case pratt versus Jackson distinguish in re SetonSmith Ch Lord chancellor king  one have a house in which he life and household good and have also a house at  Gosport near Portsmouth for invalid seaman with a vast number of bed sheet and  household stuff and by marriage article it be agree that his wife shall on his  death have no claim upon his personal estate except his household good and  household stuff this exception to extend only to the good which he have in the  house in which he live and not to such as be in the hospital and make use of  by the government upon the marriage of Nathaniel Jackson a freeman of London  with the defendant his wife article be execute by both of they before marriage  by which be agree that in consideration of a provision make for her by the  intend husband the defendant the wife shall have no claim out of his real or  personal estate provide this shall not extend to what he the say intend  husband shall or may leave her by will nor to all or any of the household good  or utensil or household stuff c of he the say Nathaniel Jackson at the time of  his death all which she be to receive and enjoy Jackson the husband at the  same time beside the house at London wherein he reside have a house at Gosport  near Portsmouth call fortune hospital which be use by the government as a  hospital and Jackson provide there a great number of bed and sheet with other  furniture in proportion for peer William the great number of seaman who be  invalid and who by the direction of the government be receive and take care of  in this house Jackson afterward die without issue and his wife claim these bed  and sheet c the question be whether the wife be entitle to these bed sheet c  as household good or utensil or householdstuff within the intent of the say  article against this demand it be object that the household good intend by  these article must be only such household good as the testator himself use and  not these bed and sheet which be in nature of a stock in trade and use at a  place where peer William er p Mr Jackson himself never live but the furniture  be provide and the undertake carry on by agent and servant only that if a  upholsterer or pewterer shall devise all his household good the bed or pewter  in his shop will not pass though in some sense these be household good but  here only such good will pass as be general make use of as household good in  his own house and not his stock in trade Lord chancellor where the meaning be  uncertain the safe way be to follow the letter and not to wander from thence  which create the utmost uncertainty and give a latitude for the court to make  construction never perhaps intend to be make by the party the good in question  be bed and sheet be proper household good the husband be as well owner of  these good as of the good in his own house and there be nothing in the deed  which confine the household good that be peer William to pass to those in his  own house I therefore have no warrant to construe they in that sense then as  both the word and the letter extend to all household good and the intention  not appear to have be otherwise and it be in favour of so near a relation as a  wife I will take the meaning to be as large as the word so let the wife have  the bed sheet and other furniture use in the hospital but upon a appeal to the  house of lord this decree be reverse bro p c bro p c h and ed and so Crichton  v synes atk Le Farrant v Spencer ves porter v tournay Ves