Lord  Godolphin,  ^  Ves.  6l  ;  Williams  v.  Jekyll,  2  Ves.  681  ;  West*

fidingv.Westfalingi  3  Atk.  A60,  f  Ves.  Jun.  446,  cited  from  Lord

llaniwicke's  notes 5  and  Lord  Eldon  has  expressed  the  same  opinion ;  see

Ripley  V.  Watcrworthi  7  Ves  Jun.  425.     But  in  the  case  of  Campbell

V.  Sandys/  1  Sob.  and  Lef.  281,  Lord  Redesdate  said,  that  the  old  au-

thortties  seemed  the  other,  way,  and  if  the  case  were  l^nre  him,  he

Ihodld  feel  great  difficulty  lo  determining  according  to  ihc^parent  opi«

liftKi  0f  Lord  Hardwicke.    Lord  Redesdale,  in  support  of  his  opinion,

kfeiTed  to  two  casea  stated  in  Ro.  Abr.  Ut.  Occupant  (G.)  2  and  3 ;  the

first  of  which  is  reported  in  Dyer  328,  b.  pL  10,  and  in  Leonard's  third

Volame,  p.  35,  by  the  name  of  Lord  Windsor's  case,  and  is  stated  by

RoUas  a  d^ermination,  that  if  a  lease  be  made  of  land  to  a  man  and

hb  executors  pur  outer  vie,  the  executor  shall  be  special  occupant,  al*

ftoogh  it  be  a  freehold.     He  also  referred  to  Comyn's  Digest,  Estates,

F*  Ij  tit.  Occupaat,  where  the  case  in  Dyer  is  stated  as  a  decision,  that

tKe  eiecutdr  shall  not  have  the  land  as  special  occupant^  for  an  occupant

has  the  freehold,  which  an  exeaitor  cannot  take ;  and  Comyn  also  re*

fers  to  the  second  case  stated  by  Roll,  as  an  authority  for  this  point.
^  Thit  case,*'  my  Lord  Redesdale  added,  "  which  was  long  subsequent

bthe  case  in  Dyer,  is  certainly  in  conformity  to  the  opinion  of  Comyn  $

and  according  to  Salter  v.  Butler,  Moore  664,  Cro.  Eliz.  901,  Yelv.  9  ;

and  the  law  seems  to  have  been  understood  by  Peere  Williams,  3  P.  W.
