case shepherd against Lessingham Oct pound devise of bankstock to daughter for  life remainder to such child or child of her as shall be live at her death and  if she shall not leave any child or if all child shall die without issue then  to I S the daughter have a son bear at the time of make the will hold the word  without issue be to be construe without leave issue and that the remainder  over to I S be a good remainder and not too remote l lib Reg b fol S c hill ms  jane William have two child Francis berkstead by her first husband and mary  Sheppard by her second husband by will of that march devise pound bankstock in  trust as to one moiety thereof to the use of Francis berkstead for life  remainder to such child or child of Francis berkstead as shall be live at his  death in equal proportion and in case there shall be no such child or in case  such child c lib Reg and if he shall not leave any child or in case such child  shall die without issue remainder to mary Sheppard for life remainder to such  child or child of mary Sheppard as she shall have at the time of her death and  in case the say mary Sheppard shall leave no issue of her body live at the  time of her death or if such child or child as she the say mary Sheppard shall  leave at the time of her death shall die without leave any issue of his her or  their body then to Joseph stennett and his issue lib Reg as to the other  moiety she appoint the interest to be pay to her daughter mary Sheppard for  life remainder to such child or child as she her ambler say daughter shall  leave at her decease equal share and share alike and in case her say daughter  shall leave no such child or child or all such child or child as she shall  leave shall die without issue then to Francis berkstead for life remainder to  such child or child of Francis berkstead as shall be live at his death equal  and in case Francis berkstead shall leave no child or child or if all the  child of Francis berkstead shall die without issue then to Joseph stennet the  same as the other moiety bill by plaintiff to have the stock transfer to he as  representative of mary Sheppard Francis berkstead be dead it appear that the  plaintiff the son of mrs Sheppard be bear at the time of the make the will  Lord chancellor there have be many case of this kind before the court and  variety of determination sometime they have be more large and sometime more  narrow but latterly the court have make as liberal a construction as possible  consistent with the rule of law to answer the intention one reason be the  great extension and increase of personal estate which people have settle to  answer the occasion of their family query whether this bequest as to the last  limitation can be support if it can it must be so by the rule of law and  equity shall consider saint the intention of testatrix d the word of the will  saint testatrix have two child Francis berkstead and plaintiff mother she have  a nephew Joseph stennet it be plain her general intention be to provide as far  as she can for her own issue and in failure of they that the bankstock shall  go to stennet I will not say but that by possibility her intention may go  further than certain event yet ut res to greater extent to be strong how to  pass away the court will take hold of circumstance to support the intention  ambler there be no difference in the pen the disposition of the several  moieties except that in the one it be if all such child shall die without  leave issue and in the other it be if all such child shall die without issue d  question saint whether the limitation to stennet be too remote be after the  death of a person not in be d whether it be not too remote as be after a die  without issue general be of opinion with the defendant on both the question as  to the saint question construction of word be proper restrain to prevent  perpetuity by the first determination personal estate can not be limit beyond  life or life in be and afterward in a case before Lord summer attend by two of  the judge they determine they can not be extend to one year further but on  appeal the house of lord do extend it so far afterward it be extend to a child  not in be and twentyone year after because the alienation of property be not  thereby restrain long than by law it will otherwise be and all this be on the  ground of make the construction answer the intention the same ground ambler er  p govern in Steavens v Steavens can t Talb but the court never go so far as to  say that a limitation after the death of a person not in be without issue  general be good I consider it on the contingency saint if mary Sheppard leave  no issue of her body at the time of her death she give it to stennet and in  that event the limitation will have be good d or if such child or child shall  die without leave issue then over it be admit mary Sheppard at the time of the  will have a son bear and I can by the rule of law consider the testatrix have  that child in view and the same as if she have say I give to such child or  child of mary Sheppard already bear and hereafter to be bear and live at the  time of her death ambler on the saint contingency the limitation over will be  good on the other bad wild case and sutton ease warrant I in it for the law  itself in make construction of will take into consideration such fact and that  answer the objection how can a lawyer know to advice his client why he must be  apprise of fact d question if such child or child shall die without leave  issue see crook v de Vandes Ves Dansey v Griffith m S it have be insist the  die without leave issue be the same as die without issue as to the latter word  videlicet die without issue general a limitation be too remote as in beauclerk  v dorm atk but the leave issue must mean so at the death of the person and so  it be hold in forth v chapman p wms and Atkinson v Hutchinson which last case  be report in wms agree the court have take into consideration other word and  part of the will to explain the word leave though in forth v chapman the same  word have different construction as to the real estate in other part of this  will the testatrix use the word leave issue at the time of her death and she  intend the same in this passage but put it leave issue only for shortness be  of opinion the limitation over be not too remote there be a different pen in  the limitation of the last moiety it be after a die without issue general but  be of opinion the same construction be to be put on those word as on the word  without leave issue in the other moiety I consider in general that a  limitation of a personalty after a die without issue be void see Fearn ex Dev  but the court will put a construction on those word and Pleydell v Pleydell in  wms be material for that purpose though the reason of Lord chancellor be ill  report for he consider to die without issue as if it have be without such son  before describe and support the limitation over if possible Fearn ex Dev see  the case collect by Mr Cox in his note to Atkinson v Hutchinson p W in the  that edit of that work the only difference intend between the disposition of  the two moieties be to prefer Francis berkstead as to the one moiety and mary  Sheppard as to the other see Kirkpatrick v Kirkpatrick Ves and see chamberlain  v Jacob ante and bodens v Watson post roper on legacy Fearns count Rem the  lluson v Woodford Ves in the note of this case in serj hill ms the Lord  chancellor be report to have say in consider these determination saint upon  the intent of the testatrix dly upon the word of the will I be of opinion with  the defendant stennet the ground of my determination be this that since there  be two contingency upon the happen of either whereof stennet be to have the  thing bequeathe the one of these contingency which will make the limitation to  he good and the other which will make it bad and that which will make it good  have happen therefore accord to the liberal construction in these case the  limitation to he shall depend upon the contingency only which have happen the  contingency in the word of the will be to the use of such child or child as  mary Sheppard shall leave at her death and if she shall have no issue of her  body live at her death this be the first contingency the other begin with the  dispensative particle or and show she intend these as two distinct contingency  and be in these word or that such child or child as she shall leave at her  death shall die without leave issue the first contingency have happen for the  plaintiff be the son of mary Sheppard and be live in the lifetime of the  testatrix he be within the rule see king v wither can t Talb post see  Thelluson v Woodford Ves in the late case of Bengough ambler er p v Edridge I  sim trust to be perform after a absolute term of year from the decease of the  survivor of person who be live at the time of the testator death be hold valid  decree it be admit that the plaintiff be in be at the time of the say jane  William the say testatrix make her will his lordship do declare that the  plaintiff be entitle to the dividend and profit of the say bank stock during  his life and in case the plaintiff shall die leave any issue at the time of  his death that then such bank stock will belong either to such issue or to the  representative of the say plaintiff but in case the say plaintiff shall die  leave no issue live at the time of his death then the say bank stock will  belong to the defendant Joseph stennet his executor and administrator and any  person be to be at liberty to apply as the contingency shall happen lib Reg