Barnardiston Hodgson and bussy December in the case of a deed the word heir of  the body shall be construe word of purchase where the intent of the deed plain  be that they shall be so where the intent of a deed shall be to make a man  heir of his body purchaser of the remain interest in a term how far the trust  of a term may be limit by deed after the marriage of Edward bussy with grace  his wife he make a voluntary settlement of a reversionary term to trustee in  trust to permit and suffer grace to enjoy the profit thereof for her better  support during the term if she shall so long live and from and after her  decease to permit Edward to enjoy the profit thereof during the remainder of  the term if he shall so long live and after his decease in trust for the heir  of the body of grace by Edward beget their executor administrator and assign  and for want of such issue the remainder in trust for Henrietta Hodgson during  the remainder of the term if she shall so long live and after her decease in  trust for her two son William and Edward Hodgson c after the make this  settlement Edward bussy die have never have any issue grace his wife survive  he the present bill be bring by Henrietta Hodgson and her husband and likewise  by Edward their infant son against grace bussy and the trustee in order to  have the deed and write relate to this term bring into court to be deposit  there for the benefit of all party that shall have a interest in it grace  bussy insist by her answer that she be become entitle to the whole benefit of  the term this Cause come on to be hear in the last term Lord chancellor think  it at that time a matter of some difficulty and order it to stand for  judgement as of to day and now his lordship be please to deliver his opinion  in it he say the general question be whether the plaintiff be entitle to have  the deed and write relate to this term bring into court for the benefit of  Barnardiston all party that shall have a interest in it and that question  depend upon this whether the plaintiff have any interest in this term or not  to show that they have not any interest in it the great objection make on the  part of the defendant grace bussy be that the limitation over under which the  plaintiff claim be too remote to be allow of two argument have be offer in  order to support this objection one that as the deed be pen the trust of the  term be to vest not in the issue of grace as purchaser but in grace herself  only the other suppose Barnardiston er p the issue be intend to be purchaser  yet if there have be heir of the body of grace they will have take the whole  benefit of the remainder of the term so that in that case the plaintiff can  have take nothing and though the fact have happen that there be no issue vet  that event can vary the case with regard to the first of these argument his  lordship say his opinion be that the heir of the body be intend to take as  purchaser and consequent that the whole interest be not design to vest in  grace bussy the defendant it have be admit at the bar that the word heir of  the body or issue may be word of purchase archer case in coke report be a  strong authority for that purpose and so be the case of Lisle and grey report  in sir Thomas Jones lev and Raymond and though there be a difference in the  report of that case whether that judgement be affirm in the exchequer Chamber  or not yet in the certificate of the judge make in the case of legate and fuel  Mr justice Tracy take notice that he have look into the record of that case  and find that the judgement be affirm in these two case the interest in  question be a legal inheritance wherein the word heir of the body be construe  to be word of purchase and in the last of they these word be insert in a deed  now if these word have be construe to be word of purchase in the case of legal  inheritance which proper admit of limitation in tail no wonder be it that  these word shall receive such construction in the Barnardiston case of term  for year which do not proper admit of such limitation several case have be  cite by the counsel for the plaintiff to show that the word heir of the body  ought to receive this construction in the present case particular the case of  peacock and Spooner Daffern and goodman and that of web and web all report in  vern but the case of web and web be more full report in William Vol there have  be another case cite to the same purpose which be that of do and Merrifield  hear at the bolls the that of October the that of his present majesty there  the word in a will be to this effect item all other my leasehold estate I  devise to the follow use to the use of c for life the remainder to my brother  S for life the remainder to the heir of the body of my brother S and their  executor and assign it be indeed true that the only thing direct by the decree  be that there shall be a issue to try the validity of the deed under which the  testator claim but it will have be to no purpose to have direct that issue  unless the court have be of opinion that the limitation over to the heir of  the body be good by way of purchase these case relate to the trust of term  wherein the word heir of the body have receive this construction of be word of  purchase have be find on the manifest and apparent intent of the party that  the word shall receive this construction it have be say indeed that these case  have only arise on marriage Settlements or will and that in these case a great  latitude of construction ought to be allow of than in the present one with  regard to the case of will the authority of Lisle and grey which have be cite  be a clear answer to it for that show that even in the case of a deed the word  heir of the body shall be construe word of purchase where the intent of the  deed plain be that they shall be so as to the case of marriage Settlements the  objection indeed there be of more weight but there the reason be that the  construction of marriage Settlements and marriage provision which be  Barnardiston the case of peacock and Spooner Daffern and goodman and that of  web and web all depend upon the intention of the party appear in the deed and  if that have not be the ground of those resolution the foundation of they must  have fail and in voluntary assignment of term if the intention of the party  clear appear the intention ought to prevail and there be no other difference  between marriage Settlements or marriage provision make upon a valuable  consideration and voluntary assignment of term than that in the first case the  court will sometime make a strong and more favourable construction to answer  that intention than they will in the other but if the intention of the party  manifest appear in the latter case the instrument shall be construe accord to  that intention as well as in the former the question then in the present case  be whether the intent of the party do require that the deed shall receive this  construction that the word weir of the body shall be word of purchase and his  lordship opinion be that it do it require this more strong than in any one of  the print case that have be cite the limitation to the heir of the body ought  to be construe here in the same manner as if the first limitation have be to  the wife for life only the estate be give to the trustee in Barnardiston er p  trust to permit and suffer grace to enjoy the profit thereof for her better  support during the term if she shall so long live these affirmative word imply  a negative that grace buss be not to have the profit any long than for her  life and where the word be any thing to that import imply a negative that the  first taker be to have no more than a estate for life that have be hold to be  a reason for make the word heir of the body to be word of purchase to this  purpose there be a case cite by Lord hale in the case of king and mell where  the word be et non aliter and to the like purpose be the case of Bacchus and  well hill of the late queen the next set of word from which a argument may be  draw to show Barnardiston this intent in the present case be the word of the  very limitation itself to the heir of the body that limitation be in trust for  the heir of the body of grace by Edward beget their executor administrator and  assign these word be a declaration of the intention of the party that the  executor of the heir of the body shall take this term and that the executor of  the wife shall not and it amount to a express declaration to vest the whole  property of the remainder of the term in the heir of the and that it shall not  be in grace this clause be likewise a proof that the intention of the party be  not that the term shall go to all the heir of the body in Succession but that  it shall vest in one of they only that it shall go to his personal  representative and that it shall not go to any other heir of the body the  reason why the word heir of the body have in other case be construe to give  the whole term to the first taker be that under these word the intent of the  party appear that all the heir of the body shall take in infinitum but in the  present case such a intention be exclude by reason of the word executor with  regard to the second argument make use of in support of the objection that  have be mention his lordship opinion be that under the event that have happen  of there be no issue of the body of grace bussy by Edward beget the plaintiff  be well entitle to the benefit of the remainder there be no danger in this  case of a perpetuity the event of there be issue or not must be know within  ten month after life in be the allow such a remainder as this to be good under  such a contingency as this be agreeable to the case of Stanley and lee  Sabarton and Sabarton luson and Grosvener and that of Higgins and Derby report  in Salkeld and so his lordship be please to decree accord