case WOODRIGHT against wright on a devise to a in tail remainder to b and the  issue of her body lawful beget remainder to the right heir of a for ever if a  die without issue live the testator and b after make of the will have issue c  heir at law to a and die live the testator the heir at law to the testator and  not c shall have the land S c Eq Abr S c stram S c Peer wms upon a special  verdict find by the jury the case be short this the testator devise the land  in question to Edward Basil in tail remainder to Susannah wright and the issue  of her body lawful modern report beget remainder to the right heir of Edward  Basil for ever Edward Basil die without issue in the lifetime of the testator  Susannah wright some year after the make of the will have issue Margaret  wright the defendant who be find likewise to be heir at law to Edward Basil  and then Susannah wright die in the lifetime of the testator the plaintiff  title be as heir at law to the testator the question therefore be whether  Margaret wright can claim any estate under this will either as heir at law to  Edward Basil or as daughter to Susannah wright the argument from the bar in  this case I do not hear but the resolution of the court be by Parker chief  justice deliver to the follow substance the first point to be consider be  whether Margaret wright be entitle to take by the will as heir at law to  Edward Basil by virtue of these word the remainder to the right heir of Edward  Basil for ever and here the question be single this whether these word do make  the heir of Edward Basil devisees and import any devise to they so that the  devise be not a lapse legacy by the death of Edward Basil in the lifetime of  the testator or whether Edward Basil be not sole devisee and those word only  use to denote and describe the nature and the quality of that estate which be  hereby design to be sole give to Edward Basil videlicet to speak in the  language and idiom of law whether these word be word of purchase or limitation  the case of bret v Rigden a Plowden a must be most certain and be on all hand  allow to be law modern report the second point only in that case be applicable  to this and that be short thus the land be give to Henry bret and his heir  Henry die in the lifetime of the testator and the question be whether the son  and heir of Henry bret shall take the land by this devise?Manhood who argue  for the son and heir of Henry urge most of those argument that have be now  make use of from the bar in favour of the defendant be insist that the heir be  include in the devise and though perhaps the testator design that he shall  take mediant patre videlicet by descent yet this be but a circumstance relate  to the manner of his take and therefore since by the act of God it be  impossible that this circumstance can be comply with and necessary that the  heir if he take at all must take immediate that be certain the better and more  preferable construction in case of a will which support the main end and  design the testator chief aim at though it can the form and manner the  testator design that end shall be bring about by rather than that which  overturn the substantial as well as the circumstantial part of the testator  intention and these case be put if land be devise to a for life remainder to b  in tail and a die in the lifetime of the devisor b shall take by the will a  estatetail in possession if land be devise to the wife of I S and I S die and  she marry I d and then the devisor die she shall have the land and yet the  testator design in the first case that b shall take a estatetail in reversion  and in the second that the wife of I S shall have the land but this be  impossible modern report er p it be resolve that b shall take a estate tail in  possession and that the wife of I d shall have the land in order to preserve  the substance of the will when it be impossible to observe the formality but  for all this it be resolve that the heir of Henry bret can not take for as in  all grant there must be a grantor and a grantee at the time when the modern  report grant be to take effect so by parity of reason in the case of a will  there must be in be a devisee at the time of the death of the testator that be  the time when by law a will be to take effect and as to what be say that heir  be name in the devise it be resolve that those word his heir be insert only to  limit and set out what sort of estate the devisor intend Henry shall take by  the will videlicet a feesimple and that consequent those word be put in as  well to enable Henry to give away the land from his issue as to let it descend  to his issue that the descent to the issue be but a consequence in law of a  feesimple first vest in Henry and what lie entire in the breast of Henry  whether he will permit it to be so or not that it be not a good way of reason  that because the land will have descend to the heir of Henry if it have vest  in the father first therefore the heir shall take immediate though the father  die in the lifetime of the devisor for then by a parity of reason if Henry  have die in the lifetime of the devisor without heir the lord will have have  the land by escheat and the wife of Henry must be entitle to dower this case  then be undoubted law and so allow to be on all hand the next thing to be do  be to see whether the present case can be distinguish from it the difference  assign be this that the devise be not here as in Plowden a devise to Edward  Basil and his heir but a devise to Edward Basil in tail remainder to Susannah  wright and the issue of her body lawful beget remainder to the right heir of  Edward Basil for ever so that between the devise to Edward Basil in tail and  the devise to the right heir of Edward Basil for ever there intervene a entire  estate videlicet that to Susannah wright c modern report but to this I answer  that this difference produce no other effect than a diminish or lessen of the  estate in feesimple in point of value that be by these word of the will to be  convey to Edward Basil by carve a estatetail out of it so that the only  difference on this account between the case in Plowden and the present case be  this that in Plowden Henry bret be to have take a feesimple in possession here  Edward Basil be to take a feesimple in reversion in   Litt it be hold that if  a estate be limit to the ancestor for term of life remainder to b in tail  remainder to the right heir of the ancestor the word right heir be word of  limitation and not of purchase as well as if the estate have be limit  immediate to the ancestor and his right heir without the intervene of the  estatetail in remainder this be the very same case with that before we except  that the case of Littleton be the case of a grant and this before we be the  case of a will which as to this point make no difference at all if Edward  Basil have survive nobody can say but that the fee will have vest in he and in  he alone he will then have have the entire power over the estate and the  descent to his heir will then have appear plain to have be but a consequence  of the fee vest in he and which at his pleasure he may permit or prevent it be  not his live to take the freehold that do as it be accidental turn these word  into word of limitation but because these be in their own nature and in all  event word of limitation therefore it become necessary that the ancestor must  take or nobody so that upon the whole these word though they may perhaps carry  something in their sound that look like a design and intention in the testator  of favour towards the heir in reality be not so but serve only modern report  to describe the estate which passes to the devisee and for his benefit only  and then it come out to be the same point entire with that resolve in the case  of bret v Rigden it be clear then that the defendant can take nothing by this  devise as heir at law to Edward Basil the next point to be consider be whether  she can take anything as daughter to Susannah wright by virtue of that clause  in the will remainder to Susannah wright and the issue of her body lawful  beget in speak to this point it will be necessary to see first whether she can  have any right suppose the word issue of her body be look upon as a synonymous  expression to the heir of her body and second whether suppose she have no  right this way she can derive any right by any other interpretation which the  word issue be capable of modern report er p as to the first the case differ  not from that of bret v Rigden save that there a fee be devise and here a  estatetail which will make no difference in the interpretation before we for  if here the word heir of her body be not word of purchase but limitation the  point come out just the same for suppose Susannah wright have live she and she  only will have take by this devise and she will have have a power of bar the  issue by fine I speak not now of common recovery because though there the  issue be bar yet in consideration of law be be recompense by a judgement to  recover over and here again by the same reason that the daughter of Susannah  shall take the husband must be tenant by the courtesy which they for the  defendant will not say be law in short the only difference that there be  between a devise in fee and in tail be this that in the former case the  devisee have a great choice and variety of way whereby be may defeat the issue  than in the latter but the word to the heir of the body be as much word of  limitation and as modern report proper to express a estatetail as the word  heir be to express a fee and the word in both do not real import any design of  favour to the heir but the devisee only and so much the rather in the case of  a estatetail because it be a know and a common method where the testator or  grantor have a concern or regard for the issue to make the ancestor tenant for  life only and by that mean tie up the hand of the ancestor from do anything to  the prejudice of his issue it can be deny to have be the principal design of  the maker of the statute de gift to secure the estate to the issue and  restrain the ancestor from convey the estate from the issue and therefore  admit but not grant that this devise in those time when that statute reign in  full force will have import a devise as much to the issue as ancestor since  the one be as certain to take by the devise in due time as the other yet will  it not be so now after that statute be so much alter by subsequent statute or  judgement of court of law whereby the ancestor have it now in his power by  fine c I speak not of common recovery for the reason before give for to shake  the law when firm establish be not to be do without the great danger to the  estate and property of the subject and I must have think myself oblige to have  submit to the number and weight of authority though I have not be satisfy with  the reason upon which they be establish the doctrine establish in the case of  bret v Rigden remain uncontroverted until Hartops case a Elizabeth cro  Elizabeth a when it receive a new sanction so likewise it be again establish  in the case of full v full report more and cro and though it be say that two  judge differ in their opinion yet upon a narrow inspection it appear that  those very judge that dissent have by the reason they give for their dissent  confirm the modern report law now in question for they be of opinion that the  devisees may take as purchaser not by the first devise but by virtue of the  new publication which in their opinion amount to a new will and now I come to  consider second whether the defendant can put any other construction upon the  word issue by virtue of which she may claim under this devise in the case of  king v mell b vent b the word issue be by Lord hale affirm to be nomen  proceeding by inference and take in the whole generation and be therefore a  great deal strong than the word child it be there observe that in all act of  parliament the word issue be as comprehensive as heir of the body as in the  statute de gift and the statute Henry c of entail settle by the crown tiler  case c Elizabeth in b r c may serve to show the difference between the word  issue and child tiler have issue a b c and d and devise to his wife for life  after her death to b his son in tail and if he die without issue then to his  own child a have issue a son and die and b die without issue and it be resolve  that the son of a shall not take as one of the child of the testator yet in  wild case d   d it be admit that if the devise have be to the child of the  body it will have be a estatetail a strong if it have be as in our case to the  issue of their body lawful beget because issue be ex way termini nomen  collective which child single be not though by other additional word it may  become so the case itself in wild case be only this that if a devise be make  to a man and modern report er p after his death to his child or his issue and  he have issue at the time of his death the issue shall take by way of  remainder upon the whole it appear that these word be word of limitation and  do most certain in a modern report will give a estatetail and then the point  come out just the same if the devisor have die just after the make of the will  it be plain that Susannah will have take a estatetail if it be object that the  estatetail result from a operation of law that the testator design first a  estate to the devisee then a estate to the heir and that it be the law that  conjoin they and create a estatetail out of both I answer that the law create  a estatetail pure to uphold and preserve the intention of the testator which  will be often destroy and defeat if the child of the devisee that be in be  either at the time when the will be make or at the time when the will take  place videlicet the death of the testator be to be consider as so many  distinct devisees for example suppose a estate devise to b and the issue of  his body lawful beget remainder to c c if b have issue at the time of the  death of the testator I n and after the death of the testator have issue I S  accord to this notion if I n die without issue the estate will go to the  remainderman and not to I S which be most certain the intention of the  testator and other case may be put of the same nature so that take by  limitation and take by purchase be not a mere notion and way of think but will  in reality often let in other person to take than what the testator design and  in effect amount to the make a new will the supposition of kindness in the  testator for the issue be too precarious and slender a foundation to build  upon and general speak the devisee be the only person out of kindness to who  the devise be make especial it seem to have be so here where the issue be bear  several year after the make the will and consequent can not be think upon by  the devisor modern report the beginning of the will whereby Edward Basil be by  general word constitute heir of all though how he be so be explain by the  subsequent clause of the will plead strong that the devise be not out of pure  kindness to the issue the danger of this construction be none for upon  supposition that the devisor intend a favour to the issue he have it still in  his power during his life to alter his will accord so that the only  consequence of this construction be that it will oblige man upon the death of  their devisees to do what be certain prudent and proper to do videlicet  reconsider their will judgement be give for the plaintiff a see Hutton v  Simpson Prec Chan vern Elliot v davenport Peer wms Hodgson v Ambrose dougl  while v white bro c c notorious facts Jones v Morgan bro c c do v kett term  Rep a