case GOODRIGHT against Cornish if a devise be make of land to a the old son of  the testator for fifty year if he shall so long live to commence after the  death of the testator with remainder to the heir male of the body of the say a  and for want of such issue with remainder over the remainder to a be void for  it be contingent and have only a estate for year to support it S c salk S c  holt S c comb S c skin S c Mod S c ld ray special verdict in ejectment the  case be thus John Knowling be seize in fee of the land in question and have  issue two son John and Richard the father devise the land to John his old son  for fifty year if he shall so long live which term be to commence after the  death of the testator and after the determination thereof then to the heir  male of the body of the say John and for want of such issue then to his second  son in tail c remainder to the right heir of the devisor the father die John  the old son suffer a common recovery of these land and declare the use to  himself for life and to the heir male of his body and for want of such issue  to the defendant and his heir modern John die without issue and Richard die  leave issue a son of that name the question be whether John the old son have a  estate tail by this devise modern er p if he have then the recovery be well  suffer to dock that estate and it shall be a good bar to the remainder it be  argue against the estate tail that the nature of this devise be by express  limitation for fifty year so that what the old son have more must be by  implication for the term be only design for he but where the intent of the  devisor be apparent in the will no construction shall be put upon his word so  as to make any estate arise by implication the legal construction of these  word be to expound the devise of the inheritance to be a executory devise it  can be a remainder because a freehold must depend and be support by freehold  but here the particular estate be but a term for year it be too weak to  support a remainder this be the opinion of dyer and manwood in mich Elizabeth  n the common plea Leon a that a remainder in such case be void because there  be no person who can take present but if the lease have be make for life with  a remainder to his right heir then he will have a fee execute so that in this  case John can have a estate tail execute because the limitation to he by way  of remainder be void in its creation to prove that John take up a executory  devise they cite Matthew man case   b which be thus Edward man be possess of a  term which he devise to his wife for life pay every year seven pound to  Matthew man and after the death of his wife be devise it to Matthew and make  his wife executrix she prove the will but have not asset ultra the term to pay  the debt of the testator the executrix assent to the legacy and pay it  constant to Matthew during her life she die intestate and administration de  good non of Edward be grant to Matthew against who a creditor of Edward bring  a action and upon plene to manage plead the question be whether the residue of  the term be asset in the hand of Matthew to pay the debt of the testator this  matter be find special before coke chief justice at guildhall and upon argue  of it in the common plea Walmsley justice be at first of opinion that the  devise to Matthew be void because the whole modern term be devise to the  executrix for life who may have survive the same and there be only a  possibility that she may die within the term and Matthew survive which  possibility can not be limit by way of remainder but it be adjudge that it do  vest in Matthew not as a remainder but by way of executory devise which in  judgement of law shall precede the disposition of the term till the  contingency shall happen as if he have say if my wife die within the term then  Matthew shall have the residue and far have devise it to her for life the same  point be adjudge three year afterward in the same court in Lampetts case   c  which be thus John Moriice be possess of a term for five thousand year in a  house c he devise the house c to his father for life remainder to Elizabeth  his sister and to the heir of her body and make his father executor and die  the sister marry William tailor and then the husband and wife release to the  first devisee it be object that Elizabeth have only a possibility to have this  term after the death of the executor such possibility can not by the rule of  law be release to he in possession but it be adjudge that she have more than a  possibility because she take by executory devise which vest a interest  immediate in point of law though not to take effect till the contingency shall  happen and therefore by this release their right be extinguish and they have  absolute perfect the whole term in the executor which before be determinable  by his death now in the case at bar if there have be a limitation over to the  right heir of John the remainder can never have vest in he but his right heir  will have take by way of purchase because John their ancestor have no freehold  but only a lease for year but if he have a freehold for life with a remainder  to his right heir then the fee have vest in he because then those word right  heir will be word of limitation of the estate and not of purchase   light a  this be like a covenant to stand seize for twenty year remainder to the heir  of the body of the covenantor which be a executory remainder and to be bar by  a common recovery modern e contra such a construction must be make of this  devise that the will modern er p may have its effect and it be a know rule in  law that it shall not be construe by way of executory devise if it will admit  of any other construction this be therefore a remainder vest or otherwise it  must be void it be a estate tail in John of necessity by implication because  of these word for want of such issue and it make no difference whether those  word follow a estate for life or for year so as the limitation be to the heir  a devise to his wife for life remainder to William and if he have issue male  of his body then to such issue and if no issue male then to Samuel c so to  Thomas in as many word it be adjudge Sunday case   b that every one of the son  have a estate tail because of the word if no issue male which be sufficient to  create such a estate and yet there be no freehold for life devise to the issue  but only a devise general the like resolution be in Trinity term in the seven  year of James the first in the king bench in the case of Robinson v miller  roll Abr c which be a devise to the wife for life remainder to the son of the  testator and if the son die without have a son remainder over the son have a  estate tail by this devise there be as much reason that a estate shall arise  by implication here as in that know case of Pybus v Mitford Mod d and it be  not material whether the lease for year be drown by the reversion in fee  descend upon John the old son and heir of the devisor for the limitation be to  the heir of the body of John and he be likewise heir at law to the testator so  much of the old inheritable estate shall arise to he by implication which may  make he a tenant for life and then he have a estate tail execute in he a man  have two son by several venture Mod e covenant to stand seize to the use of  his heir male beget on the body of his second wife without any precedent  limitation of a estate for life remainder to his own right heir and it be  adjudge that a use do arise to the son of the second wife because a estate for  life do arise to the covenantor by implication and this be by operation of law  for a limitation to the heir of his body be in effect to himself Davis v speed  Mod f and then the case be no more than a limitation to himself for life and  to the heir male of his body beget on the body of his second wife and this be  the case of Pybus v Mitford modern so a devise to S from Michaelmas next for  five year remainder to a and his heir S die before Michaelmas this be  adjudgedNoy cro Elizabeth   a a good remainder in contingency because it be in  the case of a will the freehold shall be in the heir of the devisor till the  contingency happen so here this shall be a good devise to the heir of the body  of John by way of contingent remainder and in the mean time the freehold shall  not be in abeyance but shall descend to he be likewise heir of the devisor  agreeable to this be a very late resolutionReve v long in easter term will  mary post see also Bac b of both the court of law in Westminster hall which be  thus John long be seize in fee devise to Henry long for life then to the first  son of Henry and to the heir male of the body of such first son c and for  default of such issue to Richard long for life with like remainder in tail  male remainder over c the devisor die and Henry enter and die without issue  male but leave his wife with child of a son then Richard enter and afterward  the son be bear who bring a ejectment those who argue for he will have it to  be a executory devise and that the freehold shall vest in Richard until the  son be bear but it be hold to be contingent remainder and there be no  particular estate in Henry to support it therefore it be adjudge void for  otherwise if it have be a executory or a spring remainder as it be call in one  it will be so in all the devisees and that will be to introduce perpetuity so  here to construe this to be a executory devise will be to introduce the same  mischief and to elude the force of a common recovery which be one of the chief  assurance of the kingdom curian this can be a executory devise if it shall  then the limitation over be void it must therefore be a contingent remainder  and then it be void because there be nothing but a term for year to support it  and afterward in easter term judgement be give for the plaintiff modern er p