Barnardiston king b williams and brown vide before this matter come on again  in the paper the substance of the case appear to be in the manner follow  Thomas speed have two daughter by different venture Mehethobel and Martha  devise a moiety of his land to certain trustee and their heir in trust for  Mehethobel for life and after her decease to the use of all and every child  and child both male and female bear and to be bear of the body of the say  Mehethobel equal to be divide between they and to the heir of Barnardiston  king b er p their respective body lawful to be beget and for want of such heir  then to the use of the child of Martha the other moiety of his land he devise  to the same trustee in trust for the raise a term for the benefit of Martha  for life for her sole and separate use until her husband Thomas Golney shall  settle per and for every he receive as fortune with her on her for life the  remainder to the child of their two body beget with word of cross remainder or  such as be to the like effect and in case such settlement shall be so make  then he limit the trust of this term to be to Thomas Golney for life the  remainder to Martha for life the remainder of the term to attend the  inheritance and then he devise the inheritance of this moiety to the child of  Martha exact in the same manner as he have devise the other moiety to the  child of Mehethobel and in default of such issue of the body of Martha then he  devise the same to the child of Mehethobel the remainder of both moieties to  his own right heir after the death of the testator Mehethobel have two  daughter one of which marry speed the other that marry smith Martha have seven  child three of which die and Thorp marry one of the survive daughter  Mehethobel die one of her daughter that marry speed die and upon her death  Thorp enter into a quarterpart of the land belong to that speed who be the  daughter of Mehethobel upon which smith bring a ejectment against he insist  that he be entitle to it in the right of his rife by way of cross remainder  sergeant birch argue on the part of the plaintiff and for authority cite Leon  Ven but more particular rely upon the case in cro sergeant wright argue on the  other side and for authority cite bro title devise dyer and sir Thomas Jones  the chief justice say that he do own the authority in the book be pretty  strong that these cross remainder shall not be admit unless the intent of the  testator plain appear in favour of they and therefore he do agree that if  there be no particular circumstance in the present devise but only the common  word and for want of such issue a cross remainder can not be allow of but in  the present case he think it a circumstance by no mean to be disregard that  the testator daughter be by two venture and therefore he can not be suppose to  intend that one of the venture shall be any way Barnardiston king b benefit by  the estate give to the other till all the child arise from that venture be  dead to this purpose he observe the word of the will be to all and every the  child and child he observe likewise that the fact be that Mehethobel have but  two child therefore though for argument sake it may be admit to be a doubt if  there be more child yet as there happen not to have be more the case seem much  the strong and under this circumstance it seem to agree with what be admit by  the judge in cro before cite he observe likewise that in that case there be  three distinct house separate devise to three distinct child difficulty  therefore there may well arise if the child shall take by way of cross  remainder in what manner they shall take here there can be no difficulty of  that sort for if cross remainder shall be allow undoubted the child will take  the cross remainder as they take the first interest he say likewise if the  judge can take notice how the trust will be construe in this case in a court  of equity that will much confirm this opinion for there undoubted there be to  be cross remainder but of that likewise he own he a good deal doubt and for  this purpose mention the case of butterfly and boyce late in the court of  chancery there land be devise to one for life remainder to trustee to preserve  contingent remainder remainder to the heir of his body lawful beget and  likewise by the same will a sum of money be devise to be lie out in the  purchase of land to be settle to the same use in a bill bring to have this  land and money settle in strict settlement and that the devisee shall be only  tenant for life with remainder to his first and other son in tailmale the  master of the roll be of opinion that the land shall be decree so as well as  the money shall upon a rehear the late chancellor be of the same opinion as to  the money but not as to the land and the chief justice incline to be of the  same opinion with the chancellor however he say upon the whole his present  think be that the cross remainder ought to be admit in the present case but  for the difficulty the matter stand over vide postea Barnardiston king b er p