case ross against morris easter term Elizabeth roll a devise to a for life  with remainder ad use guide hceredum inperpeluum secundum antique evidence ind  factor where there be seven ral different evidence and it be uncertain which  be intend create a feesimple for it shall he take to he the intention of the  devisor that the estate shall go to his heir general accord to the rule of law  SC Leon cou dig replevin the defendant avow as servant to Jerom Weston Esq the  case upon demurrer be one Gomerly be seize of the manor of Nayland and by deed  Edward give it to Lord Henry Scrope and to the heir of his body who die seize  and so continue by diverse dissent until Hen and then Thomas Lord Scrope  suffer a common recovery which be to the use of he and his heir and etakes a  estate of the feoff to he and his heir and have issue Ralph and Jeffere and  three daughter die Ralph make a feoff to the use of fiimself his and heir and  Henry devise it to Jeffere for life and after ad use rectorugn hceredum in  continuous secundum antiquity evidence ind fact and die seize of this use and  of the use in diverse other manor in fee sir Willi m Danby marry with one of  the daughter and afterward Jeffere die without issue sir William Danby croak  Elizabeth and his wife and the other sister be also marry be seize of these  use make partition and allot the use of this manor to SirWilliam Danby and his  wife and the heir of the wife and the other use of the other manor to the  other two daughter sir William Danby and his wife die sir Thomas Danby their  heir enter and feoff Weston u on this case the point be two first if it be a  estate in tail or fee in the daughter who be sister to the devisor and issue  of the body of Thomas father of the devisor?Secondly if this partition be void  or voidable Godfrey coke and Cooper argue for the plaintiff that it be a  estate in fee in Jeffer and so in the daughter for the word of the will be ad  use guide hceredum secundum antiquity evidence ind prceaidea fait it be  incertain what evidence he intend for three evidence be mention videlicet the  estate in tail Edward croak Elizabeth er p the recovery of feoff and it appear  get wonder bich of they the deed he intend also it appear not whether he  intend the heir of Lord Scrope or the heir of Gomerly for by the first  evidence the remainder be limit to the right heir of Gomerly and for this  incertainty all be void but admit it shall he construe a estate in tail accord  to the evidence of Edward yet it be only a estate in tail in Jeffere for he be  the first person that take it and have it as a purchaser and when he die  without issue the estate tail I spend and nolne can have it as heir to he the  second point they hold the partition utter void for it be of one use in tail  and a aher use in fee and so not equal and be make hetween husband and wife be  void Johnson Atkinson and Egerton solicitor contra the will be certain enough  and the ancient evidence can he construe only of that of Edward for the other  be but new evidence and it be help by the averment that Lord Scrope have no  other ancient evidence of this land therefore the will shall refer to it and  shall not be expound to another sense than as the estate be there limit and  then though the first effect and essence vest in Jeffere yet he take it by  limitation he take it as heir of the body of Lord Scrope and this perfomam  gift and then the daughter shall have it so livre kewise for they all claim by  one gift Secondly they hold the partition good for there be quid pro quo and  so only voidable but all the justice resolve to give judgement foe the  plaintiff lessee of Weston that this be no estate tail but a feesimple in the  daughter for no estate be create by the will for the incertainty of the person  and evidence also and the intent be to he take in will and the court hold that  his intent be that it shall go to his heir general accord to the course of  commonlaw for diverse evidence be show in the plead and it be hard for a man  in extremity to rememher they especial that which be make Edward but for the  second matter if it he a estate tail if it shall inure to the daughter as  Edward pl or he extinct upon the death of Jeffere without issue who be the  first purchaser accord to the opinion in Griswoldg case a they say they be of  diverse opinion but for the principal matter they give judgement for the  plaintiff