case Atkinson v hutchinson see lion v Mitchell mad OMahoney v Burdett l r h l  Lord chancellor Talbot Eq can ab pl devise of a term to a for life remainder  to such child as the testator shall leave at his death and if all his child  die without leave issue then to b the child die without leave any issue live  at the time of their death this a good devise over to b Edward Baxter possess  of a term for forty year hold of the church of Carlisle by his will date the  that of September devise the premise to trustee in trust to apply the rend and  profit to keep the premise in repair and to renew as often as there shall be  occasion and then in trust to pay the overplus thereof to the testator wife  Sarah for her life if she shall so long continue a widow and after her death  or second marriage to the use of such child as the testator shall leave at the  time of his death equal among they and in case any of his say child shall die  without leave any issue the share of he or her so die to go to the survivor or  survivor of they and in case all his say child shall die without leave any  issue then to the use of John Hutchinson the testator make his daughter mary  sole executrix and die leave one daughter who afterward die without leave  issue at her death and whether the devise over to the say John Hutchinson be  good be the question peer William er p Mr Verney insist that the same be void  and that peer William though this be the devise of a trust yet it must be  construe as a legal estate and as it stand original in the will without be  assist or make good by any subsequent accident that it may be lie down as a  rule that where the word of a will in the case of a real estate be sufficient  to give a estatetail there the same word when apply to a term for year will  convey the entire interest in such term now here can be no doubt but that have  the testator be seize of land in fee instead of the term and devise they in  this manner the first devisee the daughter will have be tenant in tail and  this be the strong for that the first devise after the death or second  marriage of the testator wife be to such child as the testator shall leave at  the time of his death which word be afterward drop and from whence can proceed  that change of the testator expression but from a change of his intention  beside here be a possibility upon a possibility under which Mr Hutchinson the  last devisee over claim and therefore it can not be good Lord chancellor I  admit the devise of a trust must have the same construction as that of a legal  estate and that accident subsequent to the make of the will shall not any way  affect such construction and further that though the intention of the testator  be great to be regard yet this his intention must ever be consistent with the  rule of law but then the rule which have be insist on that whatever word of a  will in the case of a freehold will create a entail the same when make use of  with respect to a term will pass the absolute interest in such term this rule  I say seem to e lie down in too great a latitude so far indeed may be agree  that where the word of a will when use with regard to a peer William freehold  give a express estatetail there the same word apply to a term will pass the  whole interest in such term as if a term for year be devise to a and the heir  of his body remainder to b in such case the remainder be void so if the devise  of a term be to a for life remainder to the heir of his body remainder over to  b such remainder to b will be void causan how above but in the principal case  the word of the will will if use with respect to a freehold or real estate  pass a entail only by construction and implication and that these shall carry  the absolute interest in the term be no necessary consequence where word be  capable of a twofold construction even in the case of a deed and much more of  a will it be just and reasonable that such construction shall be receive as  tend to make it good and in the principal case the devise of the term to the  testator child and if they shall die without leave any issue then to  Hutchinson may easy and natural be understand to signify if they die without  leave any issue at the time of their death nay much more natural than in the  other case videlicet if there shall be a failure of issue of they a hundred  year hence the reason give in the ease of target v gaunt report in the  abridgment of case in equity vol be very strong in support of this devise over  which in effect be one possess of a term for year devise it to his son a if  the term shall so long continue and no long and after his death to such of his  issue as he shall devise it to and if a shall die without issue then to his  the testator son b a die without issue and without make any disposition of the  term and the question be whether b the young peer William son be entitle it be  decree in his favour for that the word die without issue have a twofold  meaning the one to signify a die without issue at the time of one death the  other a die without issue whenever such issue fail and though where land of  inheritance be devise to a and if he die without issue then to b a estate tail  will pass to a by implication in order to comprehend the issue to all succeed  generation yet in the case of a term for year which can possible descend to  issue there be no necessity to make such a construction for which reason the  most obvious and natural sense shall there take place and the devisor be  presume to have mean if a the first devisee die without issue live at his  death consequent the die without issue be confine to a life make the  limitation over good by way of executory devise so the case of forth v chapman  vol seem to be in point where one possess of a term for year devise it to a  for life and if a die leave no issue then to b it be true the master of the  roll sir Joseph Jekyll be of opinion and decree that the devise over to b be  void but on a appeal the Lord chancellor Parker hold it good for that there  can be no difference between the word without leave issue which be construe to  mean issue at his death see vol Nicholls v Hooper and Pinbury v Elkin and  leave no tissue far what make it infinite strong be that the fact happen to be  though this be not observe by the counsel peer William er p in that case that  the testator have a real and leasehold estate and devise all his estate vol as  well freehold as good and chattel to a and if a die leave no issue then to b  and there the same word in the same will be construe to make the several  devise good and to give the peer William first devisee a estatetail in the  freehold and but a estate during his life in the leasehold wherefore in the  principal case the intention of the testator be plain that if a die and leave  no issue the devise over shall take effect the Lord chancellor in compliance  with such intention and also agreeable to the precedent in point decree in  favour of the devisee over videlicet that the word if the first devisee die  without leave any issue must be intend to mean without leave issue at his  death Reg lib a fol vide Nicholls v Hooper ante vol target v gaunt ante vol  Pinbury v Elkin ante vol forth v chapman ante vol Pleydell v Pleydell ante vol  Maddox v Stains ante vol Balguy v Hamilton mos attorneygeneral v hall Kel  Sabbarton v Sabbarton can tempt Tal pound beauclerk v dorm atk S saltern v  saltern atk Sheffield v Lord orrery atk Trafford v boehm atk Lampley v blower  atk chamberlain v Jacob Amb earl of Stafford v Buckley yes Exel v Wallace ves  Sheppard v Lessingham Amb bodens v Watson Amb Keily v foul bro p c bro p c and  ed grey v Montagu bro p c bro p c and ed earl of Chatham v Tothill bro p c bro  p c and ed attorneygeneral v hire bro c c big v bensley bro c c wicker v  Mitford hark law tract glover v Strothoff bro C C a do v lie t r Goodtitle v  Pegden t r knight v Ellis bro C C porter v Bradley t r Hockley v mawbey bro  C C and Ves Jun S c bodens v Lord Galway Eden Daintry v Daintry t r Wilkinson  v south t r roe v Jeffere ib do v cook east Everest v Gell Ves Jun Chandless v  price Ves S c Ves n Rawlins v Goldfrap yes ex part stern Ves crook v de Vandes  Ves boehm v clarke yes Tenny v agar east Barlow v salt yes Dansey v Griffiths  m S Donn v penny mere S c yes Stratford v Powell ba be lion v Mitchell mad  Tothill v Pitt ib Murthwaite v Barnard Brod b Murthwaite v Jenkinson b c S c b  c and see sand n the result of these case appear to be that whether the  subject be real or personal estate unless there be expression or circumstance  from which it can be collect that these word die without issue be use in a  more confine sense they be to have their legal signification videlicet death  without issue general Barlow v salt ub sup that in the ease of a devise of  real estate the word without leave issue bear the same sense as without issue  Dansey v Griffiths ub sup but that in the case of a bequest of personal estate  those word be construe without leave issue live at the death of the party to  the failure of who issue the word relate crook v de Vandes yes