case John kew versus rouse and his wife January Lord chancellor Eq can ab pl S  c a devise of a term to a and b pay pound a year out of the rend to one during  his life videlicet pound S by each of they be a tenancy in common the  plaintiff wife who administrator he be and the defendant wife be the two  daughter of Elizabeth wise who be possess of a term for year in April devise  that term and all her interest therein unto her two daughter they pay yearly  to her son pound by quarterly payment videlicet each of they pound S yearly  out of the rend of the premise during his life if the term so long continue  the plaintiff wife be dead the defendant claim the whole by survivorship and  whether it be a joint tenancy or a tenancy in common be the question the Lord  chancellor conceive it clear to be a tenancy in common for that pound per and  be to be pay by the two daughter equal in moieties and decree a account of the  moiety of the profit to the plaintiff as administrator to his wife Reg lib a  fol the decision in this case seem to go upon the ground that if the term have  be express give to the two daughter equal to be divide Vernon chancery case er  p between they there will have be no doubt but that it will have be a tenancy  in common this do not however appear to have be consider as a settle doctrine  in all case long after that time as in the case of a surrender of copyhold  fisher v Wigg p wms as to the authority of fisher v Wigg vide Rigden v vallier  ves and in the case of a term assign hamell v burst pre Ch though decide to be  a tenancy in common and in the case of a grant or deed ware v Everard salk and  where a devise to two equal to be divide and to the survivor of they it be  hold a jointtenancy clerk v clerk post vol on the ground that the latter word  control the former et vide Barker v Giles p wms and case cite there but the  court afterward begin to lean more strong against a joint tenancy Edward v  fashion pre Ch hall v Digby bro p c haw v haw ves will atk S c where the word  of the devise be equal to be divide between they share and share alike as  tenant in common and not as joint tenant with the benefit of survivorship hold  a tenancy in common with a limit benefit of survivorship gaskin v gaskin Cowp  roebuck v dean Ves jun Jolliffe v east Br Ch Rep Martin v Wilson ibidem butler  v Stratton ibidem Bolger v Mackell Ves but though the word equal to be divide  share and share alike c be in general construe to create a tenancy in common  yet it be not by force of the word mere but because it appear to be the  intention of the party that there shall be no survivorship furse v week roll  ab blisset v Cranwell salk Rigden v vallier ves so where the context show a  joint tenancy to be intend or where there be a express joint tenancy the word  shall be construe accord Ettricke v Ettricke Amb Armstrong v Eldridge bro Ch  Rep and where a devise be to a and her issue and no word of severance or any  thing to show that severance be mean hold a joint tenancy davenport v Hanbury  Ves so Morley v bird ibidem Stewart v Bruce ibidem Campbell v Campbell bro Ch  Rep where hold that twothirds of a residue be give to and among the child of a  they take as tenant in common but the remain three be give to without the word  among the child of b they take as joint tenant so the intention to sever when  there be word of joint tenant must clear appear Whitmore v Trelawney Ves but  the word of survivorship in a will shall if possible be so construe as not to  destroy or defeat a tenancy in common Russell v long Ves as to the operation  of the word equal to be divide c in deed under the statute of use and in  commonlaw conveyance vide case cite by Mr Cox in note to fisher v Wigg ub sup  as to devise to residuary legatee not be executor vide Perkins v bayntun bro  Ch Rep Jolliffe v east bro Ch Rep and case cite there and as to the operation  of those word in the case of a estate for life vide Philips v Philips p wms as  to the doubt former entertain whether joint tenancy of a legacy vide Cray v  Willis p wms and case cite in note there Morley v bird Ves which explode the  notion that in case of legacy court of equity shall judge accord to the rule  of the civil law which be against v so crook v survivorship de Vandes Ves  swain v Burton Ves as to the word if any of they the legatee die then to the  survivor it be decide that they shall not create a joint tenancy as they shall  be construe to mean if any of they shall die in the lifetime of the testator  Lord bindon v earl of Suffolk p wms and case cite in note there and though  that decree be reverse in the house of lord yet some of the late case have  since construe the word so as to favour a tenancy in common by confine they to  the death of the testator stringer v Phillips Eq can ab pl in note and cite by  Mr Cox note to Lord bindon v earl if Suffolk ub sup stone v Heurtley ves  roebuck dean Ves jun very v wood Ves maberly v stride ibidem say vide against  that construction if any other can be adopt the observation of Arden master of  the roll in Russell v long Ves and of sir wm grant master of the roll in brown  v big Ves but which nevertheless do not seem to militate against the rule that  in the construction of those word a tenancy in common shall as much as  possible be favour et vide Jackson v Jackson ibidem at the roll the decree in  which be vary on appeal Ves the point however on which that variation be make  be as to the law of merchant part of the legacy be embark in trade operate  under certain transaction a presumption that there shall be a severance Vernon  chancery case er p Vernon chancery case de boundary S HILLARII James two in  curian porter