case baskerville versus baskerville march upon exception though there be no  trustee in a will to preserve contingent remainder Lord Hardwicke order that  such trustee shall be insert in the conveyance to be settle by the master on  the first of April by article on the marriage of Richard Baskerville Richard  father covenant to settle land upon he on payment of pound the portion of  Richard wife on the that of January Thomas the father make his will and recite  that that atkins er p the pound have never be pay he bequeathe the same to his  son John and George Baskerville and direct the pound to be lie out in land lie  in Wiltshire and here fordshire to be convey to they the say John and George  for year subject to the payment of two annuity and after the expiration of the  say term to the use of Walter Baskerville his grand on for life and his first  and other son in tail male afterward to another grandson with like limitation  and so to a three grandson c then to his the testator three son successive for  life and their respective first and every other son in tail male and afterward  to the issue male of his own body and for default thereof to his own right  heir atkins there be no trustee in the will name to preserve contingent  remainder by a order of this court that e pound be direct to be pay by Richard  Baskerville and to be lie out in the purchase of land to be settle to the use  in the say will a purchase have be agree for accord of a estate and by order  all party be to join in a conveyance to such trustee and their heir as master  Holford shall approve of upon the several trust and use as be mention in  Thomas Baskervilles will the solicitor for Thomas Baskerville the son of  Richard who take the exception and also be entitle to the reversion of the  estate to be purchase after all the estatestail be spend attend before the  master and make no objection to his report and so the master approve of the  deed without name trustee to preserve contingent remainder and the conveyance  be execute by the party accord but on the that of February Thomas Baskerville  the reversioner grandson and heir of Thomas Baskerville the testator obtain a  order that he shall be at liberty to file a exception to the master report of  his approbation of the deed of conveyance the exception be as follow for that  the master have approve of a conveyance of the several land whereby they be  settle and limit to the several devise under the will in order as they stand  there for life with remainder to the first and every other son in tail male  and yet in the conveyance they be not trustee to support contingent remainder  insert between the several limitation of the first and every other son of each  tenant for life which ought to have be do Lord chancellor this be a executory  trust to be carry into execution in this court vide Stamford v Hobart bro p c  bro p c and ed Leonard v earl of Sussex vern Papillon v voice p W glenorchy v  Bosville can tempt Talb Robert v Dixwell ante vol bagshaw v Spencer post the  question be whether the settlement ought to be make immediate to the son or  whether the trustee shall be insert in order to preserve contingent remainder  I be of opinion the trustee ought to be insert the first objection be that by  the decree the money be direct to be lie out in land it be no long executory  atkins but these be only word of reference to the will and the decree must be  expound accord vide Lord Stamford versus Lord Hobart which be in point cite in  Cas in Ch in Lord Talbot time as a case concern sergeant maynard will the  material question be upon the construction of the will and the intention of  the testator whether there be any such authority there have be several case  before the court where question of this sort have be make but different from  this in the reason of they legate versus jewel p wms bale versus Coleman p wms  but the question in legate and jewel be not whether there shall be trustee to  preserve the remainder but what estate the first taker have and my Lord Cowper  consider it in the same light as if it have beer upon marriage article but in  the case of bale versus Coleman before Lord Harcourt he say marriage article  and a will be different for a will proceed mere from the bounty of the  testator but marriage article be a matter of contract and agreement not that  my Lord Harcourt be of opinion as have be often say at the bar that the  conveyance be to be make in the word of the will but accord to the legal  operation of it only for otherwise it will introduce great absurdity as word  in a will and in a conveyance have different construction as for instance the  word issue the testator have only give the first devisee a estate for life and  therefore the court do not deprive he of any estate but only take the power  from he of do a wrong atkins er p for if a son be bear the remainder be go and  it become a vest one but I shall not go so far as my Lord Cowper have do in  the case of sergeant maynard will for he go upon this that there be a manifest  and apparent intention that a strict settlement shall be make I shall adhere  to the rule c f conveyance which have be lie down by the great man before the  restoration and during the usurpation here it be a bequest of a sum of money  to be lie out in land and therefore mere executory and the question be whether  the court shall carry it into execution so as to make it nugatory and of no  effect or so as to answer the clear intent of the testator which be to have a  strict settlement for can it be imagine that this man will have take all these  pain to chalk out so many limitation to no less than six different branch of  the family and intend it shall be in the power of the first taker to destroy  they the exception be allow and the master order to rectify the conveyance by  insert trustee to preserve the contingent remainder