coal vers Rawlinson Intr Trin W b r rot apply Richard v baker atk Mod refer to  child v Elsworthy de g m g SC salk holt under a devise in these word I give  ratify and confirm all my right c and all my term for year in whatsoever I  hold by lease of I S and also the house call the bell tavern in saint Nicholas  lane to one who be entitle to a estate tail in the house upon the death of the  devisor by the same instrument from which he derive his interest the devisee  see the devise more at large bro parliament Cas a be entitle to the house in  fee ejectment upon not gild plead the jury find a special verdict upon which  the case be thus Billingsley seize in fee of the bell tavern in saint Nicholas  lane London marry a widow who have a son by her first husband and upon the  marriage Billingsley by lease and release convey the bell tavern to trustee to  the use of himself for life remainder to his wife for her life remainder to  their first son in tail c remainder to the right heir of the wife c  Billingsley have issue by the say woman John Billingsley and die the wife  afterward make her will in these word Lord Raymond er p inter alian item I  give ratify and Lord Raymond confirm to my son John Billingsley all my right  title and interest which I now have and all such term and term for year which  now be or at any time after my decease may happen to be in my power to dispose  of in whatsoever I hold by lease of I S and I n and also the house call the  bell tavern in saint Nicholas lane together with the stable thereunto adjoin  and the question be whether John Billingsley take by the devise a estate for  life in the reversion after the determination of the estate tail or the  inheritance of the reversion if he take for life then judgement ought to be  for the plaintiff if he take the inheritance then judgement ought to be for  the defendant and the three judge Powell powys and gold be of opinion that  John Billingsley take the inheritance c against the opinion of holt chief  justice this case be three time argue at the bar and now the judge deliver  their opinion seriatim and the reason of the say three judge be that the  intent of the devisor appear plain to be to devise a fee because she know that  the devisee be tenant in tail before by the settlement there be not any end of  the sentence till one come to the word land also the bell tavern and so this  latter part of the sentence will borrow the word give from the former part of  the sentence otherwise vide ante a nothing will pass by this part and also c  and then for the same reason they will borrow the word which limit the estate  videlicet all my right but otherwise it have be if the word I give have be  repeat then that will have make it a new sentence and disjoin it from the word  of the limitation and for this they cite roll Abr m pl more p so where a man  grant hedgebote to be take by the assignment of his bailiff and also fireboat  the word and also fireboat borrow the word by the assignment of the bailiff as  well as the word grant and the grantee can take fireboat without the  assignment of the bailiff per Shelly dier b they must make this construction  otherwise the devise will be void because the devisee have a estate in tail  before and therefore a devise to he for life will be useless and void powys  justice say far that the word in shall be understand as if it have be say and  also in the bell c for quod subintelligitur non to be away and gold justice  say that the word the bell tavern c be sufficient to pass the inheritance in  this case to prove which he cite more Whitlock v Halding where a man devise  his land for ninetynine year and afterward he devise all his land of  inheritance to b though in strictness the word all his land of inheritance be  a description of the land not of the estate yet it be hold that a feesimple  pass because it appear that the devisor intend to pass a fee for a estate for  life after ninetynine year be of so small value that it can not be imagine  that Lord Raymond the devisor design to devise it and the same reason hold in  this case Powell justice add that it be lawful to transpose word even in deed  to supply the intent of the party and much more in case of will therefore he  be of opinion that they ought to read the sentence in this manner item I give  c to my son John Billingsley all such term c and all my right c in whatsoever  I hold by lease of I S or I n and also the bell c this will pass a fee plain  and for these reason these three judge conclude that judgement ought to be for  the defendant but holt chief justice e contra be of opinion that judgement  ought to be for the plaintiff hold that a estate for life only pass in the  bell tavern c and he say it be a principle know and certain in the law that  upon a devise to I S without limit any estate I S will take it but for his  life unless there be some special matter in the will that show that the  intention of the devisor be to devise a large estate and there be no  difference between a devise of land in possession and a devise of a reversion  and in this case if this devise have be to a mere stranger who have not have a  estate tail before it will have pass but a estate for life and for that  purpose he cite cro Elizabeth dickens v marshal where I S devise his land and  good to his son and daughter after his debt and legacy pay to be equal divide  between they and hold that they take but a estate for life and yet it may be  object that if the debt and legacy be not pay in the life of the daughter she  will take nothing objection these word and also the bell c relate to the word  all my right c Lord Raymond er p answer that can be because the word all my  right c which I now have and all such term c be relative word and must have a  subject and that be what follow videlicet in whatsoever I hold by lease c and  then the word and also the house c follow which may relate to the words give c  and can relate to the word all my right c which be satisfy before by the word  in whatsoever I bold by lease c far turn the word into Latin item gift c all  things law meum c et all men tale boundary c in wherever to hold per dimission  c ac etian house c and so the word be very good grammar and there be no  reference to the word right and so as to the bell tavern the devise be that  she give the house call the bell tavern a which will pass but a estate for  life objection the preposition in shall be understand Lord Raymond answer it  be understand sometime in Latin never in English objection the copulative and  join they answer No because they be not of the same nature videlicet leasehold  and feesimple and therefore the word the house c can relate to the preposition  in the bell tavern not be lease and therefore it must be the accusative case  and so can relate to the right c but to the word give c objection the word  shall be transpose answer that can be because they be good sense and grammar  as they be for that be only do to make a nonsensical word sense objection more  answer if the reason there give shall be admit to be the reason of the  judgement yet it differ from this case because there the term for ninety nine  year appear upon the face of the will and be create by it but that be not the  true reason of the judgement the reason be because a devise of all his land of  inheritance pass a fee and it may be a great question if it do not pass a fee  why he devise they by the name of his land of inheritance and the case be  report in hob to have be adjudge upon the same reason indeed the case there be  put different because it be there a devise of the inheritance of his land  which be a fee without doubt in a will objection roll Abr m pl c and the other  case to the same purpose answer the say case be not parallel to the case in  question because there be a plain relation to all that precede as well the  word of limitation as of grant but here the word right c be satisfy by and  relate to lease as be say before and he cite cro bar Wilkinson v Merryland  where a man devise all the rest of his good chattel lease estate mortgage debt  ready money plate and other good whereof he be possess to his wife and die  have a mortgage in fee forfeit and hold that no fee pass and yet mortgage be a  extensive word but there want word of inheritance which prove that in the  exposition of will no regard ought to he have to external accident which  Powell justice agree in his argument and therefore the reason urge that Lord  Raymond this estate come from the father of John Billingsley c be not  prevalent objection that accord to this exposition the devise will have no  effect answer that be no reason to construe a large estate to pass by the will  than the word will pass for it do not appear in the will itself and by he for  these reason a estate for life only pass and the plaintiff ought to have  judgement but by the other judge judgement be give for the defendant afterward  a writ of error be bring in the exchequer Chamber upon this judgmentAnd it be  affirm there and afterward in parliament vide I bro parliament Cas a Lord  Raymond er p