chester and chester I S have land in a and in b settle the land in a to  particular use remainder to his own right heir then devise all his land in b  and else where not former settle hereby the reversion of the land in a passes  S C p wms refer to roe v read t r attorneygeneral v vigour Ves comment on  Morgan v surman taunt apply crow v noble smith bat Jones v Skinner l I Ch  incorporate society v Richard ir Eq r I dr war con l OReilly v smith ir Ch r  in re green l r ir this cause be hear last Trinity term before my Lord  chancellor my Lord chief justice Raymond my Lord chief baron Reynolds and Mr  justice price the case be thus I c seize in fee of land in d upon the marriage  of his old son settle those land upon he in tail male remainder to his own  right heir afterward I c be seize in fee in possession of other land in l m  and m make his will in this manner I devise to my wife dame Frances Chester  and to my soninlaw John Tollord their executor and administrator all my  message land tenement and hereditament in littlington marton and Millbrook  note some small part of the land settle on the old son lie in Millbrook and  elsewhere not by I former settle or hereby otherwise dispose of for year in  trust that they do apply the yearly rend and profit thereof for the payment of  my debt and legacy and when those shall be pay I give and devise all my say  message land tenement and hereditament to I c a second son and his heir for  ever except my mill a which have always go along with the land in d till the  marriage of the old son upon which the say I c reserve it to himself which I  give to my old son and his heir for ever the testator die seize and soon after  die the old son without issue male leave several daughter the reversion of the  land settle on the old son be of much great value than all the other land  which the testator have in possession which be no other than those name in the  will the plaintiff daughter of the old son bring their bill as heir at law for  the reversion of the land in d so that the question be whether the reversion  pass by the will Fitzherbert Gibbon it be argue for the plaintiff by Mr will  Mr Verney Mr sergeant Eyre and Mr William that a heir at law shall not be  disinherit by general word which will be the case here be this reversion to  pass by the word elsewhere which be but as a c throw in current branch vent  and there be nothing in this will beside that word to pass the reversion and  it be unreasonable to imagine that so lose a word shall devise away from the  heir at law a reversion of much great value than the land in possession which  be express devise hob and then the devise express the several parish in which  the land FitzGibbon er p devise do lie imply that it shall go no further and  the express devise of the land in Millbrook where a inconsiderable part of the  reversion lie which consequent pass thereby express be a argument that the  gross of the reversion be not intend to pass by general word vern beside the  except of the mill in favour of the old son show a intention to reunite the  mill to the land in d the reversion of which be consequent suppose to have be  leave undisturbed but what make this point yet clear be that the devise be  express confine to land not already settle which be restrictive word introduce  to except those land that be settle on the old son for it be a rule in the  construction of will that no word shall be reject that may have a meaning and  those word will be of no import unless they be take to except the reversion in  question sure if the testator have be ask whether the land in d be settle he  will have answer they be on the marriage of his old son if the devise have be  of his land former settle those land must have pass and therefore it be absurd  to say that by devise his land not settle they shall pass also and the case of  Hylay and Hylay Mod be rely on it be argue for the defendant by Mr attorney  and solicitor general Mr lutwych and Mr fazakerly that as there be no land in  possession beside those express mention the word elsewhere will be idle unless  it extend to the reversion in question which distinguish the principal case  Fitzherbert Gibbon from vent vern for in this case there be some parcel of  land lie out of the county mention in the will to satisfy the word elsewhere  which be as operative a word as the testator can make use of and to the  objection that the word not former settle be restrictive word it be common to  make use of they to show the testator do not intend to disturb former  settlement as man will devise their good and chattel for the payment of their  debt though the law say as much and then the reversion in question be the  ancient reversion over which the donor have a power so that for this reversion  the land be not settle it be suppose that the devise be of his land former  settle c and object from that c to some purpose the land be in settlement and  to some purpose it be not videlicet as to the reversion it be not and thus  this very objection be answer by judge Tracey in the case of sir Litton stride  report vern which govern the present case in point as do all and to discredit  the case of Hylay and Hylay one of the defendant counsel observe that that  resolution be in the time of king James and deny the case to be law as  contrary to the case of Willows and Lydcott vent which be adjudge in the  exchequerchamber subsequent to that case the whole court be of opinion the  reversion pass by the will for that the word elsewhere be of the large extent  and consequent take in all the testator land wherever they lie and then as a  reversion will pass by a devise of all the devisor land the word elsewhere in  this will must take in the reversion in question which as this case be be part  of the testator old estate and over which he have a absolute power and  ownership and consequent be unsettle at the time of the will make if there  have be any land or skirt lie out of the place mention in the will to satisfy  the word elsewhere it may make a difference my Lord chief baron deny the case  of Hylay and Hylay and the court rely on Littons case and on all lev