case leek v Bennett February the that sir I l give by a codicil t his will to  e m during her natural life his house in Greenwich with all the household good  that shall b e find therein at the time of his decease the word with so  conjoin the devise of the house and household good that the devisee can have  no large interest in the latter than be express limit as to the former the  word with will have have the same effect in the case of a grant sir John leek  by his will devise in these word I give to my niece Elizabeth Martin and Hann  ah Martin or which shall be live at the time of my death all my household good  particular mention in my house at MazeRill Greenwich by a codicil afterward he  say I give to my niece Elizabeth Martin during the atkins er p time of her  natural life my house on Mazehill in Greenwich with all the household good  that shall be find therein at the time of my decease there be only ten year to  come in the house both the niece be live at the time of the testator death but  the defendant survive the other part of the good give in the codicil be except  in the will as gild hang and some other thing and a additional pound a year  give to his niece atkins Elizabeth Martin now Bennet by the codicil and then  he devise as before mention Lord chancellor the question be whether this be a  absolute devise to Elizabeth or for life only the first consideration be what  she will have take under the will it be plain the niece will have take as  jointtenants and only the particular good so bequeathe for the good except  they can not though in the house at Greenwich and the survivor will have take  the whole the codicil have make a total alteration in two respect instead of a  joint interest it be make a sole interest instead of a absolute property a  interest for life and Elizabeth likewise take the good except and consequent  it be a revocation of the will and a entire new bequest if the codicil have  stand alone it will have be plain a gift of the good for life only and the  word with be make use of it so conjoin the devise of the house and household  good that the devisee can have no large interest in the household good than be  express limit as to the house vide Richard v baker post vol if the word during  her natural life have be subjoin to the devise of the house it have not be so  clear a case though I think that will not have vary the law of the case  neither but those word be put before the devise must operate equal on both  part of the subsequent devise and the same interest pass in both the word with  will have have the same effect and be construe in the same manner in the case  of a grant his lordship take notice of a case in roll Abr letter m No if a man  devise Blackacre to one in tail and also Whiteacre the devisee shall have a  estate tail in Whiteacre likewise for this be all one sentence and consequent  the word that make the limitation of the estate go to both Trin Elizabeth b r  he cite too the case of coat v Rawlinson salk where the word also have the  like effect and the same construction put upon it Mr fazakerley who be of  counsel for the plaintiff insist upon the defendant give security for the good  as the court have determine she have only a interest for life Lord chancellor  say he never know it do and therefore will not oblige the defendant to do it  in this case but direct a inventory to be make by the defendant Bennet and  sign by he and his wife and to be deliver to the plaintiff bill v Kynaston  post vol