case KNOTSFORD versus gardener November I c seize of several freehold land and  possess of several leasehold devise to his wife for life all his estate in  London and after her death he bequeathe the aforementioned estate to his  daughter a c and her heir and to his wife give all his good cattle and chattel  and make her sole executrix she marry again and have the plaintiff by her  second husband who insist that by the devise to his mother of the residue the  leasehold land pass Lord Hardwicke think it very material whether all the  freehold land be comprise in the testator marriage settlement direct a trial  at law to ascertain this fact the question in this cause arise upon the follow  will John Colchester seize in fee of several freehold land and possess of  several leasehold land in the same parish devise in the follow manner I give  devise and bequeath unto Martha my wife for life all my estate in Longden c  and after her decease I give devise and bequeathe the aforementioned estate to  my daughter Ann Colchester and her heir for ever item I give and bequeathe  unto my wife all my good cattle and chattel and all other thing not before  bequeathe and make his wife sole executrix she some time after her husband  death marry again and have the plaintiff by the second husband who insist that  by the devise to the wife of the residue the leasehold land pass to her and  claim as the executor of his mother who be the executrix of John Colchester  the testator for he say that as there be freehold and leasehold both that  nothing but the freehold pass to the defendant the daughter of the testator be  sufficient to answer the word estate in the will Mr Murray for the plaintiff  cite the case of rise v Bartlet cro car pl hill car b r to show that if word  be use applicable to both it shall by way of eminence pass only feesimple land  that the word estate be plain local and do not mean the interest in the estate  because it be in the plural number roll Abr piggot and Penrice Cas in Eq Abr  Id the limitation here be proper only to the devise of a freehold estate and  therefore the testator do not intend to pass the leasehold likewise atkins the  attorney general for the defendant the wife of the testator have these very  freehold land settle upon her in marriage and to the heir of the body of the  husband in and the testator have no other atkins er p freehold but a little  cottage of very small value so that if the construction contend for by the  plaintiff shall prevail then the testator give the defendant nothing but what  she be entitle to before the circumstance of this case be material it consist  but of one farm and freehold and leasehold land be blend together in the hand  of one tenant so that they be not distinguishable now it can never be imagine  that the testator mean to mangle and tear the estate to piece in order to give  it away from his own child Lord chancellor as the fact be not full before I  upon the evidence on either side it must go to a trial at law it be very  material whether all the freehold land be comprise in the marriage settlement  because if they be the testator then have give the defendant nothing but what  she have before if the construction the plaintiff counsel contend for shall  prevail if there shall be only leasehold estate in the parish and the testator  devise all his estate to a there be no doubt the lease hold will pass under  this devise day v trig p W f ringtail part caswell ante vol but if there shall  be both freehold and leasehold then it will be a considerable question whether  any more than the freehold pass suppose there shall be no settlement of the  freehold for in the case of rise v Bartlet it be resolve that if a man have  land in fee and land for year and devise all his land and tenement the  feesimple land pass only and not the lease for year so Davis v Gibbs p W  chapman v heart Ves pistol v Riccardson Cox p W say vide Addis v clement p W  turner v Husler l bro Charles Rep Lowther v Cavendish Amb and if a man have a  lease for year and no feesimple and devise all his land and tenement the lease  for year passes for otherwise the will will be mere void though in the present  case I have no doubt at all as to the intention of the testator yet the rule  of law will prevail atkins there over let the bill be retain for a twelvemonth  and the party proceed to a trial at law upon this issue whether the testator  have at the make of his will both freehold and leasehold and in the same  parish and the plaintiff be at liberty to proceed to a trial in ejectment for  the leasehold estate in question Reg lib a foe