case LETHEULLIER against Tracey contingency confine to the next limitation and  not ride over all the subsequent limitation iib Reg b foe b S c ken atk hark  ms in chancery that that that Dec sir William dodwell by his will d April  devise all his manor message land c to his daughter mary dodwell now wife of  defendant Tracey for life remainder to trustee to preserve c remainder to her  first son in tail male remainder to every other son in general and give all  his personal estate to trustee to be lie our in land and settle upon his  daughter and her issue in such manner as he have devise his manor c ambler and  in case his say daughter shall die without issue of her body live at her  decease then he devise unto trustee and their heir ambler er p his manor  message land c and also all his personal estate to be lie out as aforesaid  upon trust to receive the rend and profit thereof annual as well of the land  so to be purchase as all other the premise so as aforesaid devise to they and  lie out the same in the purchase of land of inheritance in the county of  Gloucester or some adjacent county and also the rend thereof until his cousin  sir Henry Nelthorpe shall attain his age of twentyone year and then the will  go on in these word item I give and devise all my manor c to my say cousin sir  Henry Nelthorpe after he shall have attain twentyone year take the name of  dodwell for life without impeachment of waste remainder to trustee and their  heir to preserve contingent remainder with remainder to his first c son in  tail male remainder to his daughter in tail and in default of such issue or in  case the say sir Henry Nelthorpe shall happen to die before he attain his say  age of twentyone year and without issue the to smart Letheullier take the name  of dodwell for life with remainder to his son in tail male with remainder to  Charles Letheullier for life take the name of dodwell with remainder to his  son in tail male and for default of such issue and then there be a large blank  leave without further disposition note the editor have compare the will as  give at length in Atkins with the register book and find it correct the  testator daughter marry defendant Tracey and have issue a son who be defendant  in this cause sir Henry Nelthorpe be dead without issue and the trustee have  purchase several estate by decree their account be to be pass before a master  and a conveyance be to be make of the purchase estate to the use of the will  which be prepare be lie before master who approve thereof and on exception to  his report so approve the draft of conveyance question in at manner the  limitation to the Letheulliers be to be pen for the plaintiff it be insist  that they be vest remainder to take place after failure of issue of testator  daughter and that the word in default of issue live at ambler her death be to  be construe accord to the intention of the testator that the word live at her  death be for that purpose either to be reject or confine to the next  limitation to the trustee during the minority of sir Henry Nelthorpe and not  to run over all the subsequent limitation on the other side it be contend the  subsequent limitation be contingent and that those word must have their proper  meaning and affect all the subsequent limitation Lord Hardwicke chancellor in  construction of will the intention govern in this case I be to find that out  as arise on the will itself and particular word be to have such construction  as they will bear agreeable to that intention testator intend to entail his  estate to several person who be to take his name nothing show his intention  strong than the clause of obligation to take his name the clause in question  come under two division saint as to his real estate devise d as to the money  to be lie out to saint all the limitation of his real estate devise be legal  limitation except the chattel interest in the trustee during the minority of  sir Henry Nelthorpe as to d a trust be create to the same use as the legal  estate Q to what limitation the legal estate be devise saint question whether  the limitation to sir Henry Nelthorpe be contingent on the daughter die  without issue live at her death or whether it be a vest remainder d question  suppose the limitation to sir Henry Nelthorpe be contingent whether the  remainder to Letheullier be so ambler he then state the limitation and observe  the limitation to his daughter first son in tail male be by mistake for the  other son all take a estate in tail general the remainder to the trustee  during the minority of sir Henry Nelthorpe be a determinable fee then come a  substantive clause videlicet item I give to sir Henry Nelthorpe at twentyone Q  whether the contingency arise from the word in case my daughter shall die  without issue live at her death shall run over all the subsequent remainder of  opinion they shall not I agree if the legal estate have be give to the  daughter and her issue and then ambler er p after these word the whole have be  give to trustee and all the subsequent limitation have be only declaration of  that trust in such case these word will have extend to the whole that be not  the present case I be of opinion testator intend to confine the contingency to  the trustee he think his daughter may die under age and without issue in the  minority of sir Henry Nelthorpe and in such case he give the estate to trustee  to be accumulate till sir Henry Nelthorpe attain twentyone Q if the subsequent  limitation to Letheullier be contingent be of opinion they be not the  limitation to sir Henry Nelthorpe be a vest remainder it will have be so if  the testator have live till sir Henry Nelthorpe attain twentyone in which case  there will have be no need of the limitation to the trustee but the limitation  to sir Henry Nelthorpe will have vest on testator death then the subsequent  limitation be in default of such issue or if sir Henry Nelthorpe die under  twentyone and without issue these word in default of such issue relate in  default of issue of all the person to who the estate be before limit No stress  can be lie on the latter word which be only to ambler express his intent in  the particular event and do not weaken the former word this construction be  agreeable to the rule of law and to the case cite which go further than the  present and be strong authority to show that general word shall be confine to  particular limitation accord to the intention napper v sander hut which be  construction on a offerment and Luxford v cheek lev raym the case cite on the  other side be Bellasis v uthwaite atk that February Sheflield v earl of orrery  atk but they be both so particular they can be precedent in other case this be  clear the intention of the testator and there be great reason for this  construction in the present case than be in napper v sander and Luxford v  cheek let the conveyance be make to the daughter remainder to her son and  daughter as in the will and then in default of such issue to smart Letheullier  with remainder over as in the will leave out the intermediate remainder to the  trustee during the minority and to sir Henry Nelthorpe Davis v Norton wms and  Selby v Selby ms which be not cite Jones v Westcombe Prec in Ch which be cite  for plaintiff in consequence of the above determination a question be make by  defendant counsel whether those word in default of such issue of mary Tracey  testator daughter will not give her a estate tail because the limitation to  her first son be in tail male in case such son shall die leave only a daughter  that daughter can not take but the estate will go over to Letheullier unless  mary Tracey take a estate tail and Langley v Baldwin Eq can Abr be cite as a  authority this point be order to be speak to the next Monday afterward put off  to Monday that January post see Humphrey v tayleur ante Robinson v Robinson  burr bro PC do v Alpin t r do v Cooper east frank v stovin east Pierson v  Vickers east Murthwaite v Jenkinson b c do v Harvey b c Spalding v Spalding  cro car Newland v Sheppard p wms Jenkins v herries mad see do v Helen t r  attorneygeneral v Sutton p wms do v Goff east Jesson v wright Bligh see Austin  v tailor post this passage be irreconcilable with the reference state above to  have be make by Lord Hardwicke to the interest of the trustee for he be there  make to speak of that interest as a chattel interest Mr Fearn in his treatise  on contingent remainder p consider Lord Hardwicke to have hold that the  trustee take a determinable fee and the report by Mr Atkins who it appear be  counsel for the defendant in the cause make Lord Hardwicke to hold that the  interest of the trustee be a determinable fee and make no mention of any  assertion that the trustee take a chattel interest if Lord Hardwicke do hold  that the trustee take a determinable fee the decision that the remainder over  be vest seem at variance with the establish rule that a remainder after a  determinable fee can be vest in the case of Warter ambler er p v Hutchinson b  c it be attempt to reconcile the decision in Letheullier v Tracey to  abovementioned rule accord to subsequent case it will appear that a devise to  trustee similar to the above will be now hold not to give they a fee but only  a chattel interest see Warter v Hutchinson b c Stanley v Stanley Ves see  Goodtitle v Whitby burr do v Underdown wine do v lea t r Mansfield v dugard Eq  can ab as to the case where trustee have be hold to take a fee and where only  a chattel interest see wright v Pearson post and note