case jones against leg a the follow case in this volume be kind communicate to  the editor by Charles butler Esq of Lincolnsinn a in chancery February Robert  leg devise a house to his daughter Marthana leg for her natural life and after  her decease he will that the same shall go to and be enjoy by the child of her  body lawful to be beget if she shall have any and their heir and in default  thereof he limit the same over to his son William leg and his heir and assign  for ever the testator leave six child John Robert William Marthana Elizabeth  the plaintiff and whether William leg devise his reversion expectant upon the  death of Marthana to his brother John and his heir upon trust to sell and  divide the money arise therefrom between himself and Elizabeth William die in  the lifetime of Marthana Marthana be since dead without issue the plaintiff  Elizabeth claim under William will Robert the grandson and heir at law of the  testator and Marthana insist that the devise to the child of Marthana and  their heir be a fee and that the remainder to William be not devisable by he  he have only a contingent interest and not devisable in the lifetime of  Marthana Hardwicke Lord chancellor the question be whether the remainder to  William be to be consider as vest or void or as a contingent remainder and in  order to make William devise good it must be a vest remainder and I think  Marthana take no estatetail it be give her express for life and therefore no  great estate modern report er p shall arise by implication for though a devise  to a and his child or to a and after his death to his child will give a a  estatetail if he have no child accord to wild case   yet in this case there be  word of contingency if he have any child which differ the case from wild case  and there do not appear to have be any intention which will be fulfil by  overrule the estate for life the second question be what estate the child of  Marthana will have take whether a estatetail or in fee and to determine that  question the subsequent word in default thereof must be take into  consideration if no remainder have be limit over it will certain have be a  contingent remainder in fee to the child of Marthana and so it will have be if  William be a stranger but William must have be uncle of the child if there  have be any live modern report and therefore leave William or any of his heir  the child can not die without heir which turn the construction of the word  heir into heir of their body the doubt arise upon a equivalent sense of the  word in default thereof if they shall relate to the child or the heir of child  if they be to be consider as relative to the child I admit it will come to the  case of Loddington v kime salk t devise c which be not a fee mount upon a fee  but a fee with a double aspect and to arise to the one or the other as the  contingency shall happen and both the remainder be contingent but that case be  anomalous and to set over a rule of law that one fee can be mount upon another  and such a construction ought never to be make without a absolute necessity as  there be in that case but in the present case I be not bind to make such a  construction it be insist for the plaintiff that the word in default thereof  relate to the next antecedent word heir and it be insist for the defendant  that they be to be apply to the more remote correlate child but I think both  the contingency be too narrow and that the word take in both the construction  in the present case and that bring it to the common case in all  marriagesettlement of limitation to the father for life to his first and every  other son in tail remainder to daughter in tail and for want of such issue  remainder over where the word for want of such issue will take in all the  contingency that can arise upon the precedent limitation videlicet the want of  son or daughter and the issue of son or daughter and what weigh more with I be  that it be a rule first that where it can be construe a contingent remainder  it shall never be construe a executory devise and the reason be because it  will put the inheritance into abeyance which the law dislike a Qure the reason  of this rule for the inheritance be not in abeyance upon a executory devise  and be in abeyance upon a contingent remainder case cite cro James web v  herring Bulst roll Abr leo lev Parker v Thacker morris v Wootton at the  cockpit Goodright v pullen wile v Lewis that April I give to my wife and if  she have no son nor daughter beget by I and for want of such issue the estate  shall return to John wile and his heir son and daughter be hold to be word of  limitation and the wife tenant in tail Skinner lev win v Jekyl Peer wms salk  Loddington v kime note to the original manuscript a second that a remainder  shall never be construe a contingent one if it can be construe a vest one and  the reason be because a contingent remainder may be destroy by the fine or  feoff of the tenant for life and to construe this a contingent remainder will  be put the whole estate into the power of Marthana and for what why to put a  heir at law out of the power of a ancestor and to defeat the express devise  and therefore I think the child of Marthana will have take only a estatetail  and that the remainder be vest in William and be well devise