clay and barnet case in a ejectionefirme the case be this sir Godfrey Foliamb  have issue James his son who have issue Francis and sir Godfrey Foliamb be  seize in fee of diverse land as well by purchase as by dissent in sundry town  videlicet Chesterfield Brampton c in the tenor of a b c c and die James  Foliamb his son e make a conveyance of diverse land to Fraiicis Foliamb be his  young son in hCec verbal videlicet in all respects of me Mesuagia land handle  in Chesterfield Brampton c modus in tenuri of the say a b c quce pater of me  galfrid Foliambperquesivit f roam diverse man who he name in certain and also  convey a house call the heart to the same Francis which come to he by dissent  by the same conveyance which be in the occupation of one Celie and not in the  tenor of the say a b c and the great question upon the whole conveyance be  whether all the land which he have by dissent in the say town and in the  occupation and tenor of the say a b pound c do pass or only the purchase land  and it be resolve by the whole court that the conveyance do pass only the land  which he have by purchase except only the say house which be precise name and  convey and do not pass the land which he have by dissent for if all the land  which he have by dissent shall pass by the general word then the special word  which pass the house which he have by dissent shall he idle and frivolous and  that be one reason ex soft fleshy body parts cause that only the purchase land  do pass it be say by justice Warburton that if a man give all his land in d in  the tenor of a b and he have land in d but do in their tenor that in that case  all his land in d passes so if a man give all his land in d which he have by  dissent from his son there all his land whatsoever shall pass Hobart ace and  say that if a man give all his land in the county of ken if he have land  within the county they do pass and he say that in t conveyance every  restriction have its proper operation and in the conveyance in the principal  case there be three restriction all his Godbolt land in such town videlicet  Chesterfield Brampton c all his land in the tenor of such man videlicet a b c  all his land which he have by purchase c and the word all my land be to he  intend all those my land which be within the restriction and he say that the  word et be in the copulative be not material for all be but one sentence and  it do not make several sentence and the word Elizabeth S but the conclusion of  the sentence they resolve that general word in a grant may he overthrow by  word restrictive as be e and blow Com hill Granges case and therefore if a man  give all his land in d which he have by dissent from his father if he have no  land by dissent from his father nothing passes they agree that a restriction  may he in a special grant as in c pa Ognels case but they say that if the  restriction do not concur and meet with the grant that then the restriction I  I void note the principal case be adjudge accord to these resolution Godbolt  er p