case chester versus chester S c p wms comment on Morgan v surman taunt in  court Lord chancellor Mr will for the plaintiff sir John Chester by a  settlement in make on his marriage by sir Anthony his father be tenant for  life remainder to trustee to preserve contingent remainder remainder to his  first and every other son in tail male remainder to himself in fee of certain  land of the yearly value of pound on the marriage of his son William in sir  John and his say son join in a common recovery of the say land in trust as to  part of the value of pound ayear to the use of William for life then to  Penelope his wife for life for her jointure and as to the remainder to the use  of William for life remainder of the whole after the death of William and  Penelope to trustee for five hundred year to raise portion for young child  remainder to trustee to preserve the contingent remainder remainder to the  first and every other son of the marriage in tail male remainder to trustee  for six hundred year to raise portion for daughter remainder mosely report to  the heir male of the body of William remainder to sir John and his heir sir  John on the marriage of the defendant his son John settle land of the yearly  value of pound to the use of John for life remainder of part to his wife for  life for her jointure remainder of the residue to John for life remainder of  the whole to trustee to preserve the contingent remainder remainder to the  first and every other son of the marriage in tail male remainder to sir John  in fee sir John Chester be thus seize of the reversion of these land and of  other land in possession make his will date the that of January and devise to  his son William and his heir some few parcel of land in possession and his  good in his house at Lickleston and several legacy to his other child and to  his son John the furniture of his house at Chigley for life and after his  death to his son and all his personal estate to his wife Frances his son John  and his soninlaw Mr Toller who he make executor and then he devise to his wife  and his say soninlaw their executor administrator and assign all his message  land tenement and hereditament in Lickleston Marston and Milbrook and  elsewhere not by he former settle or thereby otherwise dispose of for the term  of a hundred year in trust to apply the yearly rend and profit to aid his  personal estate in payment of his debt and legacy and when they shall be all  pay then he give and devise the say message land tenement and hereditament to  his son John Chester and his heir for ever sir John Chester soon after the  make this will die and William his son then sir William Chester be since also  dead without issue male leave six infant daughter who as heir at law to sir  John Chester their grandfather file a bill by their prochein any against sir  John Chester their uncle the executor of sir John Chester their grandfather  and the trustee of the term of five hundred and six hundred year limit by the  marriage settlement of sir William their father to be decree the reversion of  the land in settlement as heir at law of sir John Chester their grandfather  and the only question be whether these reversion belong to the plaintiff as  heir at law of sir John Chester their grandfather or to the defendant sir John  mosely report er p Chester by the will of his father sir John and though this  be a question at law the plaintiff can not try it by ejectment because the  intermediate term for five hundred and six hundred year be still subsist  mosely report and it be plain from the word and the intention of the testator  that the reversion of the land in settlement do not pass to the defendant sir  John Chester by this will it be a establish rule that heir be not to be  disinherit but by express word and that if the word be doubtful they be to be  expound in their favour the defendant rely on the word and elsewhere none of  the land in the settlement be mention in the will except the capital message  and some few parcel that lie in Lickleston for all the rest of the land lie  out of the three place particular mention but the testator go on not by I  former settle which word explain his intention he do not say the estate not by  he former settle but all his message c by he former settle and therefore can  pass and these word can be put in to no other purpose but to exclude they the  defendant will extend the word only to the estate settle but then these word  must be reject as superfluous for the word elsewhere will pass these reversion  though these word have be leave out and they be different from the word not by  he former dispose of for the reversion in the testator be not dispose of but  they be former settle and the word be of the same sense as if the testator  have say all his land not comprise in any settlement and the follow word or  thereby otherwise dispose of show that this be his meaning and the testator  intention appear further from the other part of his will the land that lie in  Lickleston Marston and Milbrook be not above pound ayear and the land settle  in which be principal in question be worth about pound ayear and if the  testator have design to pass the reversion of these land which be so much more  valuable will not he have particular mention they his personal estate be near  sufficient to pay his debt and legacy and these remote reversion be not proper  for that purpose and sir William Chester may have bar the reversion of the  land settle on he the daughter if these reversion do not pass have not above  pound to be equal divide among they for their portion sir John devise several  small parcel of land in fee to sir William Chester of a very inconsiderable  value but with regard to the mansionhouse as the little piece of ground on  which the waterhouse stand that serve the capital seat with water and  conyhills which adjoin to the park and mansionhouse and therefore it be  reasonable to suppose that the testator mosely report design the reversion in  fee shall descend to the same heir to who he have devise these parcel Mr  Verney the word or elsewhere will not always take in even what the testator be  seize of in possession if it be of a considerable value Ventr l vern win and  Littleton whereas the defendant will have land of pound ayear pass by the word  or elsewhere though sir John Chester have particular devise land of pound  ayear this case be very different from the case of sir Litton stride versus  lady bussel vern there the word be all my other land c out of settlement and  the reversion be out of settlement and the word be general all my other land  without any exception here the first word be general and the follow be by way  of exception and it be as if the testator have say the settle land shall go as  they be imited and I do not design to disturb the limitation and these  reversion be not estate leave in sir John Chester but actual limit to he by  the settlement though in such a manner as he may dispose of they in the case  of Hyley and Hyley Mod which be very near the same with this it be adjudge  that the reversion do not pass and when a man except all his land that be  settle shall any one say he do not mean his whole estate in settlement but  only such a part of it as he can not dispose of in construction of will the  testator view be to be consider which in this case be to create a immediate  fund for the payment of his debt and legacy and therefore he can not design to  pass these remote reversion and if they do not pass to his wife and soninlaw  for the term of one hundred year they do not pass to his son the defendant sir  John Chester Mr sergeant Eyre the word that follow or elsewhere must amount to  a except mosely report er p cion or they be of no signification for otherwise  as much will pass by the word or elsewhere the trust of the term be to apply  the yearly rend and profit but what profit can be raise yearly out of such  distant reversion and those word can amount to a power to sell because the  debt be to be pay out of the annual profit Chan Cas caryi against Appleton in  the case of sir Litton stride and lady Russel the word do not come in by way  of exception and there all the limitation mosely report determine at the death  of the testator in this case there be many intermediate estate and in that  case the testator have express devise to his wife part of the land in  settlement which show that it be his intention to pass whatever he have a  power over Mr peer William a reversion in fee after a estate tail be not asset  at law or a proper fund for payment of debt sure these land be settle at the  time sir John Chester make his will and be except by it if he have express  devise the land by he before settle these reversion will have pass and will  they pass by the word not before by he settle Mr attorneygeneral for the  defendant sir John Chester all the estate of sir John Chester be in settlement  but the land particular devise sir William Chester have be marry twelve year  and have several daughter but no issue male and it be natural for the  grandfather to prevent the estate from descend to the daughter and to leave it  to his son sir John who be to continue his name and as we have prove that this  be his intention so he have use the most general word to that purpose a  reversion will pass by the word hereditament and by all his hereditament in  such particular place or elsewhere all the reversion the testator be seize of  will pass and it be a rule in construction of will that no word that can have  a meaning put on they shall be reject but to what end can the word or  elsewhere be make use of but to pass these reversion when the testator have no  other land but these reversion that lie out of Lickleston Marston and Milbrook  and he can not have make use of strong or plain word the decree in the case of  win and Littleton go upon this reason that the testator have only land hold in  mortgage in the other county which will not have pass though they have lie  even in the particular place because the testator have only his real estate in  view the word not by he former settle the plaintiff say exclude all his land  in settlement but in the case of sir Litton stride and lady Russel though the  word be strong to enforce the objection it be decree otherwise and that be a  authority in point for we there the word be all my other land c out of  settlement but these word they say be not by way of exception the word neither  in that case or we be express word of exception but they qualify and restrain  the sense of the other there it may be say the reversion be in settlement for  the word settlement may mean the deed where by the estate pass here the word  be mosely report not by he former settle these reversion be not former settle  but be part of the old of sir John Chester remain in he Lord chancellor you  need not go on for I shall not determine a case of this consequence without  help but let the cause stand over till the second day of cause in next Trinity  term at which time I shall desire the assistance of the Lord chief justice  Raymond Mr justice Reynolds and Mr justice price post Cas Tuesday April the  saint