case bale versus coleman Lord keeper Harcourt vern Eq can Abr pl pl one devise  his land for payment of his debt and then to a for life with power to make  lease c remainder to the heir male of the body of a though this be but the  devise of a trust and executory and express to be to a for life yet it be a  estatetail in a barrable by a fine and recovery by in case of marriage article  to settle a estate on a for life remainder to the heir male of his body this  be a agreement to do a future act and in which the issue be particular  consider and look upon as purchaser one devise land to four person and their  heir for payment of debt to the use of they and their heir after which by a  codicil he devise that his will shall stand save that when his debt be pay a  who be one of the four devisees in the will shall have his share of the land  to himself for life with a power to make lease for ninetynine year  determinable on three life remainder to the heir male of his body remainder  over a levy a fine and suffer a common recovery to the use of himself and his  heir and bring a bill for a partition pray that the other three may join in a  conveyance of a divide four part to he in fee and this come to be hear by Lord  chancellor Cowper July and the only question be whether by the codicil a be  entitle to a estate in tail or for life only his lordship be of opinion a  ought to be tenant for life only with remainder to his first c son in tail  male with remainder over for that it be the case of a will and a peer William  express estate for life be limit to a remainder to the heir male of his body  it differ as he conceive from a immediate devise that it be rather to be look  upon as a executory devise to take effect after debt pay which debt be  considerable or in nature of marriage article for the convey and settle a  estate to one for life with remainder to the heir male of his body in which  case it have be often decree that the conveyance or settlement shall not be  make pursuant to the word but the intention of the party sure to a for life  remainder to the first c son in tail male successive that it will cross and  frustrate the intent of the testator to empower a to bar his issue and the  remainder man beside that the enable of a to make lease seem to imply very  strong that he be to have no power to dispose of the inheritance but the same  cause come on this day that April before Lord keeper Harcourt on a rehear it  be urge against the decree by powis queen sergeant and Northey attorneygeneral  first that if the case be only of a devise of land to one for life remainder  to the heir male of his body this plain will be a estatetail and if it will be  so at law it must be high inconvenient that the limitation of land in the very  same word and by the same will shall be construe to give one kind of estate in  one court on one side of westminsterhall and to create a different kind of  estate in another court on the other side of westminsterhall that the Lord  chancellor Nottingham in the duke of Norfolk case have lie it down as a maxim  that trust vide ante shall be construe by the same rule as legal estate second  that it be not material what the intention of peer William the party be in  this case if that intention be contrary to the plain rule of law and it be a  plain rule of law that if a estate be limit to on for life with remainder to  the heir or heir male of his body this be a estatetail execute three that the  case of king v Melange in lev and keb c be much peer William er p strong where  a estate be devise to one for life with remainder to the issue of his body yet  this be adjudge a estatetail though the word issue be a much more improper  word to convey a inheritance than the word heir fourthly that the power to  make lease do not restrain the estate to be but a estate for life in king v  mell there be a power to the devisee for life jointure notwithstanding to make  remainder limit to the issue of his body make it a estatetail and Mr  attorneygeneral Northey say that he have know very eminent man give that power  even to a tenant in tail and it have its use in regard that by the statute of  h the power of lease give to tenant in tail will bind only the issue Inst and  not the remainder or reversion but now by this express power the lease make in  pursuance thereof will bind the remainder or reversion as well as the issue so  that such power go further than the power give by the statute and may be of  service to prevent the break into the estatetail by a fine and recovery five  as to the objection that this be a devise executory and not execute it be to  take effect after debt pay it be answer that suppose the debt be not then pay  et whenever they shall be pay it will be the same thing as if no such debt  have be and consequent as a present devise and sir Thomas powis very much  insist upon the case of legate v jewel ante where money be devise to be lie  out in land and to be settle on a man for life remainder to the heir male of  his body and the heir male of the body of every such heir male successive  which case be send by the Lord chancellor Cowper to the judge of c b to peer  William determine what estate this will have be in case it will have be a  devise of land and it be adjudge a estatetail Lord keeper Harcourt this be the  case of a will differ from the several case that have be cite of marriage  article in the nature of which the issue be particular consider and look upon  as purchaser and for which reason the court have restrain the general  expression make use of by the party for it can reasonable be suppose that a  valuable consideration will be give for the settlement of a estate which as  soon as settle the husband may destroy but no case have be cite where upon the  word of a will or the party claim voluntary the like decree have be make in  all such case the testator intent must be presume to be consistent with the  rule of law and at law these word will certain create a entail neither can it  be infer with any certainty from the power of lease give by the testator that  no estatetail be intend in regard such power of lease be more beneficial than  that give to tenant in tail by statute and as the debt be admit by the plead  to be all pay the same construction be now to be make as if there have be  original no trust so decree a s share or four part to be convey to he and the  heir male of his body remainder over c that be think more proper by the  plaintiffs counsel than a estate in fee in Eq can ab pl this case be state  very much at large and in ves Lord Hardwicke state it from the register book  and examine it full the principal case on limitation of this nature be the  follow saint where they have give equitable estate of inheritance Sweetapple v  bindon vern legate v jewel ante and Eq can ab pl S c shaw v weigh Eq can ab pl  and bro p c and Edward bro p c S c Garth v Baldwin ves wright v Pearson Fearn  count Rem that edit and Amb S c Eden S c Austen v tailor Amb Eden S c Jones v  Morgan bro c c dly where a equitable estate for life only Leonard v earl of  Sussex vern earl of Stamford v sir I Hobart bro PC and Edward bro p c attorney  general v Sutton post Papillon v voice post Vol two Lord glenorchy v Bosville  can tempt Talb Robert v Dixwell atk meure v meure atk bagshaw v Spencer atk  and ves S c Ashton v Ashton cite ves white v carter Amb Eden S c bastard v  Proby as to the distinction between trust execute and executory vide principal  Lord Glenorcky v Bosville Robert v Dixwell wright v Pearson Austen v tailor  white v carter ub sup and bagshaw v Spencer ves dly where a legal estate of  inheritance king v mell vent legate v jewel ub sup Broughton v Langley Lord  raym and salk S c attorney general v Sutton post miller v peer William er p  Seagrave rob gavelk Goodright v Pullyn Lord raym Papillon v voice ub sup  morris v Le gay cite burr dubber v Trollop Amb Minshull v Minshull atk colson  v colson atk roe v grow will sayer v masterman fearne count Rem that edit and  Amb S c king v burchell Amb and t r note S c Eden S c university of Oxford v  Clifton Amb Eden S c Hodgson v Ambrose Doug thly where a legal estate for life  only archer case Rep Luddington v kime Lord raym Lisle v grey raym law v  Davies Lord raym do v lame burr Perrin v black burr Doug note and hark law  tract S c roe v Collis t r with respect to the operation of the word issue  vide particular backhouse v well Eq ab pl Luddington v kime meure v meure  Ashton v Ashton Goodtitle v Otway will roe v Collis ub sup for the result of  these case vide Fearn count Rem hark law tract hark and Butl   Litt b note  vide honour v honour ante seal v seal post Trevor v Trevor post west v Erisey  post Vol h pool v pool Bos pull bridge v bridge Ves Elton v eason Ves green v  staple mad t Cox Macnamara v Whitworth coop mere v James bro be ba more S c  Murthwaite v Barnard bro be and ba more S c Newcastle v Lincoln Ves Ves S c  green v Stephens Ves Blackburn v stable v b Jervoise v Northumberland I W do v  aplin t r den v Puckey t r do v smith t r do v Cooper east frank v stovin east  Pierson v Vickers east seal v barter Bos pull do v goldsmith marsh Taun S c  roe v Bedford m S Bennet v Tankervile Ves brouncker v Bagot ib do v Jesson m S  reverse dom proc Bligh measure v gee ib will Hockley v mawbey I Ves jun bro c  c S c do v Mulgrave t r do v Burnsall t r Burnsall v Davy Bos pull den v  bagshaw t r do v Halley t r Goodtitle v herring east seaward v willock east do  v Goff east Gretton v Haward marsh Taun mere S c smith v Horlock marsh Q I bro  be S c do v Vaughan b a king v burchell I Eden Murthwaite v Barnard bro be b  more in all these case in which the subsequent limitation to the heir have be  hold to coalesce with the precede freehold give to the ancestor so as to  enlarge his estate both estate be of the same description videlicet both legal  or both equitable but a equitable freehold will not unite with a legal estate  of inheritance Tippen v cousin Carth Mod S c Shapland v smith bro c c  Silvester v Wilson t r Ireson v pearman b c nor a legal freehold with a  equitable estate of inheritance Venables v morris t r peer William de term S  the number three