case Stephens versus hide h h devise three four of his personal estate to his  three son equal to be divide between they and the other four to they in trust  for his two daughter the interest to be pay they respective during their  natural life and afterward to their or either of their child or child and for  default of such issue to his three son equal to be divide between they one his  daughter leaves a son under who the plaintiff claim and the other die without  issue the moiety of the sister who die without issue shall not go to the three  brother but to the representative of the nephew upon a rehear the case be thus  Humphrey hide the testator do by his will in the year devise three four of his  personal estate to his three son equal to be divide between they and as to the  other four he devise it to his three son but in trust only for his two  daughter and by their approbation to be put out at interest in the name of his  three son and the interest to be pay to his two daughter respective during  their natural life and afterward to their or either of their child or child  and for default of such issue he devise it to his three son equal to be divide  between they one of his daughter leaves a son under who the plaintiff claim  and the other die without issue the question be whether the son shall take the  moiety belong to his aunt who die without issue or whether it shall go to the  three son the master of the roll decree the son to take only the moiety belong  to his mother and the other moiety to go to the three son of Burgundy hide Mr  attorney general and Mr fazakerly argue for the plaintiff that the child of  the daughter must take by purchase and that the devise be to the child or  child case tempt Talbot of either of they any issue of they or either of they  be entitle to the whole that be devise that have the estate instead of be  limit to his two daughter be limit to two stranger there can be no doubt but  that the survive child must take the whole and the two daughter take only a  estate for life their child or child do not claim through or under they and  consequent it be the same as if the devise have be to two stranger and then to  the child or child of his two daughter the testator do not say that they shall  take the motive respective but devise it to the child or child of either of  they so that by the plain and necessary construction of the word nothing can  go to the son if there be a child or child of either of the testator daughter  Mr solicitor general Mr Lutwytch Mr Verney and Mr Floyer argue on the other  hand for the defendant that the moiety of the daughter who die without issue  must go to the three son for that there be no doubt but that by the word  respective the daughter be tenant in common and the subsequent limitation be  find on the first devise must receive the same construction as to the child  take by purchase this be a personal estate the testator intent can not  otherwise be fulfil than by make they take by immediate devise but that intent  be only to provide for his two daughter and their respective issue in the  natural order c v case tempt Talbot er p videlicet the child or child of one  to take what belong to his or their mother and not what belong to the other  sister so that this case must be consider as if the testator have devise one  moiety to one daughter and her issue and the other to the other and her issue  and for want of such issue to the son where there can be no doubt but that  upon failure of issue of one daughter her share must have go over to the son  but if the subsequent word shall be explain accord to the construction insist  on for the plaintiff and that one daughter have die first case tempt Talbot  both have issue the moiety of the decease who child or child be never to take  during the other life must go either to the survive daughter which be contrary  to the nature of a tenancy in common or else it must have expect and be in  abeyance until the death of the survive sister which be absurd but accord to  our construction it will go to the issue of the person first die and upon  failure of such issue go over to the son in which there be no inconvenience  and if it have happen that one daughter have have but one child and the other  several then either the issue of each daughter must have take their mother  share respective accord to our construction or all the child must have take  equal per capita which be contrary to the testator intent Lord chancellor the  question here be to how much of the testator estate the plaintiff claim under  the son of one of the daughter be entitle and in this will as well as in every  other the testator intent be to be gather from the word of the will without  either add or reject any which can possible have any meaning the testator have  here devise his estate to be divide into four part three whereof he give to  his three son and of those three the son be plain tenant in common the four he  have give to his two daughter but with this difference that whereas the son  have the property of their respective share give they the daughter have not  the absolute property in that share which come to they but only the interest  which be to be pay to they respective during their life and by this word  respective fisher v Wigg p will they be tenant in common the next limitation  to the child vest the whole property in they and they take as purchaser accord  to Wilds case   a but then it be contend that they must take respective as  well as their mother this I see no reason for there be no word of division in  the devise to they but the whole be to go over to either of their child or  child and when a testator have use case tempt Talbot such plain word to show  his intent that whether there be one or more child that in either case the  child or child shall take the whole I can add word to make the moiety only to  go to his child or child against the testator plain intent which appear from  this that wherever he intend a tenancy in common he have express it as by the  word respective in case of the daughter and the word equal to be divide in  case of the son nor be there any absurdity in suppose that if there have be  many child of one sister and none of the other that the child shall take the  share of her who leave no issue in the mother lifetime since his intent be  equal and as rational in case there have be many child as but one as in the  present case but if on the other hand after the death of one without issue the  whole be not to go over to the child of the other till their mother death the  survive daughter will have a estate for life by implication and so the  absurdity of a abeyance or expectance be avoid nor do it seem contrary to the  testator intent that his grandchild shall take per capita they all be equal  relate to he but as these be only case that may have happen I think it not  necessary for I to determine how the estate will then have go that which have  happen be only now in judgement and upon the whole I be of opinion that the  testator intent be that any child of either of his daughter shall in all event  take the whole of this four part and no part to go over to his son till  failure of such issue and so decree for the plaintiff case tempt Talbot er p  in Reg lib a fol this case be thus state videlicet Humphrey hide by his will  hear date the that of August appoint his son John William and Edward hide and  his daughter Elizabeth the wife of James king and Margaret then Reynolds who  soon afterward marry the plaintiff executor of his win and direct that the  residue of his personal estate shall be divide into four equal part three  whereof he give to his three son and direct the other four part thereof to be  put out on good security in the name of his say three son upon trust only to  and for the respective use of his say daughter and the interest to be pay to  they respective during their life and afterward to their or either of their  child or child and for want of issue to his say three son equal on the that  may the say testator die and his say son and daughter prove his will and after  payment of his debt c make a division of the residue of his personal estate  which amount to pound and onefourth be be place out by the say John William  and Edward ride at interest in their name and in trust for the respective use  of the say Elizabeth king and Margaret Reynolds and their child in manner  follow videlicet pound in lottery annuity be with their consent subscribe into  the south sea company and the pound residue remain in the hand of the say  William John and Edward hide on their agree to answer interest for the same  Elizabeth king die without issue and soon afterward the say Margaret Reynolds  die leave issue only the defendant Reynolds the plaintiff long before the  death of the say Elizabeth king marry with the say Margaret and thereby become  entitle to the whole produce of the say stock and annuity and interest of the  say pound from the death of the say Elizabeth king to the death of the say  Margaret when the defendant Reynolds become entitle to a four part the  defendant Reynolds by deed of the that July in consideration of pound a year  sell his interest to the plaintiff the say John and Edward hide be dead the  say estate subject to the say trust become vest in the say defendant William  John hide have make his will appoint the defendant mary executrix she insist  upon such interest as her husband be entitle to the defendant William hide  insist that the plaintiff be not entitle to the whole dividend of the say  stock and interest of the pound but that on the say Elizabeth king death  without issue one moiety of the premise come to and ought to be divide between  he the say defendant and his brother John in three videlicet twothirds to he  in his own right and his brother Edward right he be dead and have appoint the  defendant William his executor the defendant mary claim no interest in the  premise and the defendant Reynolds by his answer admit the say assignment upon  the hear the master of the roll decree that the say Elizabeth king moiety of  the say pound and of the say south sea stock and annuity belong to the say  testator three son she be dead without issue and that the defendant Reynolds  can only take the other moiety thereof give to the say Margaret his mother  from this decree the plaintiff appeal and upon the rehear before the Lord  chancellor his lordship declare that the plaintiff be entitle to the pound and  the south sea stock and south sea annuity which be the produce of the lottery  annuity and to the interest and dividend thereof the defendant Reynolds have  assign the same to the plaintiff but no cost on either side