Andrews rogers on the demise OF dawson against briggs the word estate in a  devise hold under the circumstance of this case to pass only a estate for life  in ejectment a special verdict be find in effect as follow Charles Hutton be  seize of land in the county of York in fee and have three brother Thomas the  old Richard and Matthew by his last will date I April devise the same in this  manner my mind and will be that all my land house rend and profit shall be and  remain to myself for life and after my death to my wife for her life remainder  to our issue in tail and in default of such issue then I will that my say land  shall go to ray two brother Richard and Matthew to be divide between they and  if my brother Richard shall have no issue male to inherit bis part then my  whole land and estate shall go to my brother Matthew in tail male he pay in  consideration thereof to the daughter or daughter of my brother Richard and to  the daughter or daughter of my brother Matthew if they have any within one  year after the same estate shall fall to he and if be the say Matthew shall  have no issue male then my land shall go to my nephew Thomas Hutton and his  heir be pay to the daughter or daughter of my brother Richard and to the  daughter or daughter of my brother Matthew if they have any within c after my  estate shall fall to he and if be my say nephew Thomas shall have no issue  male then my say estate shall go to the daughter or daughter of my brother  Richard and to the daughter or daughter of my brother Matthew and if they  shall have no daughter then to the daughter Andrews er p or daughter of Thomas  the nephew and if he have none then to the right heir of the testator Andrews  the testator die without issue and then his two brother Richard and Matthew  and also his nephew die Richard and Matthew leave several child who all die  without issue except Eleanor the survive daughter of Richard who have a son  Burgundy Briggs the present defendant and after Richard and Matthew and Thomas  the nephew the testator wife die and the question now be between the say h  Briggs and Thomas Dawson who be the lessor of the plaintiff and the testator  heir at law he be the grandson of Elizabeth who be the daughter of Thomas the  testator old brother whether by the devise of the estate to the daughter of  Richard and Matthew a estate in fee or for life only pass this case be argue  last Hilary term by Mr Bootle for the plaintiff and by Mr denison for the  defendant and this term by sergeant Bootle for the plaintiff and sergeant  wright for the defendant and it be argue on the side of the plaintiff that the  word estate upon the meaning of which the present question principal depend  sometime signify a interest in land and then it will pass a fee or else it be  use as descriptive only so that the construction thereof be in these case to  be govern whole by the intent of the testator and other part of the will be to  be take in in order to explain what be apply it to cro car SC I roll pl now  that in the devise to the daughter of Richard and Matthew it be use as a word  of description only appear from the precede part of the will where it be plain  descriptive it be always give under a restriction and in the devise to Matthew  it be couple with the word land in another part of the will the testator say  that if Richard shall leave no issue male all his land shall go to his nephew  Thomas he pay c within one year after the say estate shall fall to he and here  the word land and estate must necessary mean the same thing so that throughout  the Andrews whole will these two term be use as synonymous and convertible the  testator have probable the same idea in his mind when be use either of they as  therefore in the devise immediate precede that to the daughter a limit  interest only passes and the word estate as descriptive only it ought to  receive a uniform construction in the devise now in question and this  interpretation be great enforce by the relative word say annex to estate in  the same devise which must either refer to the quantity of estate or the thing  before give it can relate to the first because a estatetail be before devise  and consequent it must refer to the land house c mention in the beginning of  the will indeed where a estate at such a place be devise a fee passes but if  that word be couple with other as all his estate mortgage good c a fee will  not pass as appear by the book before cite and yet subsequent word do not  always control precedent one more SC dyer a if this be in a grant a fee will  not pass and a will be not to be construe in opposition to the rule of law  where the devise be obscure and dubious   b I roll pl Mod especial in the case  of a heir who ought to be favour and not to be disinherit without a apparent  intention as it be resolve in shaw and bull a Mod Eq ab a W beside it be not  probable that here the testator intend a fee for the daughter when he give  before a estatetail only to the son and it appear by the will that if he have  intend it be know how to have do it by apt word upon the whole therefore a  estate for life only pass to the daughter and they be all dead the lessor of  the plaintiff be entitle as heir at law under the last limitation on the other  side it be argue that the word estate legal signify such a interest in land as  the proprietor bath therein   light a Litt Rep skin and in this sense  therefore it ought here to be take unless it plain appear that the testator  use it in a different Andrews sense this word ought not to be consider as of  ambiguous and doubtful meaning for though in one part of the will estate and  land be couple together they have plain different signification the one  signify the thing itself and the other the ownership of the thing and  significant and consistent word ought not to be reject as to the intent of the  testator this be to be collect from the word of the will now by this he give  his land to his brother r and m in moieties without limit what estate they  shall take and if r shall have no issue male then he will that all his land  and estate shall go to m c so that the testator whole estate be give to r m  and their issue Andrews er p and therefore when he devise his say estate to  the daughter it relate to the whole estate before give to the brother in  moieties and there it import the interest in the land the word say to be sure  refer to what be mention before but yet it do not necessary follow that if the  word estate in the first instance be synonymous with land it must carry the  same sense in the last place for the mention of it in one place may natural  occasion the repetition of it in another though in a different sense beside by  give the estate first under a restriction it be plain the testator know the  extent of the word and that alone it will pass a fee and as there be no  restriction in the devise to the daughter this seem to show he intend for they  a fee and not a particular estate and indeed if a estate for life be to pass  only it will be not the testator estate but part of his estate which be  contrary to the express word of the will the order of succession appoint by  the testator show also his intent that Thomas his old son and his child shall  not inherit the land till both the male and female issue of r and m shall  cease for first the premise be give to r and m and if r shall have no issue  male then the whole be to go to m and if be bath no issue male then to the  nephew and if he have none then to the daughter of r and m and if Andrews they  have no daughter then to the daughter of the nephew and if there be no  daughter then to the heir of the testator which last limitation be mere  contingent and conditional and do not abridge the precede devise dyer more cro  car that the word estate be sufficient in will to pass a fee appear by these  book and case I Mod SC lev salk Lutw Mod skin show SC Mod vern Abr can Eq pl  Ibbotson and Beckwith b Cas t Talbot Eq ab b hill there the testator give to  his mother all his estate at with all his good for her life and after her  death to his nephew Thomas Dodson if he change his name if not per and for  life only and upon a appeal in chancery whether the nephew have a estate for  life or in fee and without lie any weight on that part of the will relate to  the change his name it be resolve that he have a estate in fee in which case  it be observable that the land be mean by the word estate as it be first use  and the interest by it in the last place but suppose that in the principal  case the word estate be mere descriptive yet the daughter will take a fee in  respect of the pecuniary legacy which be give to they and which never become  Payable but sink into the estate as the devisees who be to pay the money die  before the land fall to they now if there have be a devise of the land to the  brother or nephew general without any restraint they will take a fee accord to  collier case in   a cro Elizabeth SC Leon SC   b and by the same reason the  legacy be not answer the daughter be entitle to a fee in lieu thereof a  consideration be in a manner give for it and if they be to take a estate for  life only they may be loser by the devise because that may have determine  before they shall receive so much as their legacy amount to Benl and collier  case before cite object that a heir at law ought not to be disinherit without  express word answer where the intent be clear as it Andrews be in the present  case for the reason before give that shall govern and here it be observable  that the lessor be in a very remote degree from the testator but the whole  court be clear of opinion that a estate for life only pass to the daughter of  r and m for as it be argue although in grant and also in will the word estate  be sufficient to carry a fee yet in this last case where the consequence be  the disinherit a heir at law a fee shall not pass thereby unless the intent of  the testator be very plain and apparent for that purpose and so lee c j say it  be hold by Lord chief justice Trevor and Powell just in shaw and bull mich W  in c b where the c I say that in will the word my estate or the residue or  overplus of my estate which last be the word in that case will carry the  inheritance if the intent of the testator appear accord but such intent must  be very plain either from the word of the will or the circumstance of the case  where the heir be to be disinherit and be cite Noy style Mod to all which  Powell agree now in the present case the intent be not so apparent as to force  the court to put such a construction on the devise to the daughter as be  insist on for the defendant but on the contrary from the contexture of the  whole will it seem plain that the word estate be always and particular in the  devise now in question use as descriptive only and synonymous Andrews er p  with laud so that here it will be put a force on it to make it carry a fee and  beside the devise over to the testator heir show that he think he have a far  interest to dispose of after the devise to the daughter to who he do not seem  to intend so much as a estatetail as to the argument deduce from the legacy  give to the daughter of r and m and never become Payable that will not affect  the present case for as chapel just say they can possible be loser but be the  value of the land as it may must receive a advantage by take a estate for life  therein and beside no money be give to the Andrews daughter of Thomas the  nephew to who the premise be give in the same word as to the other daughter  and both devise be to have the same construction judgement therefore for the  plaintiff