case DARBISON on the demise of long versus beaumont on a special verdict in  ejectment in scacc fortesc Eq can ab pl devise to the heir male of I S beget I  S have a son and the testator take notice that I S be then live a sufficient  description of the testator meaning and such son shall take though strict  speak he be hot heir John Specot seize in fee of the manor of Penheal and  diverse other land c in the county of Cornwall and Devon Aug make his will and  after devise the premise to trustee for the term of twentyone year for the  payment of debt c he settle the same on the first son of his the testator peer  William body lawful beget and the heir male of the body of such first son  lawful issue and for default of such issue to the heir of his the testator  body lawful to be beget and for default of such issue to his cousin John spark  for year if he shall sole live remainder to his first c son in tail male and  in default of such issue remainder to the heir male of the body of the  testator aunt Elizabeth long lawful beget and for default of such issue  remainder of all his land to his the testator right heir the say testator also  give a legacy to his say aunt Elizabeth long whereby he take notice that she  be live and that she have three son a b and c to who he give a legacy of pound  he also give to Dorothy Beaumont who be his heir at law a annuity out of the  say premise of pound per annum and to her child pound apiece afterward the  testator die without issue and John spark also die without issue upon which  the question be who be entitle to the testator real estate whether his heir at  law Dorothy Beaumont or a the old son of the testator aunt Elizabeth long for  the heir at law it be object that her right be in its nature favourable and to  be support by the commonlaw of England and therefore all devise that  disinherit the heir be to be construe strict that to make this devise good to  a it must be construe either a contingent remainder or the word heir male be  take as description story personae so as to vest a remainder in he that as a  contingent peer William remainder it can not be good because there be no  freehold to support it all the precedent estate be f or year and if it be good  as a contingent remainder in its original creation yet Elizabeth long be live  a the testator death such remainder can not by the rule of law vest as it  ought to have do at the determination of the particular estate the heir male  of the bind of the testator aunt long can not be understand by way of  demarcation or description story personae for that be such a description p S  be vice a means of knowing whereas the word heir do not agree with the person  pretend to be describe he be not heir of Elizabeth long nor can be white she  be live and heir be a legal term can be understand only in a legal sense  unless some other word or word accompany it shall determine the sense  otherwise as heir apparent or heir now live and the word beget do not  determine the sense otherwise because heir beget Inst b vern pre Charles post  Hewit v Ireland and core v gore post Vol or to be beget have the same legal  construction and it do not appear that the devisor have any intention to  confide that devise to the issue male of Elizabeth long then live much less to  a only who will take as the heir describe by this devise but it be adjudge by  the whole court f exchequer except baron bury that a the old son of the  testator aunt Elizabeth long be entitle to the premise and not the heir at law  which judgement be afterward reverse by the opinion peer William er p of the  two chief justice in the exchequerchamber and that reversal at last reverse in  the house of peer bro PC and Edward bro p c and the reason upon which the  court of exchequer give judgement and upon which as it be apprehend the house  of lord affirm that judgement be these that a the old son of Elizabeth long be  the person design to take by the appellation of the heir male peer William of  the body of the testator aunt Elizabeth long lawful beget as to the objection  that mrs long be live there can not in a legal sense be any heir male of her  body beget to take by the will it be answer that the intent of the testator by  the devise which be the only matter in question do plain appear not only from  the word of that part of the will but throughout the whole will that the word  heir have in law several signification in the strict it signify one who have  succeed to a dead ancestor but in a more general sense it signify a heir  apparent which suppose he ancestor to be live that in this last sense the word  heir be use in statute lawbook and record see the writ of ravishment ware  quare son et hredem to seize and carry off and Inst and Edward which make it  treason to kill the heir of the king and since the law have give to this word  several sense it will be hard to expound it in that which be the strict and  most rigorous and will destroy great part of the will at the same time that by  law it may have another sense which will support the whole will and intent of  the party that the intent of the party be the principal rule for the  exposition of a will the testator be excuse from use the strict and proper  term and phrase of and have liberty to use such expression as he please for  please they be such as sufficient declare his intent it be enough and his  intent shall take place if by any possibility consistent with the rule of law  peer William now the testator in his will take notice that the son of his aunt  Elizabeth long be live and give they legacy he also take notice that Elizabeth  long the ancestor be live at that time and give her a legacy and therefore can  not intend that the first son shall take strict as heir which be impossible if  she be live but as heir apparent he may again the testator give his heir the  defendant a annuity and therefore do not intend that she shall have the whole  estate and the limitation to the right heir be express in failure of issue  male of his aunt Elizabeth long so that the intent be plain that the apparent  heir male of the body of his aunt long who be the lessor of the plaintiff  shall take before his heir general who be the defendant Dorothy and that she  shall not take more than a annuity as long as there shall be issue male of his  say aunt Elizabeth long that by this construction every part of the will will  stand and be consistent and the word heir will also be take in a sense that  the law be allow of but if it be to be construe otherwise several part and  some whole line together if a sensible will must be expunge a the heir at law  must take contrary to the express meaning of the testator last that this case  be the same with the case of Burchett v Durdant vent which have former be  dispute under the name of James v Richardson vent lev raym t Jones where a  devise to the heir male of the body of Robert Durdant then live be adjudge in  peer William westminsterhall and twice affirm in the house of lord to be a  good limitation to George the old son of Robert Durdant though Robert Durdant  be then live since there can be no great difference between heir male of the  body of the testator aunt long lawful beget the word then beget be tantamount  to then live so Goodright v white Bla Rep see newcomen v Barkham vern Bayley v  morris Ves do v Maxey east Cholmondeley v Clinton b a I W hark   light b note  peer William er p