be  liable to a forfeiture or punishable for waste the contrary whereof be true    roll Abr Inst east low and Burron p this work a for which reason it have be  determine that where a lease for three life have be grant to a man and his  heir and such grantee die leave a infant heir the parole shall not demurrer by  Lord Talbot in a branch of the case of chaplin and chaplin will Rep July cite  will Rep in a note b the objection against the remainder be good be for that  when the lessee have devise the premise in tail he then have nothing leave in  he but a possibility which he can not devise or limit over as if a man be  seize in feesimple and at commonlaw have grant land to one and the heir of his  body this be a conditional fee and forasmuch as the donor have only a  possibility of reverter he can not limit it over Now if at commonlaw and  estate in fee can not be limit over after a estate give to one and the heir of  his body much less shall a estate for three life be limit over after such a  failure of issue and as to the notion that be this kind of limitation the heir  of the body of a take only as special occupant and that a man may name as many  special occupant as he please by the same reason it may be argue that this  estate for life may be limit to a and his heir and if a die without heir then  to b and his heir which certain will be a void limitation to b and in  presumption of law the continuance of the issue of a man body may be for ever  from whence it shall seem that after the lessee for three life have grant or  devise the premise to a and the heir of his body he the lessee have nothing  but a possibility which he can grant or limit over note this apperas from the  Reproters ms to have be the opinion of Mr web a eminent conveyancer late of  the Inner temple however the law be settle as above will Rep in a note by the  editor c see the case of chaplin and chaplin will d it be observable that at  law there can be no general occupant of rend as if I have grant a rend to a  for the life of b and a have die live b the rend will have determine roll Abr  salk but there may have be a special occupant of a rend as if I have grant a  rend to a and his heir for the life of b and a have die live b and leave and  heir such heir will have be a special occupant yet if a man have grant a rend  to a his executor and assign during the life of b and afterward the grantee  have die leave a executor but no assignee the Executro shall not have have the  rend in regard it be a freehold the same can not descend to a executor more  roll Abr car sir Richard buller et all v Chiverton agree and admit by Jones I  and cur and by the counsel on both side that the reent be extinct though there  seem to have be no sound reason for this distinction but as to rend grant pur  auteer vie the statute of fraud have make a alteration for by that statute any  estate pur auter vie be make devisable and if not devise away shall be asset  in the hnds of the heir if limit to the heir if not so limit it shall go to  the executor or administrator of the grantee and be asset in their hand so  that if since that statute a rend be grant to a for the life of b and a die  live b a s executor or administrator shall have it during the life of b for  that statute be not only make to prevent the inconvenience of scram equity  case abridge er p bling for estate and get the first possession after the  death of the grantee but likewise for preserve and continue the estate during  the life of the beneficiary and vie and it be reasonable since the grantee may  by deed have dispose of the rend during the life of the beneficiary who vie  that though by his die without have make any such disposition in nicety of law  this estate will have determine yet by that statute the interest which pass  from the Grnater ought to be preserve and shall go to the executor or  administrator of the grantee during the life of the beneficiary and vie and  the statute in this case do not enlarge but only preserve the estate of the  grantee per the Lord keep Harcourt in the case of Rawlinson v duchess of  Montague et all Dec though this be not the principal point ibidem in a note e  vide chaplin and chaplin will Rep