carter grove versus Woolaston elsewhere ejectment ejectment of land in Berks  of the demise of Stephen Gilmore the jury find a special verdict Edward  Gilmore have issue by his wife John who die July after his death he have issue  by his say wife three other son Edward Goddard and George and then and not  before by indenture date october car be covenant to levy a fine of the land in  question to the use of he and his wife for their life and after their deceases  to the use of Goddard Gilmore his second son now live and the heir male of his  body and for default of such issue to the use of the five beget son of he and  his wife and the heir of his body and for default of such issue to the use of  the six beget son of he and his wife or to be beget and the heir of his body  and at the time of this fine levy this Edward Gilmore have no five or six son  then bear after the make of the same indenture he have issue three other son  John Benjamin and Stephen so reckon the old John this John be the five  Benjamin the six and Stephen the seven but if the son be compute in order  after the indenture make then John be the four son Benjamin the five and  Stephen the six son and then the consequence be this the remainder of the land  in question if Goddard the second son and Benjamin the five die without issue  which they do it fall by limitation of the deed to Stephen the six son the  case then be thus that Goddard and Benjamin both die then Edward the father  and John his son levy a fine this be to the use of John and his heir for the  one part of the land and to the father for life and to John and his heir for  the other part the father die then the son enter and convey seven acre to  Woolaston in fee and the residue to the other defendant then do Stephen enter  upon Woolaston within five year after the fine and make the lease to the  plaintiff the question be which of these way the father intend by the say deed  to compute his son if the first way reckon John for his first son then John  the young be the five son to who the land be limit and the defendant have a  good title if otherwise then Stephen entry be good for so much of the land as  carter er p he enter into and then the plaintiff have good title for the  residue of the land which he enter not into he be bar resolution of the court  deliver by Vaughan chief justice we give judgement for the defendant for those  that claim under John as the five son there be no reason why the computation  shall be only from the son live because be give it to Goddard his second son  now live now his second son now live be impertinent for he be ascertain before  now though it be a good denotation of his son Goddard so it have be well  enough without yet he be not so denote as to carry any necessary denotation of  his other son that be who shall be the five or six son now this not be so of  necessity carter we will consider whether there be not a clear and better  denotation of the five and six son otherwise than from this expression and  that be this he do for all the rest of his son compute they when be limit the  use to the five son by he beget of the body of his wife and then for default  of such issue to his six son beget by he on the body of his wife now if a man  shall ask the question who be the first son of this Edward Gilmore the answer  must be he that be live not his dead son for the relation be cease but if you  ask who be the first beget son of Edward Gilmore then you must answer his son  that die be the first beget son and so Goddard the second and so on Stephen  have no right to the remainder because Benjamin be his six son now Benjamin be  dead and Goddard dead John must be the five beget son under who the defendant  claim there be no reason in this case to believe that Edward Gilmore shall  make a conveyance that never be make nor in probability ever will be make so  fantastical if a man have several son live he may limit his land to which he  will and pass by who he will but if a man will limit use to son that be not  bear then it be not probable he will limit it to his five son and pass over  his three and four son and the five may never be while the other be in be to  apply this if you reckon from the first John and then to his three son bear  after then George be the four than when he limit the use to his five son it  fall out proper because the five be next in order to the four but if you  reckon that Edward be the first son and so compute George to be the three  after he have limit a use to Goddard the second son be come to his five son by  which he passes over any four son he step over the four son and give it to the  five and six neither of which be bear at that time accord to that computation  there be another reason which be not of much weight the last fine which be  levy by Edward the father and John his son if John have not be next in  remainder as they conceive there have be no reason to levy the fine by they  two to go into judgment pro to ward off