case heathen versus heathen February observe upon in re Hodgsons trust king I  share and share alike have be hold these year to be a tenancy in common a  devise can never relate to a child who be not in be till some year after a  testator death the word respective will separate a estate and make it a  tenancy in common William Madgewicke esquire be seize in fee of the manor of  Gayton make his will date march and devise the say premise unto Averilla his  wife for her life and after her death to his cousin William Madgewicke his  heir and assign for ever upon condition that he shall pay and that the premise  shall stand charge with the payment of pound within six month after the death  of Averilla among all the child of his sister Catherine Heathe share and share  alike atkins in April the testator die and Averilla make her will be seize in  fee of several copyhold message and diverse freehold and give her say land and  message in trust by sale or mortgage to pay all her say husband debt and give  all the residue of the money arise by such sale of the land and premise  copyhold or freehold and all her personal estate among all the child  respective male or female of her brother and sister heath atkins er p some  year after the testator and testatrixs death another daughter of Catherine  heath be bear one of the daughter live at the time of make the will and at the  several death of the testator and testatrix die intestate to who her father  administer the first question be whether the afterborn child shall have any  share under either of the will the second question be whether the father of  the decease daughter shall have a share under the will of Averilla or whether  her share survive Videathe case of grieve versus boil ante vol Mr justice  Parker a question that be make upon the first will whether the word share and  share alike make a tenancy in common or a jointtenancy be give up and very  right for it have be hold these year to be a tenancy in common see prince v  heylin ante vol the word of the second will be not quite so clear and yet be  pretty clear too to and among all the child respective male or female of her  brother and sister heath I shall think the word respective will separate the  estate and make a tenancy in common for notwithstanding my Lord chief justice  holt lean so strong to jointtenancy yet court of equity be very far from  favour it so much the principal question be as to the afterborn child for my  part I have no notion that this devise can have any relation to a child not in  be till some year after the testator and testatrixs death it may as well be  intend twenty year afterward if a woman be capable of bear so long and will  make great confusion by unravel account that have be settle so long before the  general rule in case of this nature seem to be that where the devise or gift  to the child be general and not limit to a particular period then it be  confine to the death of the testator Northey v Burbage Prec Charles Heathe v  Heathe above Horsley v Chaloner Ves lsaac v Isaac Amb bro Charles Rep SC cite  viner v Francis bro Charles Rep Hugh v Hugh bro Charles Rep hill v chapman  ibidem but where such devise or gift be to one for life or where the  distribution be postpone to a future time then child bear during the life or  before that time be let in Harding v Glynn ante vol grave v boil ante vol  Haughton v Harrison post ellison v airy Ves attorney general v Crispin bro  Charles Rep Congreve v Congreve bro Charles Rep devisme v Mello ibidem Baldwin  v Karver Cowp Andrews v Partington bro Charles Rep Pulsford v hunter bro  Charles Rep it seem that under a devise tochildren live at the testator death  a child in ventre sa mere shall take hate v hale Prec Charles beal v beal p W  millar v turner Ves clarke v black bro Charles Rep say contra Pierson v  Garnett bro Charles Rep Cooper v Forbes bro Charles Rep atkins as to the point  of the father take the share of the decease daughter as her administrator I be  clear of opinion that he be entitle and that it shall not survive to the  brother and sister for it vest in the decease as her separate and independent  share be a tenancy in common and not a jointtenancy accord to the  aforementioned construction of the word respective vide Sheppard v Gibbons  post Reg lib a fol case the last seal in Hilary term February after a three  order of amendment a defendant will be allow cost to be tax a motion on behalf  of a defendant in a cause that the plaintiff shall not be allow to amend his  bill on payment of twenty shilling cost only by virtue of the last order which  he get from this court but upon cost to be tax by a master the chancellor will  have grant the motion as this be the three order of amendment if it have not  appear in this case that the last order which the plaintiff obtain have be  upon term and with the express consent of the defendant atkins er p