case gilbert against witty and other Trinity term James roll a man have three  son and three house devise a house to each son and his heir provide if all my  say child shall die without issue all the say house shall remain to my wife  for ever on the death of any of the son his part shall go immediate to the  wife for there never shall be crossremainders by implication between more than  two devisees post SC roll Rep Jones dyer hob roll ab Leon ray Pollexf carter  skin Savil sand atk stram vern b r h vent show fitzg ld raym Cowp ejectment  upon a special verdict the case be Robert collard be seize in fee of three  house in Norwich hold in soccage and have issue three soil John Robert and  Richard he devise one of those house call the star to John and his heir for  ever and he to enter at his age of twentytwo year and devise his second house  which he purchase of Robert Maihn to Robert his son and his heir for ever and  he to enter at his age of twentytwo year and devise his three house which he  purchase of lettuce pain to Richard his son and his heir and he to enter at  his age of twentytwo year provide always that if all my say child beforenamed  shall depart this present life without issue of their body lawful beget that  then all my say message shall remain and be to Margery my wife and her heir  for ever it be find that John and Robert die without issue and that afterward  Richard have issue Martha wife to Philip day the lessor that Margery enter  into the house devise to Robert and let it to the defendant and afterward  Philip day enter and make the lease to the plaintiff et si c croak throw so  the sole question be whether by the death of Robert without issue there be a  crossremainder by implication give to Richard and the heir of his body or  whether Margery shall have it present by the death of Robert without issue or  that she shall expect until all the son be dead without issue for it be object  that the intent of the devisor be that this feme shall not have any thing  until all his son be dead without issue for it be if all his son die without  issue that then his wife shall have all his house so it be not his intention  as long as any of his son have issue that his wife shall have any of his house  so by implication the son shall have a crossremainder the one after the other  and to prove it the case in Elizabeth dyer where a man have issue five son his  wife enseint devise land to his four young son and to the child that the wife  be enseint if it be a son and their heir and if they all die without croak  James er p issue male of their body or of any of they that the land shall  revert to his right heir it be hold that no part shall revert as long as any  of they have issue and upon the case of Elizabeth dyer Huntley case but after  diverse argument of both side at the bar Doderidge Houghton and chamberlain  deliver their opinion seriatim that the wife shall have it immediate after  their several death as they die without issue and that there be not here any  crossremainder of any of those house from the one son to the other because be  a devise to they several by express limitation there shall not be any great  estate to they by implication and although the estate be limit at the first to  they and their heir yet it be abbreviate and make a estate several in they for  the several house but none of they have a remainder in the house of the other  and in proof hereof be rely upon Freehams case a Claches case b and windham  case c Doderidge say although peradventure a crossremainder may be by  implication where a devise be of land to two several person yet it can be by  implication without express limitation where the devise be of three or more  several house to three or more several person for when one die there can be  several estate by moieties to several person and afterward when the second die  to have a remainder again to another so for the incertainty and inconvenience  it can be nor be it ever see in any book where a estate be limit to diverse  that there can be a crossremainder a but lea chief justice doubt because it be  in a will and it be not the testator intent to prefer the wife as long as he  have issue of his body but for the reason of the other justice they have long  consider thereof resolve that it can not be a crossremainder and so it be  adjudge for the defendant