Bridgman I hill James Rotulo pet against brown a man be seize of land in fee  and have two son do devise his land to his young son and his heir and if he  die without issue live the old son then the elder shall have the land to he  and his heir the devisor die the young son have issue a daughter that die  without issue then the young son suffer a common recovery with voucher to the  use of he and his heir and after devise to another and his heir and then die  without issue live the elder son whether the devisee or the elder son shall  have the land be the question and the counsel for the devisee raise three  point admit that these word in the devise be omit videlicet live the old son  whether the young son have a estatetaile or not whether these word do make  such alteration of the estate as to make the estate a feesimple determinable  upon this contingency videlicet if he die without issue live the elder son  admit that there be such a fee in the young son yet whether this estate devise  to the old son he not destroy by the recovery and as to the first point it be  argue that if these word of limitation live the old son have be omit the young  son have have a estatetail by this devise the remainder in fee to the old son  for although the devise to the young son be to he and his heir which in case  the devise have stay there have make a very good feesimple to the young son  yet when the devisor go and declare further and devise that if he die without  issue that the elder son shall have the land this last limitaion if he die  without issue do restrain the generality of these word his heir to the heir of  the body of the young son only so that the last devise to the Bridgman old son  do declare and exemplify what kind of heir the devisor intend in the first  devise to the young son and in the h and the where land be give to r and king  his wife and their heir and to the heir of the say r if the heir of the say r  and king his wife issue shall die and this be adjudge a good estate in tail  and there it be say by hall that if land he give to a man and his heir for  ever et si to touch Self to go without horedibus de corpore his this be a good  estate in tail and in the h by vampage if I give land to another and his heir  for ever in the beginning of the deed and then after I say quod si consingat  that if he die without heir of his body that it shall remain to another in  this case the law intend by the si to touch that it be but a estatetail and in  the book of assize land be give to b and his heir to have and to hold to he  and his heir for ever if b shall have issue of his body and if he die without  heir of his body that the land shall revert to the donor and his heir b have  issue which die without issue and it be adjudge that b have but a estate in  tail and because he die without heir of his body it be adjudge that the donor  shall recover against the collateral heir of b and if the law be so in deed or  grant execute in the life of the donor a strong in a devise which be to be  take more favourable then a estate make by deed and therefore it be sufficient  in a devise to have the intention of the devisor understand either to make a  estate in fee or in tail although proper word to make such a estate be not use  and the intent of the devisor can be more manifest to have a estate in tail  then in this case Bridgman I er p as to the second point the question will be  whether the young son have a estate in tail or in fee determinable by this  limitation and it seem to they that he shall have a estate in tail in which  the question be to which estate these word of limitation to wit live the elder  son shall be refer videlicet whether to the estate make to the young son or to  the estate give to the elder for if they be refer to the estate make to the  young there be no question but these word do abridge Testrain the estate but  if to the elder then they make no restraint or restriction as to the estate of  the young son but only limit the remainder to the elder son on this  contingency only videlicet if he be alive at the time of the death of the  young son without issue and to prove that these word shall be refer to the  estate devise to the elder brother they say that if the land have be devise W  the young son and the heir of his body and if he die without issue live the  elder that the elder shall have the estate to he andobis heir it be clear that  the young have a absolute estate tail and that then the remainder to the elder  shall be on this contingency videlicet if he be live when the young die  without issue and so be Frenchman case I Elizabeth who demise land to his wife  for life the remainder to Charles Frenchman and the heir male of his body and  if he die without heir male of his body the remainder to Arthur Frenchman and  the beires male of his body Charles have issue a daughter and die without  issue male and it be adjudge that the daughter shall not have the land for  this contingency do not alter the estatetail that be first limit to Charles  and although the devise in the case at bar be to the young son and his heir  without any limitation of his body yet the limitation Bridgman I afterward to  wit if he die without issue do explain well enough that the heir of his body  be intend and then the subsequent word live the old son can alter the estate  first give to the young son and hill Elizabeth n the king bench by walmesly if  one devise land to his son and his heir and further devise that if he die  without issue that the land shall be sell yet the son shall have a estate in  fee and not in tail but otherwise if he devise that if he die without issue  that the land shall remain over for in the first case he dispose of no more of  the estate by the last word than be do at the first but in the last case be  dispose of the estate it self in remainder and this be agree by Owen Elizabeth  rot and Elizabeth rot where the case be that one Edward clark be seize in fee  of two house have issue Henry and two daughter Alice and Thomasin Henry die  before the two daughter live the father the father devise one house to his  daughter Alice and her heir for ever and the other to Thomasin who be at that  time but eight year of age and her heir for ever and if she die before the age  of sixteen year Alice then live Alice shall have it to her and her heir and if  Alice shall die have no issue live Thomasin Thomasinshould have the house of  Alice to her and her heir and if both of they die without issue he devise the  two house to the two daughter and his son Henry and their heir and if they die  without issue he devise the remainder to a stranger proviso that if Alice  shall marry I S that Thomasin shall have her part to her and her heir and if  Thomasin shall die have no child that the daughter of Henry shall have all and  if they die have no child the remainder to a stranger as aforesaid the devisor  die then Alice marry n but not I S and enter into her house Thomasin after  sixteen year of age die without issue and if Alice or the daughter of Henry  shall have the estate of Thomasin be the question and it be hold by three  justice that the daughter of Henry shall have it because that Thomasin do not  die within the age of sixteen year and that it be object that there be no  estate tail to any of the daughter but a feesimple conditionals upon a  contingent it be at last adjudge Elizabeth rot that they be tenant in tail by  this devise in mich Elizabeth mich Elizabeth and Michaelmas James this case be  argue by Montague Cheif justice Doderidge Haughton and chamberlain who all  agree that by this devise the young son have not a estatetail but a limit fee  so that by his die without issue live the elder son his estate be quite  determine and all except Doderidge agree that the recovery can not hurt the  future devise but Doderidge be much against this opinion by reason of great  mischief that may ensue by make of perpetuity in devise and cite archer case  and Cavels case but notwithstanding judgement be affirm as aforesaid Bridgman  I er p Bridgman I de termin TRINLITAT jacob rot