atkins case wile v lewis easy term see Parker v Birks king I Blinston v  Warburton king I SC post vol cite r W by his will devise to his wife Elizabeth  all his land c not settle in jointure and then say if it shall happen that she  shall have no son nor daughter by I for want of such issue the say premise to  return to my brother the plaintiff if he shall be then live and his heir for  ever pay to a and b pound within a year after Elizabeth death decree to be a  estate tail in Elizabeth because where precede word be proper to create a  estate tail the legal operation of they can be control by subsequent provision  see Sondays case   b Banfield v Popham p W Blackborn v edgley p W Evans v  Astley burr see also Robinson v Robinson post vol Richard wile by his will  devise to his wife Elizabeth now the wife of the defendant all his land c not  settle in jointure general and then follow these word if it shall happen that  my say wife Elizabeth shall have no son nor daughter by I beget on the body of  the say Elizabeth and for want of such issue then the say premise to return to  my brother John wile if he shall be then live and his heir for ever only pay  to his two brother a and b the sum of pound within one year after the decease  of the say Elizabeth Elizabeth have a daughter bear after the death of the  testator and since dead the atkins er p bill be now bring by John wile the  brother of the testator and who be likewise his heir at law to restrain the  defendant from commit waste and the question be what estate Elizabeth take by  the will whether in tail or for life only Mr brown for the plaintiff insist  she take for life only that the word in the will if she have no son or  daughter will certain not raise a estate tail by implication and the  subsequent word for want of such issue will not enlarge the estate the word  such restrain the word issue to mean only such son or daughter that the word  issue receive such a restrain construction for the same reason in the case of  Popham v Banfield salk for there the devise be to a for life remainder to the  first son of a in tail mate and so on to the ten son and if a die without  issue male remainder over it be insist a have a estate tail but the court hold  otherwise and construe the word die without issue male a die without such  issue male that it be the intent of the testator that Elizabeth shall take for  life only appear far from the limitation in the will to John if he shall be  then live so likewise from the direction for pay the money within a year and  to the two brother particular name they which provision seem to imply plain a  intention in the testator that the estate of John shall commence if at all on  the death of Elizabeth and be not intend to wait till a estate tail shall be  spend that the limitation here to John be mere contingent and such contingency  never happen because Elizabeth have a daughter the plaintiff John do not lie  under the devise atkins but as heir at law to the testator be entitle to the  reversion in fee expectant on the estate for life limit to the wife under the  will Mr fazakerley e contra to prove this a estate tail cite Newton v  Barnardine more and byfield case hill Elizabeth cite by hale chief justice in  king v mell Ventr there the devise be to a and if he die not have a son then  to remain to the heir of the testator son be there take to be use as nomen  proceeding by inference and hold a entail he likewise cite vern Pinbury v  Elkin it be say there if he die not have a son that these word create a estate  tail to enforce this construction Mr fazakerley insist on the absurdity which  will otherwise follow that suppose Elizabeth not tenant in tail but for life  only with a contingent limitation to any son or daughter of she if such son or  daughter shall die in the life of the mother though leave issue such issue can  never take within the word of the will which can never be presume to be the  intent of the testator Mr Wilbraham on the same side say in the case of Popham  v Bamfield the foundation the court go on in construe that a estate for life  only be the express devise for life to the first devisee for the word be there  be a mighty difference between a devise to a and if he die without issue to b  and a devise to a for life and if he die without issue then to b Mr brown in  reply say if the testator by his will have make a certain and absolute  disposition of the whole fee the objection that the grandchild will by this  construction be exclude will be strong against we but here a contingent  disposition only be make of the inheritance to John which contingency have not  take effect and the estate descend as be intend by the testator if such  contingency shall not happen so that no exclusion of the grandchild can  possible be Lord chancellor it seem clear from the word of the will as to all  my worldly estate which introduce the dispose part of the will that the  testator intend to make a absolute disposition of his whole estate by his will  and not suffer any part to descend as undisposed of in case of any contingency  and as he intend a disposition of the whole by his will the objection that the  grandchild by this construction be liable to be exclude be a very strong  argument for construe this a estate tail and the inclination to avoid this  absurdity have be the principal reason for construe word of the singular  number and which be proper descriptive of particular person only in a  collective sense as include the descendant of the first taker and be the  govern reason in the case of dubber v Trollop ante S c cite in b r and shaw  and weigh stram S c fort Rep that of April in dom proc Eq Cas Abr the case  cite in Ventris be full as strong as the present here be no difference in the  construction of the devise of a real estate between a provision that if  devisee die not have a son as it be there or if the devisee have not a son as  here atkins in Popham v Bamfield a express estate for life be limit to the  devisee which have always hail a great influence in the construction of a will  when the question have be whether tenant for life or in tail atkins er p great  stress have be lie by the plaintiff counsel upon the word such as if it  restrain the word issue to I n only such son or daughter and that the  precedent word if Elizabeth have no son nor daughter will not raise a estate  tail by implication but in wild case   b it be resolve that if a devise his  land to b and his child or issue and he have not any issue at the time of the  devise that the same be a estate tail for the intent of the devisor be  manifest and certain that his child or issue shall take and as immediate  devisees they can take because they be not in a thing naturan and by way of  remainder they can take for that be not his intent for the gift be immediate  therefore there such word shall be take as word of limitation videlicet as  much as child or issue of his body for every child or issue ought to be of the  body and I be of opinion here the word son or daughter must be take in the  same sense as have no issue and then the word such will have no weight but  will amount to the same thing as if he have say for want of issue and the word  have no issue or die without issue have be always consider in the same light  both in law and equity the direction for the payment of the pound within a  year be very proper circumstance in general to be make use of to induce the  construction contend for by the plaintiff and what may seem to imply a intent  in the testator that the interest of John wile under the will shall if at all  commence on the death of Elizabeth but if the precede word be proper to create  a estate tail the legal operation of they can be control by those subsequent  provision the bill must therefore be dismiss