case barnaby love against Wyndham see do d Cadogan v Ewart a e Trinity term  car roll if a term be devise to a for life with remainder to b for life and if  b die without issue of his body beget then to c the limitation over to c be  too remote to take effect S C I Eq ab S C lev S C keb S C vent S C side S C  Chan Rep post roll Abr pl palm pollexfen   side lev lev Mod l Mod Mod fitzg  vern vern Prec in Ch Abr Eq can tem Talb Peer wms Peer wms Peer wms see native  pl lev side lev upon a issue out of Chaticery the jury find a special verdict  videlicet that one Gilbert thirl be seize of the land in question for three  life and demise the same to Nicholas love the father for a term of year if the  beneficiary and vie or any of they shall so long live that he be so possess  make his will and revise they in this manner videlicet to his wife for her  life and after her decease to Nicholas his son for his life and if Nicholas  his son shall die without issue of his body beget then he devise they to  Barnaby the plaintiff then they find that the wife be executrix and that she  do agree to this devise and whether this be a good limitation to Barnaby or  not be the question Jones I conceive it be a good limitation to modern Barnaby  I shall inquire first whether a termor have devise to one for life and after  his death to another for ilfe may go any further and second admit that he may  go further whether the limitation in our case which be to begin after the  death f he second without issue of his body be good or no for the first point  he say the reason give in Plowden a Plowd command a and in coke b   b why a  executory devise of a term be good in law be because the law take it as devise  to the last man first and then afterward to the first man without which  transposition it be not good for if it shall be a devise to the first man  first there will be nothing leave for the last but a possibility which be not  grantable over c but see burr Bl Rep Peer wms stram vezey and Jones v roe h Bl  Rep c b that a possibility couple with a interest be devisable S C confirm in  b r on a writ of error term Rep c now then modern er p if a man may devise a  term after the death of another then he may devise it after the death of two  other it be true this can be in grant for they be find upon contract and there  must be a certainty in they accord to the rector of Chedingtons case d   see  also Lord Stafford case   d now if a devise may be good after the death of one  or two it be all one if it be limit after the death of five or six now that a  contingency may be devise upon a contingency I take it that the authority be  clear in the case of Colton v Herle e roll e it be so resolve by three justice  and also in the case of rhetoric v chapel f Hilary term James Bulst Godolph f  as for the case of child v baily g cro James roll Abr Eq Cas ab roll Rep palm  g I conceive it be not against our case for they hold the devise to be void  not because it be a contingency upon a contingency but in respect of the  remoteness of the possibility and because the term be whole devise to a man  and his assign so that by the express authority of the two first case and by  the implication of this case I do think that a devise to a man after such a  manner be good provide that it do not introduce a perpetuity so that where  there be not the inconvenience of a perpetuity though there be many  contingency they be no impediment to the devise therefore where a devise be  upon a contingency that may happen upon the expiration of one or more man life  and where it be upon a contingency that may endure for ever there be a great  difference tile reason of the rector of Chedingtons case be because of the  uncertainty for in case of a grant of a term there be a great uncertainty but  we be in case of a devise which be not take in the law by way of remainder a  ass pl a so that I conceive a contingency may be limit modern upon a  contingency provide that it be not remote the second point be whether this  devise thus limit be a good devise now I conceive the limitation be as good as  if it have be to his wife for her life and after her death to Nicholas for  life and after his death to Barnaby I agree that if these word if Nicholas die  without heir of his body shall not be apply to the time of his death it will  be a void devise but the meaning be that if at the time of his death he shall  have no issue then c now that they must have such construction I prove from  the word of the will the limitation of the remainder must be take so as to  quadrate with the particular estate as if there be a conveyance to one for  life and if he die without issue to another this be a good remainder upon  condition and the remainder shall rest upon the determination of the  particular estate if the tenant for life have no issue when he die but if a  man convey to one and the heir of his body and if he die without issue to  another there it must be understand of a failure of issue at any time because  the precedent limitation go further than his life but admit there be no  precedent word to guide the intention and that common parlance be against I  yet if there be but a possibility of a good construction it shall be so  construe and they may very well be understand of his die without issue of his  body at the time of his death in the case of goodyear v clerk in this court b  Trinity term car roll lev b I confess it be adjudge that it will be understand  of a failure of issue at any time but in our case if you shall not understand  it of a failure of issue at the time of his death it can have any construction  at all to take effect I think there be no express authority against I those  that may seem to be so I will put and endeavour to give a answer to they as  for the case of child v baily report differ upon the reason of that judgement  for croak say a cro James a it be hold to be a void devise because it be take  if he die without issue at any time during the term but sergeant roll b roll  Abr b go upon another reason for he say it be void because give absolute to  the son and his assign before in the case of Leventhorp v ashly c roll Abr c  the remainder modern there be say to be void because when he modern er p have  devise the term to a and the heir male of his body it shall go to the executor  of a and the remainder there be to begin upon his die without issue at any  time the case of sander v Cornish d roll Abr roll Abr d will not come to we  for there be many limitation for life successive to person not in be c in the  case cite in the first report e   f cro James e of a estate for life limit to  one and to every heir successive a estate for life the limitation be nought  because it will make a perpetual freehold and nobody will know where the  absolute estate shall vest so be pray judgement for the plaintiff Coleman for  the defendant I conceive this to be a void limitation Mr Jones will make this  a middle case I shall discharge he of the first point though he have take pain  to argue it and I shall rest upon this that the limitation of a term after the  death of a man without issue of his body be void the case be put as a middle  case to these two videlicet if a man possess of a lease for year devise it to  I S for life the remainder to I n for life the remainder to I g for life these  remainder be good but if he devise to I S and the heir of his body the  remainder over this remainder he admit to be void because it depend upon so  remote a possibility as may never happen now I conceive it be the same thing  to limit it to one for life and if he die without issue then to another for  life as to limit it to one and the heir of his body with a remainder over he  will tie it up from the ordinary and legal construction videlicet to issue at  the time of his death if it be to be understand of die without issue at any  time then child v baily f and Cornish case g be full authority in the point  there a lessee for year devise to one for life and after to William and his  assign and if he die without issue then live the remainder to I g this they  say be good rei case of a feesimple but they will not allow it in case of a  term for year now Mr Jones will by construction bring the word then live into  our case the legal construction of the word die without issue be if there be a  failure of issue at any time modern to come in the case of pell v brown h lev  h if the word then live have not be in the will the case have not be so  adjudge KelyDge chief justice you go lip hill a little can Barnaby take so  long as there be any issue in be of Nicholas Jones he can Kelynge chief  justice then barnaby interest depend upon a contingency that may never happen  Jones I grant if Nicholas have issue at the time of his death that Barnaby  shall never take but if be have none he shall Kelynge chief justice if I  devise land to a for life and if he die without issue of his body to b a shall  have a estatetail so in this case the word and limitation be the same though  the devisor have but a lease for year there can be a estatetail of it a see Mr  hargrave edition of   light a note a yet he intend not that Barnaby shall have  a estate as long as there be any issue in be of nicholas body Twisden justice  it appear to I upon the reason of the case that have be cite that the  remainder to Barnaby must be void because of the remote possibility if a  tenant of a term devise it to b for life the remainder to c for life the  remainder to d for life I have hear it question whether these remainder be  good or not but it have be hold that if all the remainderman be live at the  time of the devise it be good if all the candle be light at once it be good  but if you limit a remainder to a person not in be as to the firstbegotten son  c and the like there will be no end if such limitation be admit and therefore  they be void and some judge be of the same opinion to this hour but then there  will e a question to who the remainder of the term will go if Nicholas die  without issue whether to the executor of Nicholas or to the executor of dr  love if I devise a term to a for life after the death of a his executor shall  not have it but it shall go to the executor of the devisor but if it be devise  to a modern er p general without say for life it shall go to his executor  after his death but a devise for life vest in he only during his life and you  may make a limitation over Kelynge chief justice I take it that a carry the  whole term when devise to he for life because a estate for life be large than  the long term Twisden justice modern as a term for year do admit of remainder  so it do of reversion if you will have it so and when be devise to a during  his life a shall have it for his life but the reversion shall be to the  devisor executor but if be devise it to a for life and if be die without issue  of his borly the remainder to b what shall become of the reversion then  Kelynge chief justice you start a new point the court you shall have our  judgement this term a the whole court be unanimous of opinion that the  remainder to Barnaby be void S C lev for that as he can not take until the  death of Nicholas without issue it be the same in effect as if it have be to  Nicholas and the heir of his body with remainder to Barnaby which devise will  have be clear have because after a term be devise to one and the heir of his  body no other limitation nor any appointment of it by way of executory devise  can be make for the law will not presume any term to have continuance so long  as issue of the body may continue and therefore a limitation in this respect  after a indefinite failure of issue depend upon too remote a possibility S C  side and it be certify accord to the court of chancery that Barnaby the  plaintiff have no title S C keb but see the case Nichols v Hooper Peer wms  target v grant Peer wms Pinbury velkin Peer wms forth v chapman Peer wms  Pleydel v Pleydel Peer wms Maddox v Stains Peer wms Atkinson v Hutchinson Peer  wms Sabberton v Sabberton forest Rep beauclerk v dorm atk sallem v salten atk  Stafford v Buckley vezey Keiley v foul brown parliament case big v bensley  Browns Chan case Sheffield vovery Peer wms lie v lie term Rep peak v Pegdon  term Rep porter v Bradley term Rep a