case shaw against bull refer to Hamilton corporation v Hodsdon Moo p c not  apply Murphy v Donnelly ir r Eq one seize of two house devise one house to a  and her heir she pay his legacy in case his good and chattel be not sufficient  and if she do not make provision for the payment of they in her lifetime the  legatee may sell the same and all the overplus of my estate to be at a s  disposal and make her executrix the second house do not pass S c Eq Abr salk  Mod make one executor and give the overplus of the estate give only the  personal estate one seize in fee of five message by his will devise two of  they to his wife for life remainder to his two daughter in fee and devise the  three to the wife and her heir the four he devise to the wife and her modern  report heir she pay his legacy in case his good and chattel do not answer they  all and if she do not make provision for the payment of his legacy in her  lifetime that it shall be lawful for the legatee after her death to sell the  say message to satisfy the legacy out of the value thereof and then follow  this clause on which the doubt arise and all the overplus of my estate to be  at my wife disposal and make her my executrix and the court deliver their  opinion seriatim thus blencowe justice it appear he have five message and  devise four of they and say nothing express or at least particular of the five  but the question be whether there be word enough to show his intent be to pass  the five message to his wife for if that appear to be his intent it ought to  go to her if he at first have devise her all his estate this house will have  pass to her but compare this clause to the subsequent word and make her my  executrix it show his intent be to grant her such estate as she be capable of  as executrix and that be only personal estate so the sense will be and I give  my wife all the overplus of my personal estate and make her my executrix if he  have say I make my wife my executrix and give her the overplus of my estate  that will only give her personal estate or chattel and will it not be the same  thing to invert the sentence again to consider this clause as it stand with  the precedent word there be a devise of the four message to her and her heir  pay his legacy c and if she do not provide for payment of they that it shall  be lawful for the legatee to sell it and all the overplus c which may very  well be satisfy by make a devise of the overplus of the price of the house  when sell by herself or legatee for if she in her own lifetime have sell the  house it will become a chattel of a inheritance that be the overplus after pay  the legacy be what he intend her by these word for the house be devise to her  and her heir and order to be sell for payment of legacy the overplus will  perhaps in equity be adjudge in her as executrix but by these word and this  construction she will be a residuary legatee so that if you couple it with the  subsequent word she have only the overplus of his chattelestate if with the  precedent it will be the overplus of the purchasemoney of the four house when  sell and so by no mean do extend to the five house b raym modern report er p  modern report Powell justice uncertain word in a will must never be carry so  far as by they to disinherit the heir at law a and though there be word which  of themselves will disinherit he yet if they come in company with other word  which do render their natural import less forcible they ought to be construe  favourable for the heir and the case of Bowman v Milbank b be upon this reason  the word be I give all to my mother which may include whatever he have to give  either chattel or inheritance yet because it may be all personal or chattel or  all real or inheritance it be take to be too lose and general to disinherit a  heir at law and therefore no land do pass in Noy a seize of blackacre and  WhiteAcre devise both to his wife for life the remainder of blackacre to I S  in fee and leaves the fee of WhiteAcre undisposed of and then say and I make  my wife my executrix of my good and land the inheritance do not pass though  the word accord to the civil law will include it a inheritance yet will pass  in a will by the word all my estate yet they be very general and do take in a  personal estate or a real estate or both together and therefore when the word  all my estate be in a will they be always let to be govern by some other word  in the will c and therefore in the case of Jonson v Kerman d a devise of all  his estate pay debt and legacy and he be find to owe debt beyond his asset the  inheritance be adjudge to pass a man among all other thing devise his personal  estate his inheritance do not pass Mod keb one devise all his tenant right in  dale if he have no other freehold in dale it shall pass by not in the case of  beef v winnington a I bear I S be inquire after my death but I be resolve to  leave he nothing but what his father leave he but I leave all my estate to my  wife there the wife take all the real estate and the reason be because of the  other word which show he mean to exclude the heir at law in Michaelmas term in  the thirtysecond year of Charles the second roll a have freehold and copyhold  land and make his will in these word I give all my estate of what kind soever  not before mention by I to my wife who I make my executrix and it be hold the  copyhold land do pass not by force of the word alone but because it appear  that he have make a surrender of the copyhold estate before to the use of his  will but here be nothing to help the word here for first here be a devise of  his other house by particular word two of they he give her modern report for  life with remainder over the three to her and her heir the four for her and  her heir conditional and all by express word and it be hard to say that if be  design her the five house that he will attempt to pass it by these general  word more than be do the former house especial to make such construction to  disinherit a heir at law objection what be mean by these word if the five  house do not pass it can be the residue of his personal estate for he have not  enough to pay his legacy and it be plain part of they be not to be pay till  after the death of the wife for the word be that if she in her lifetime do not  pay they then the legatee may sell and therefore the word can be satisfy by  apply they to the residue of the house when sell for it be not to be sell till  after her death and to leave the residue of a thing not to be dispose of till  after her death at her disposal seem unreasonable answer it do not appear what  personal estate be may have though he make this cautionary provision for fear  he shall not have enough and there may happen some contingency for which wise  man do make allowance in their design beside it be plain be mean the wife  shall make a see do on the demise of gaskin v gaskin Cowp that though the  intention be ever so apparent the heir at law must of course inherit unless  the estate be give to somebody else b Eq Abr lev raym side keb c see  Bridgwater v Bolton Mod Ridout v pain vezey atk tanner v wise Peer wms Barry v  Edgeworth Peer wms Macaree v tall Amb style v Walford black Rep holdfast v  Martin term Rep do v chapman Henry Bl Rep do v Woodhouse term Rep d style a  Mod show Eq Abr modern report er p provision for the payment of the legacy in  her lifetime and then she may sell the house in her life and then the word  will have a natural operation videlicet to give her the residue of the value  of the house and suppose neither of these thing be she may dispose of it by  her will like one contingency of a distribution which none know till  distribution make Nevil contra I agree the word of a will to disinherit a heir  at law must be very plain and apparent in the will but since man may devise  their land as well as pass it by deed execute we ought to follow their intent  and make it their will and not we it be true a heir at law shall not be right  disinherit and the intent of the testator be to be gather from the word on the  face of the will but sure the word in question be very comprehensive all the  overplus which relate to something before of which it be a overplus and the  thing go before be a real estate of inheritance and if he have say all the  overplus of my real estate the five house will pass by it and these be word  relata be the same Trevor chief justice I agree with my two brother that speak  first the case of this kind in book be each upon its own modern report  particular reason and affect not this case and I confess in construction of  will general the word my estate the residue of my estate or the overplus of my  estate may well pass a inheritance where the intent be apparent to pass it but  such intent to carry a inheritance by such word must be very apparent and  necessary to be draw from the word of the will and circumstance of the case  for if the word be indifferent to real and personal estate or may be apply to  personal alone there the heir at law be not to be disinherit by the  implication of such word or by any implication at all but what be a necessary  one style devise of land pay all his debt and legacy the inheritance passes  because by the apparent intent of the testator his personal estate be not  sufficient to pay his debt c and so for the necessity of perform his intent in  payment of they it be hold the inheritance do pass keb upon the same reason  then upon consideration of the part of this will there be no necessary intent  to be gather from the several part of it to pass this five house first it be  plain the testator be very particular in express what he will pass in his will  and leaves little room for construction be very particular and express devise  and limit the four house and what estate the devisees shall have in they and  that of a sudden he shall alter his method of devise and go about to give his  wife a estate by general and doubtful description seem odd and we will intend  be remain consistent and agreeable to himself during the whole will and know  that what he do not give to the wife will go to the heir and therefore have no  occasion of say anything of the five house or of he and as to the objection  that if these word do not carry the five house they be of no use I own if that  be true it be a weighty objection but they be to be otherwise well satisfy for  the four house be devise to her in nature of a trust liable to the payment of  legacy and upon default in her power be give to legatee to sell so if these  word have not be put in what shall become of the overplus it will be doubtful  how that will be in chancery and there be case on both side it be a question  whether when land be give in trust and money be raise by sale of they and  there be a overplus whether that shall be a result use for the heir at law or  for the trustee in the case of brown v north a in Bridgmans time it be a  question again and it be hold the trustee shall modern report have it so here  be a trust in the wife of the four house for payment of legacy it be not  unnecessary to explain that it be his intent the wife shall have the  surplusage or overplus which right signify a residue of something before not  dispose of and this residue after sale and payment of legacy be a overplus of  his estate and where word in a will may be satisfy without carry a estate from  the heir at law they shall never be construe to disinherit he for the heir be  not to be disinherit at all by any implication but such as be necessary and  without which the word will be reject as void and of no sense or signification  and she herself may sell in her lifetime and then she be to have the residue  or if the legatee a tothil modern report er p sell after her death her  executor shall have it in the right of her and not as trustee to be  Accountable to any jud send for per Trevor chief justice Powell and blencowe  justice