case buggins against yates land devise to his wife and her heir to be sell for  the payment of debt and legacy in aid of the personal estate and not be sell  if the personal estate be sufficient to discharge the whole the heir shall  have the land as a result trust S c Eq ab one buggins be seize in fee of  several estate in Middlesex and Worcestershire in the year devise the land in  question to mary buggins his wife and to her heir and assign for ever to be  sell to pay his debt and legacy in aid of his personal estate but the personal  estate be sufficient to satisfy and discharge all his debt and legacy and the  real estate not be sell the plaintiff as heir at law to the testator buggins  insist that he be entitle to these land as a result trust for he and that the  devisee be a trustee for that purpose the court be of opinion that where land  be devise to be sell in aid of the personal estate for payment of debt and  legacy and the land be not sell for that the personal estate be sufficient to  discharge the whole it be plain a imply trust in the devisee for the heir at  law and be be entitle to come into this court to have a reconveyance and a  account of the profit a see Massey v Sherman Amb win v Hawkins bro c c nowlan  v Neligan bro c c Roger v Roger Peer wms S c Prec Chan S c bro p c Bicknel v  page atk Galton v Hancock atk walker v Jackson atk haselwood v pope Peer wms  Bridgman v dove atk Lord inchiquin v obrien will Amb brown c c samwell v wake  brown c c Chetti v Parker vezey jun a and the court be about to make the  decree it be say that here be likewise a trust of the personal estate  videlicet the testator in his will declare that be do not doubt but his wife  will be kind to his child but the court be of opinion that those word give a  right to no child in particular or a right to any particular part of the  estate modern report but that the clause be void for uncertainty b see  Cunliffe v Cunliffe Amb Harland v trigg bro c c win v Hawkins bro c c nowland  v Neligan bro c c Pierson v Garnet bro c c nalin v Keighley vezey jun Rep b  modern report er p and thereupon it be decree that the defendant shall make a  reconveyance of the real estate but then it be insist for the defendant that  the court will direct a inquiry of the value of the testator personal estate  because it appear in the cause that there be six thousand nine hundred pound  stand out in debt and legacy and that the personal estate amount to four  thousand pound and no more so that if the devisee pay the rest of the debt and  legacy out of her own effect she be entitle to be repay out of these land  devise to her and there be a very strong presumption that she pay to the value  of this land for there be a legacy of two thousand pound devise to her which  she never raise because she apprehend the estate be her own be devise to her  and her heir and therefore she devise it to her second husband Yates for life  which he enjoy twentytwo year under that devise and she likewise devise the  inheritance in parcel to her three son videlicet to the plaintiff and the  defendant and to another son she have by her husband buggins and the plaintiff  after the death of Yates the second husband enter by virtue of that devise and  by his bill be claim under the will of mary Yates so that be admit she have a  power to devise which be enough to affirm the right of the defendant beside  there be another thing to be consider in this cause videlicet mary buggins the  widow of the testator upon her intermarriage with Yates reserve a power to  dispose this estate as she shall think fit notwithstanding her coverture and  after the say marriage she devise it to her husband Yates for life as  aforesaid remainder in parcel to her three son and their heir provide that if  any or either of her son die under twenty year and without issue that the  share of he or they so die shall go to the survivor or survivor now John  buggins one of her son die under twenty year and without issue so that the  land which be devise to he must descend to the plaintiff and the defendant  equal for this be a common contingency and have happen whether it be by  limitation of a use or by executory devise the remainder over be always good  the court be of opinion that this can not be a executory devise because the  testatrix be a femecovert but the defendant counsel press for a inquiry into  the value of the personal estate of the testator buggins though it seem hard  to grant it after such a length of time modern report unless there be a very  great surplus yet a account be direct to be take thereof and that all the deed  and write concern this estate shall be bring before the master and the  consideration of this remainder over shall be reserve until the account of the  personal estate be take and then it will appear what right the testatrix have  to devise all or any part and what part of this estate