case davis against speed affirm show p c husband seize in right of his wife  covenant with her to levy a fine to the use of the heir of his body on her  beget the limitation be void S c holt S c Mod S c salk S c skin S c Carth S c  show parliament can ejectment husband and wife seize in fee in right of the  wife levy a fine to I S and his heir to the use of the heir of the body of the  husband beget of the wife and for want of such issue to the right heir of the  husband the wife die the husband die without issue the question be who shall  have the land the lessor of the plaintiff as heir to the husband or the  defendant as heir to the wife darnel for the plaintiff a particular estate  arise to the husband by implication though this be not a covenant to stand  seize like pibus and Mitfords case Mod Rep where the estate for life arise out  of the old estate of the covenantor newmoulded and to the purpose roll Inst b  that a estate shall be raise to the husband by implication but those case be  of conveyance make by he who have the estate before but modern report in this  case the husband have no estate before but all be in the wife but  notwithstanding he say that the husband have power to declare the use of the  fine and perhaps have issue at that time and by that entitle to be tenant by  the courtesy he may not think it necessary to make a limitation to himself but  suppose he shall have no use by implication yet he shall have a remainder as a  spring use and there be no need of a freehold to support such remainder lev  more but the feoff have a scintilla law to execute it when it come Northey  contra there be no alteration make by the fine but the wife be in of her old  estate there be no person to take a freehold in possession such a estate may  not be good at commonlaw but since the statute of Henry c use must be subject  to commonlaw and no fraction can be make in a estate settle to use cro rastal  cro and the case in the modern report be not like this for that be a covenant  to stand seize and this be by transmutation of possession and there be no  estate leave in the feoff or conusee but only a possibility to serve future  use   the notion of a spring use have be set up to set a fee upon a fee but it  be never know that the first use be a spring use holt t chief justice the  first use may be a spring use for if I bargain and sell to the use of another  five year hence this be a good future use there be a difference between a  covenant to stand seize and a feoff to use for until the contingency happen or  the time come for the future use rise it shall return again to the feoff a  feoff to the use of the right heir of I S after the death of I S be a future  use but if it be limit to rise after the death of one without issue this be  void without a particular estate to support it so be pell and brown case  unless the die without issue be within a certain term as within the life of a  man for otherwise the law will not expect the vest of it but will construe the  limitation to be void because the possibility be foreign holcroft case in more  be express judgement for the defendant a