case BLACKLER versus web all Lord chancellor king Eq can ab pl one have have  five child a b c d and b b be dead leave several child and by will the  testator devise the residue of his personal estate to his son a and to b s  child and to his daughter c and d s child and to his daughter e d be live and  have child decree the child of b and the child of d shall take per capital and  not per stirpes as if all name Samuel Bagwell possess of a considerable  personal estate and have have several child some of who be dead leave child  make his will date the d of December and after several legacy thereby give  bequeathe the surplus of his personal estate equal to his son James and to his  son Peter child to his daughter traverse and to his daughter web child and his  daughter man and make his soninlaw Benjamin traverse sole executor the fact be  that at the make of the will the testator son Peter be dead leave several  child the testator daughter Hannah web be live but her husband be in low  circumstance and have be twice a bankrupt and therefore the testator by his  will make some provision for her separate use the question be how these child  and grandchild shall take whether per stirpes or per capital Mr solicitor  general insist that the grandchild shall take per stirpes it not be likely  that the testator shall intend his own child his son James and his two  daughter traverse and man to take no great share of his personal estate than  each of his grandchild some of which be of very tender year and who  maintenance and subsistence will peer William consequent require a very small  expense but that the construction in this case shall be accord to the statute  of distribution of intestates estate where in case of child take they take  only the share of their decease parent and as representative of the stock Mr  attorney general contra such part of the surplus of the personal estate as be  give to the grandchild must be the same and have the same construction as if  the testator have particularize each grandchild by name as John Thomas c when  there can be no question but that the grandchild must have take per capital  and not per stirpes and as to the statute of distribution it be not likely  that the testator in this case understand the statute or the construction  thereof or have any allusion to it neither can this will come within that part  of the statute of distribution in regard the testator daughter web be live and  therefore her child can take nothing by representation within that statute to  which it be add that there be a particular reason why the child of the  testator daughter web be insert in the will because their father be in very  low circumstance and unable to provide for they and as to the testator child  they all have portion give they before in his lifetime and this be additional  it be but reasonable that the grandchild shall take a equal share of the  surplus with the testator own child Lord chancellor at first seem inclinable  that the grandchild shall take per stirpes only yet at length he decree peer  William that the testator son James and the child of the testator decease son  Peter and his daughter traverse and the child of the testator daughter web and  his daughter man be in all fourteen in number shall each of they take per  capital as if all the grandchild have be name by their respective name and  that the grandchild can nor take accord to the statute or in allusion thereto  forasmuch as the testator daughter web be live and so her child can not  represent her and to determine that the grandchild shall take per stirpes will  be to go too much out of the will and contrary to the word when the meaning of  the testator may be accord to his word and that meaning a reasonable and  sensible one peer William er p Reg lib a fol so wield v Bradbury vern Northey  v strange ante vol wicker v Mitford hark law tract Malcolm v Martin bro c c  butler v Stratton bro c c Richardson v Spraag ante vol Lugar v Harman Cox  eccard v brook Cox davenport v Hanbury Ves freeman v parsley Ves Longmore v  broom Ves barn v patch Ves ex part William I W so in bequest to the relation  or next of kin of the testator the statute of distribution though it furnish  the rule as to the object of the bequest yet do not determine in what  proportion those object shall take Thomas v hold can tempt Tal green v Howard  bro c c Phillips v Garth bro c c Rayner v Mowbray bro c c see as to this point  anon vol