case cumber against hill overrule do d gorge v web taunt refer to Taafe v  Conmee h l c in what case cross remainder may be raise by implication SC stram  S c b r h SC bar king b SC Kely upon a special verdict in ejectment find at  the assize in Sussex the case be this Richard hold seize in fee by his will  the eleven of march devise the premise after several precede limitation which  be spend in this manner to my grandson Richard hold son of my son Thomas  decease and to Elizabeth daughter of my son Richard to be equal divide between  they and to the heir of their respective body and for default of such issue to  my granddaughter whether hold in fee the testator die seize the twentyfifth of  march afterward Elizabeth die without issue the lessor of the plaintiff claim  her moiety in right of whether his wife Richard claim the whole as survivor  upon a supposition that there be crossremainders create by the will Belfield  sergeant for the defendant rely principal on the case of Holmes v Meynell  Jones a he cite likewise Leon darnel sergeant on the other side the case of  Holmes v Meynell be clear distinguishable from the present case there the  devise be all my land c to my two daughter c and in case they happen to die  without issue then c great stress be there lie upon the word all and they  which raise a strong implication that the testator do not intend that he in  remainder shall take anything until both the daughter be dead without issue  there the devise be likewise to a nephew a person not so near relate as the  first devisees who be his daughter which be take notice of in that case as a  favourable circumstance to create cross remainder Lord Hardwicke chief justice  the case of Holmes v Meynell be a great authority and will have its weight  with the court unless it can be distinguish material from the principal case  there can be no doubt but Richard and Elizabeth be tenant in common in tail  then the case will be the same as if modern the testator have give one moiety  to Richard and the heir of his body the other to Elizabeth c and modern er p  if the devise have be express in that manner can the subsequent word in  default of such issue be take in any other sense than that in default of such  issue respective the remainder over shall take place the expression in the  case of Holmes v Meynell be very different in the instance cite which have  great influence upon the court in the resolution upon that case I desire those  who be to argue next to endeavour to find a case where after a tenancy in  common in tail create these subsequent word in default of such issue have ever  be hold to raise cross remainder in easter term follow Lord Hardwicke chief  justice deliver the resolution of the court to this purpose to raise cross  remainder in a will one of these thing be necessary either express word or the  plain and manifest intent of the testator there be certain no express word but  it be contend that the intent of the party appear to be such by a necessary  implication the word rely on be in default of such issue and that the word  such must mean both Richard and Elizabeth these word may in their natural  sense be construe either conjunctive or disjunctively upon that clause in the  will the matter stand indifferent but take the whole will together it seem  clear there can be no cross remainder if it have be in default of such  respective issue or in default respective there can be no question in the case  and the word such in this clause be a relative term and refer manifest to the  precede word heir of their respective body it amount to the same thing the  relation the three devisees bear to the testator appear upon the face of the  will all of they his grandchild and wherever that have appear it have be make  use of as a proper argument to direct what construction be to be put upon the  will the case of Holmes v Meynell be distinguishable from this both in respect  of the word and the intention of the testator the word there be if they die  without issue the construction put upon the word they be if both of they c the  word respective be want there the first devisees there be the testator  daughter and he in remainder a nephew only which great stress be lie upon the  same observation hold with regard to the other case cite dyer Leon judgement  for the plaintiffSee Gilbert v withy cro James Holmes v Willett Freem Twisden  v lock Amb Phippad v Mansfield Cowp wright v Holford Cowp Amb bro p c burden v  Burralite dougl notorious facts William v brown stram davenport v oldis atk  Atherton v pie term Rep tanner v Dorville term Rep a