case bailey vers Warburton and other in scacc whether a lease for year by  tenant for life in pursuance of a particular power shall be good against he  who claim in remainder Powell on pow p this be a action of ejectment on the  demise of John crew on not guilty plead at the assize at Chester on the that  of September Geo before the chief justice of Chester a special verdict be find  to the follow effect that the grandfather of the lessor be seize in fee on his  marriage with Lucy comens biron his second wife by lease and release date the  d and that of February car settle the land in question inter alian to the use  of himself for life then to Lucy his wife for life then to the issue of that  marriage then to the use of whether the wife of John Offley who be his old  daughter by his former wife and the heir of her body and for want of such  issue to the use of Elizabeth his young daughter by his first marriage and her  heir with a power to himself to make lease provide also that it may be lawful  for the say Lucy during her life to demise the premise to any person for such  term with and under such condition rend and reservation in such manner to all  intent as tenant in tail may do by the statute h for the term of one two or  three life upon and under such reservation and rend and in such manner as a  tenant in tail be enable to do by that statute that John crew die leave no  issue by Lucy and no child by his former wife but whether the wife of Offley  and Elizabeth upon which Lucy enter and be seize for life remainder to whether  Offley in tail who die on the that of may her husband be before dead leave  issue John crew the lessor of the plaintiff who name be change by a Act of  parliament from Offley to crew her son and heir that Lucy marry Edward turner  and after his death William Frowd and that by indenture date the d of June the  say William and Lucy be of full age demise the premise to John Ryland one of  the defendant in consideration of and a surrender of a former lease from  Edward turner and Lucy on which be two comens er p life subsist to bold to  John Ryland and his heir from the make thereof during the life of his son  Richard and Isaac and mary Norbury widow yield S d yearly during the term a  heriot the best good of every person who possess by the force of the demise  die seize all such boon duty service average and custom as have ancient be pay  do suit twice a year on lawful summons with clause of reentry for nonpayment  comens that at the time of this demise the premise let be not in the hand of  any farmer and be before most common let for year that the rend be the usual  rend and the demise be make with all the requisite necessary to be observe by  tenant in tail in make lease and accord to the form of the statute h that the  lessee enter after which Lucy die on the that of February upon which the  lessor enter as in remainder and make the lease mention in the declaration on  the that of may on this special verdict the question be whether this lease to  the defendant be good against the lessor of the plaintiff who claim in  remainder and it be insist upon that it be not first because the lease be make  by Lucy and her husband whereas the power be give to her alone and so the  power be suspend by her marriage say non allocatur for a power give to a  single woman if she marry may be execute by her husband and her resolve on a  special verdict between Harris and Graham mich car king bench roll ab pl where  a man devise to his wife for life and by his codicil give her power to lease  for six year she marry and her husband and she make a lease for six year and  hold good so it be resolve side in chancery by Bridgman and hale and the Lord  chancellor between the duke of Buckingham and Lord Antrim and his wife who  execute such a lease the power be to the wife alone the same case seem indeed  report Charles can and there it be say that Bridgman hold the execution by  husband and wife ill where a interest pass otherwise where it be a nude power  but hale think it may be fit to be argue and the chancellor concur with  Bridgman the bill be dismiss this case be cite in salk but there and in Chan  can the power give to the wife to lease be say to be be sole and so recite Eq  can pl this case be also report in freeman p where we find the follow word  with power for her be sole to make lease c if she marry and afterward with her  husband make a lease upon this statement she necessary exceed the power give  to her comens that the lease by Lucy and her husband ought to have be by fine  she be covert say non allocatur for the estate of the lessee be not derive  from the lessors but arise out of the estate of the feoff or releasees name in  the original settlement and therefore nothing more be requisite to the raise a  estate to the lessee but what be require by the deed which create the power  which be only a indenture sign by the party make the lease and make in such a  manner as the statute h saint Henry c a require in lease by tenant in tail and  therefore it be hold that in lease for life make by virtue of a power no  livery be needful and it have be doubt whether livery will not hurt but hale  hold it do not prejudice vent and in the case of Harris and Graham as above no  fine appear that this lease will not continue in force against the lessor of  the plaintiff who claim by virtue of the remainder for the lease be to be make  under such condition rend and reservation and in such manner and form to all  intent and purpose as a tenant in tail may lawful and be enable to do by the  statute h but a lease by a tenant in tail be not good against he in reversion  or remainder   light a   cro Elizabeth Noy and the chief baron doubt hereof  but it be argue that if such construction be make this power of lease be whole  insignificant for Lucy have but a estate for life and therefore every lease  beyond it must have continuance against the person in remainder and a lease  determinable on her own life she may have make without the power beside I take  notice that the reason why a lease by a tenant in tail stand not good against  he in remainder be because the lease be derive from the estatetail and it  appear not that the statute mean to make it good against any but his issue for  the statute mention not the donor dyer b in the margin but the lease here be  derive out of the feesimple vest in the releasees and their heir by he that  have the fee and have power to model the use of it as he please and since the  statute h c execute the possession comens to the use in the same manner and  plight as it be limit whence such power of make lease c annex comens er p to  the estate for life become effectual there be no reason why such a lease make  by virtue of such a power shall not stand good against those who claim in  remainder under the same settlement and consequent subject to the power nor do  the restriction annex to the power which require that it shall be make under  such condition rend c and in such a manner as a tenant in tail be enable to  make necessary import that it shall be such in point of duration but only that  it shall be attend with such circumstance as that Act require in the execution  of lease by a tenant in tail Mr Powell in his treatise on power observe that  if a power be appendant or in gross and the donee thereof be a feme sole the  better opinion seem to be that she will not by her subsequent marriage render  herself incapable of execute the power she be as to her interest therein  consider in equity as a feme sole p