case Hanchet against THELWAL a testator have two son and four daughter devise  his house to one of his son for life and after his decease then I give my  estate to my four daughter share and share alike and if any of they die before  marriage then her part to the rest survive and if all my son and daughter die  without issue then I give my say house to my sister and her heir on the death  of the son without issue the four daughter be tenant in common and therefore  if one marry and die leave issue a son such son shall come in for his four  part of the estate ray skin Jones show Pollexf vern Mod Mod Mod Mod vern pale  yellow Eq Rep Fitzherbert case t t stram ld ray ld ray comens Peer wms Bl Com  Cowper brown case Chan ld ray stram ejectment a special verdict be find in  which the case arise upon the construction of the word in a will the testator  be seize in fee have issue two son and four daughter be make his will and  devise his estate be in house by these word item I give and modern er p  bequeathe to my son Nicholas price my house in Westminster and if it please  God to take away my son then I give my estate to my four daughter name they  share and share alike and if it please God to take away any of my say daughter  before marriage then I give her or their part to the rest survive and if all  my son and daughter die without issue then I give my say house to my sister  whether Warner and her heir modern Nicholas price enter and die without issue  then the four sister enter and Margaret the old marry Thelwal and die leave  issue a son who be the lessor of the plaintiff who insist upon his title to a  four part of the house the question be what estate the daughter take by this  will whether joint estate for life or several remainder in tail if only joint  estate for life then the plaintiff as heir to his mother will not be entitle  to a four part if several remainder in tail then the father will have it  during his life as tenant by the courtesy this case be argue this term by Mr  Pollexf en for the plaintiff and in Hilary term follow by counsellor the  defendant the plaintiff counsel insist that they take joint estate for life  and this seem to be the intent of the testator by the word in his will see  reeves v winnington ante a the first clause whereof be I give and bequeathe my  house in Westminster to Nicholas price now by these word a estate for life  only pass to he and not a inheritance for the e be nothing to be do or any  thing to be pay out of it the next clause be if it please God to take away my  son then I give my estate to my four daughter share and share alike now these  word can give the daughter a feesimple by any intendment whatsoever but if any  word in this clause seem to admit of such a construction it must be the word  estate which sometime signify the land itself and sometime the estate in the  land but here the word estate can create a feesimple because the testator give  his daughter that estate which he have give to his son before and that be only  for life then follow the word share and share alike and that only make they  tenant in common the next clause be if it please God to take away any of my  say daughter before marriage then I give her or their part to the rest survive  see the case of Armstrong v Eldridge brown case Chan where a testator give a  residue to trustee to pay the interest to four person for life equal between  they share and share alike and after the decease of the survivor then to  divide the principal to and among all and every their child share and share  alike it be hold that although the word equal to be divide and share and share  alike be in general construe in a will to create a tenancy in common yet that  here the context show a jointtenancy to be intend and therefore two of the  child be dead it be decree that the whole shall go to the other two by  survivorship b these word as they be pen can have no influence upon the case  then follow the last clause and if all my son and daughter die without issue  then I give c these word create no estate tail in the daughter for the  testator have two son and four daughter it can be modern collect by these word  how they shall take and by consequence it can be a estate tail by implication  now suppose one of the daughter shall die without issue it be uncertain who  shall have her part and therefore there be no appointment in what order this  estate shall go it can be a estate tail and to maintain this opinion this case  be cite Gilbert v witty cro James Eq Abr roll Rep and see the case of rundale  v eeley carter where this case be cite as good law see also dyer Bendlow roll  Abr a one collier be seize in fee of three house and have issue three son John  Robert and Richard be devise to each of they a house in fee proviso if all his  child die without issue of their body then the house to be to his wife the two  old son die without issue the young have issue a daughter who marry the lessor  of the plaintiff the question be whether by the death of the old son without  issue there be a cross remainder to Richard and the heir of his body or  whether the wife shall take immediate or expect till after the death of all  the son without issue and it be adjudge that the wife shall take immediate and  that there be no cross remainder nor any estate by modern er p implication  because it be a devise to they several by express limitation so that if no  estate tail arise to the daughter in this case by implication then it be no  more than a devise to his issue tailor v shaw cro Elizabeth Eq Abr ander vent  godb b which extend to they all and give only a estate for life for the  defendant it be argue that the son and daughter have a estate tail by  implication it be agree that Nicholas have only a estate for life and that the  word estate in this case mean the house and not the interest in they it be  true there be no express limitation of any estate to they but there be a  express determination of it now if this be not a estate tail by implication  then the word die without issue be void a devise to his son and if he die not  have a son then it be devise over this be a estate tail in remainder Newton v  Barnardine more c it can be a doubt who shall take first for the daughter  shall take it and after they as it be most natural the old son for where there  be the same proximity of blood the estate shall go to the old dyer d as for  instance see the case of Counden v clarke hob Eq Abr more e one chapman be  seize in fee of two house and have three brother devise the house which a  dwell in to his say three brother and the house in which his brother Thomas  chapman do dwell he devise to the say modern Thomas pay so much c or else to  remain to the family of the testator provide that the house be not sell but go  to the next of the male and the blood of the male Thomas die without issue the  old of the two survive brother have issue a daughter and die the question be  whether that daughter or the young brother of the testator shall have the  house it be adjudge that the daughter shall have it in tail for the proviso  that the house be not sell c make it a tail and the word to remain to the  family must be intend to the old if this be not a estate tail then the devise  over to whether Warner be void as to the case of Gilbert v witty Eq Abr roll  Rep cro James see also carter where this case be cite and admit to be law a  that move upon another reason for there every one take by a distinct and  separate limitation curian in that case all the estate be limit distinct to  the three son but in this it be otherwise for the testator have two son and no  estate be limit to one of they before then he say if all my son and daughter  die without issue then and c and thus the case differ which create the  difficulty but no reason can be give why this court shall not construe will  accord to the rule of commonlaw where a estate by implication be so uncertain  for when man be sick and yet have a dispose power leave they usual write  nonsense and the judge must rack their brain to find out what be intend this  can be a estate tail in the daughter and therefore the heir must come in for  his four part judgement for the plaintiff