case smith versus clever all master of the roll maii Ant case Ch Rep S c the  master of the roll have hear several argument in this case take time to  consider thereof and this day deliver his opinion therein that he take the  Vernon chancery case er p question to be not so much how far a personal  chattel may be devise over that such a devise over be good vide Clarges v  duchess of Albemarle post hide v parrot post for the first devise or bequest  be but as of the use of the thing devise as how far the use of money may be  limit and devise over the first authority I meet with in this case be in h S  time in brook case where the occupation of good be devise to one the remainder  over the remainder be account good and the case of the Lord Hastings versus  Douglass cro car Fol and in the case h there cite by which it appear the law  be clear that the devise of the use and occupation of good vest not a absolute  property thereof in the first devisee but that a limitation of they over be  good now by the devise in question I take it that the money itself be not  devise but only the interest of it as to the objection that the devise of a  personal estate in tail remainder over be a perpetuity and void and so be  adjudge in the case of Boucher and Antram Nov car that be not any thing like  the principal case as to that point vide deering v Hanbury ante Vol and case  cite in not there also William v William Eq can ab pl Maddox v Stains p wms  Butterfield v Butterfield ves S c by which and the case refer to it be clear  settle that such a limitation over be void for here money be not devise but  only the use of it Vernon chancery case but the case I most principal depend  on be rakehell case where chattel be devise to the wife for life c and if she  be with child then to that child if that child die without issue the remainder  over to the grandson the wife have no child and it be in that case resolve  that the remainder over be good as likewise it will if there have be a child  and that child have die without issue and cite the case of wood and sander car  and as to the objection that have be make by the plaintiff counsel that the  interest be give to whether smith for life and if she die without issue then  the remainder over c imply a estatetail both in principal and interest he say  a implication can be against the plain intent of the party express in his will  vide Bamfield v Popham p win and case cite in note there Maddox wonder Stains  p wms and in this case the testatrix have careful distinguish between  principal and interest and nothing pass but bare the use until she come to the  remainder over and then she devise the principal and he mention the rule take  in Matthew man case that the intention of the party in his will ought to be  observe as far as may consist with the rule of law and cite the case of oak  and Chaffon probable Chalfont v oak Ch can pollex as a authority in point and  declare as this will be pen the remainder be good and therefore decree the  money shall go accord to the will but with this that in case there shall be  issue of whether smith the issue shall have the absolute and entire interest  in the money vide target v gaunt p wms forth v chapman ibidem note it be  object that the devise of the use or interest of money passes the money itself  as a devise of the profit of a term carry the term so a devise of the rend and  profit of land shall pass the land itself Inst b south v alleine salk and as  to the main point the case of love and Windham be cite as a authority with the  plaintiff