case web all versus web see lion v Mitchell mad Bartlett v green sim Lord  keeper Harcourt vern Eq can ab pl a on his marriage assign a term for year in  trust for himself for life remainder to his wife for life remainder to the  heir of the body of the husband and wife remainder to the husband right heir  the wife die leave issue the whole term vest in the husband and he may assign  it Edward web the defendant grandfather and his trustee in consideration of a  marriage between Thomas his son and whether his then wife and pound portion do  assign diverse land in Horsley in Gloucestershire to trustee for the remainder  of a term of year upon trust to permit the son to enjoy the same so long as he  shall live and after his decease then to whether his wife as long as she shall  live and after peer William er p their decease to permit the heir of the body  of the say Thomas the son and whether his wife to be beget to hold the premise  during the remainder of the term and for want of such issue to be enjoy by the  right heir of the say Thomas the son Thomas and whether have seven or eight  child and he have survive his wife and settle about two three of his estate on  the defendant his old son to the value of about pound and be indebt about  pound make a mortgage of peer William the premise for secure that money and in  order thereunto take out administration to the last survive trustee and  afterward assign this term to the plaintiff upon trust that they shall sell  the same and in the first place pay off the mortgage and then pay the  remainder to his executor to be dispose of by they for his young child as he  shall appoint by his will after this he make his will and the plaintiff baker  and Seager c executor and short after die the plaintiff the trustee and  executor be disturb by the defendant bring their bill for the execution of the  say trust and will the defendant by his answer set forth the first deed of  trust and insist that he as old son and heir of his say father and mother be  entitle to the premise by virtue of that settlement and that he ought to have  the same notwithstanding his father mortgage assignment and will bill the  cause be hear before the master of the roll who dismiss the plaintiff but upon  petition to the Lord keeper it be reheard by he who take time to consider of  it and this day be appoint for judgement Mr Vernon who be absent at the rehear  by reason of sickness be hear for the defendant and insist strong that this  case be exact the same as that of peacock and Spooner vern where a term for  year be assign in trust for one for life remainder to the heir of his body  which cause be hear before Lord chancellor Jeffereys in who be of opinion that  the tenant for life have the peer William whole term and decree accord but  afterward come on to be reheard before the lord commissioner vern they take it  that the word heir of the body be a description of the person who be intend to  take and reverse Lord Jeffereys decree and upon a appeal to the house of lord  the commissioner decree be affirm so Dafforne v goodman vern also in the case  of ware v Bradley vern the trust of a term be limit to coal for ninetynine  year if he shall so long live remainder to the heir of his body beget on his  wife coal dispose of the whole term and die leave child who bring their bill  and have a decree in their favour sir Joseph Jekyll for the plaintiff the rule  in equity be the same as to the trust of a term as it be at law in case of a  freehold so that wherever upon a limitation of a freehold a man by a fine or  recovery can bar his issue if there be the same limitation of the trust of a  term in that case also the party may dispose of the whole term there be a  great difference between our case and that of peacock v Spooner in that case  the limitation be for so many year as the man shall live and then to his wife  in the same manner then to the heir of the body of the wife beget by the  husband now this be the estate of the husband and be a settlement make by he  and therefore it be consider as in the case of a freehold upon the statute of  h can for prevent woman alien the estate of their husband after their death  for there the wife with a second husband be endeavour to defeat the child of  the first husband and this be a great ingredient in the case to induce peer  William the lord to go so far Lord keeper I never hear it say before the case  of peacock v Spooner that the limitation of a term in equity differ from the  case of a freehold at commonlaw that case be the only one which in any manner  resemble this but as it seem far from be exact parallel I do not think myself  tie up by it so as to the authority of peacock v Spooner vide I ves ves and  now that case differ from this in several material circumstance saint the  limitation there be to the heir of the body of the wife here to the heir of  the body of the husband and wife dly there the party have not the legal estate  but the second husband take out administration to the first and imagine that  he have a right to the whole term bring his bill against the trustee to compel  they to assign peer William er p in the case before I the party alien have the  legal estate dly in that case there be no disposition here be a mortgage and  disposition for young child which be the plaintiff not to prevail must be  defeat d and therefore there be these material variation between the one case  and the other I think I be at liberty to determine this as if the case of  peacock v Spooner be out of the way I peer William be sure I have often hear  it say by this court that the case of lady Radnor v Vandebendy be of a  purchaser ante and that in any case which vary from it as where there be no  purchaser they will vary too the decree at the roll must be reverse and the  trustee be let into a redemption of the mortgage and be decree to perform the  trust it seem in this case there be pound give the defendant by his father  will on condition that he do not disturb the trustee and they come now to have  a execution of the trust and that he may either join with they in a sale or  lose his legacy per cur if he will join with they he shall have the pound  legacy if not then he shall forfeit it so Atkinson v Hutchinson post Vol III  Fereyes v Robertson bunb Burford v lee free saltern v saltern atk Pelham v  Gregory bro PC Theebridge v kilburne ves Garth v Baldwin ves do v lie t r but  this may be otherwise upon the apparent intent of a testator Clare v Clare can  tempt Talb Hodgson v Bussey atk as to the ground of determination of which  case vide ves and wither v Algood cite ves sand v Dixwell cite ves all which  be case of chattel real as to the like limitation of chattel personal vide  post seal v seal whether there shall be any difference in the effect of  limitation of chattel real and personal vide post and beauclerk v dorm atk  vide post Hayter v rod Davis v Gibbs post Vol III for this be mere a case of  election arise upon a express condition in which a legatee shall not be permit  to claim at the same time under the will and against it as in Boughton v  Boughton ves Popham v tailor bro c c newsman v Newman bro c c and as have be  repeat determine upon imply condition in noise v mordant vern Streatfield v  Streatfield can tempt Tal unett v Wilkes Amb Eden S c frank v standish bro c c  Macnamara v Jones bro c c c c but a condition that a legatee shall not dispute  the will c be consider as in terror shall be relieve against and therefore a  legatee shall not by have dispute the validity or effect of a will forfeit his  legacy when such will afterward become establish or the effect of it ascertain  Powell v Morgan for spillet v Lloyd post Vol III morris v Burroughs atk Popham  v tailor ub sup unless the legacy be give over upon breach of such condition  as in cleaver v spurling post Vol III see Dillon v Parker Gretton v Haward  swan in the note to which the case on the subject of election be collect and  the subject be able consider and see gardener v fall I and W butcher v Kemp  mad