case cross against clare see thellusson v Rendlesham h l Cas devise to the  descendant of f I now live in or about sevenoak or hereafter live anywhere  else hold good see butler v Stratton bro c c see roper on legacy three edition  lib Reg a foe b S c hill ms Swanst in note bro c c in note in chancery that  April Richard ince by will that September devise his estate at Chilton park of  pound ayear to defendant Clare Lyddall and fitzwilliam for their life and of  the survivor and after their death he give it to the descendant of Francis  ince ambler er p now live in and about sevenoak in ken or hereafter live  anywhere else to be sell and he money to be divide equal among they and then  he give pound to the descendant of the say Francis ince in the same word bill  by the kindred in the three degree against the trustee the kindred in the  second degree and one in the four degree which last be bear after the will be  make after argument at bar sir Thomas clarke master of the roll who sit for  the chancellor a devise to descendant at large have be good he have add a  description of such as he intend shall take which be sufficient precise and  certain where the word relation be use the court have no other rule to go by  but the statute of distribution otherwise the devise will be void from the  uncertainty and generality of the term see edge v Salisbury ante and note  there where the devise be to the stock or to the family the court confine it  to the head of the family for the same reason chapman case cite in hob vern it  will be unjust in this case to confine it to the heir at law because the word  descendant mean all those who proceed from his body and therefore both the  grandchild of Francis ince be entitle both to the real estate and the pound  but the greatgreatgrandchild be bear after the will make be exclude by the  word now live V edge v Salisbury ante the devise be to Clare for life and  after his decease to the defendant Lyddall and Fitzwilliam for their life and  for the life of the survivor and then as in the text the decree direct the  real estate subject to the several estate for life to be sell and declare that  accord to the true construction of the say will the say plaintiff Crosslee c  the say grandchild and greatgrandchildren of the say testator uncle Francis  ince be entitle to the money to arise from the sale of the say real estate and  also to the say legacy of pound equal to be divide between they as tenant in  common and it be order that the same be divide into seventeen part one  seventeenth to be pay c c the argument and judgement in this case be give more  full by Mr swanston in a note to his report Vol from a manuscript report of  the case the editor have compare the note give by Mr swanston with a note in  Serg hill ms Vol p and find they correspond chapman case be in dyer foe and be  recognize by Lord Hobart in the case of Plowden v clarke hob and in the case  of wright v Atkins Ves sir W grant master of the roll after state that he do  not find any case in contradiction to the proposition in dyer v Hobart decide  that under a devise to my family of real estate the devisor heir at law take  as mask designate and see the case refer to by sergeant Heywood in Thwaites v  Ober taunt see Harland v trigg bro c c and the observation on that case in  wright v Atkins suppose in Grays v Coleman Ves it be say by sir W grant that  the word family may accord to the context have different signification in  different will and in that case hold that it mean next of kin and see  Macleroth v Bacon Ves turner Russ donc v smith m S