case sir robert Burdet versus hopegood Lord chancellor Parker one devise in  case he leaves no son at the time of his death to I S the testator die leave  his wife privement ensient with a son this posthumous son be a son live at the  testator death and I S not entitle Robert Burdet esquire in the lifetime of  sir Robert Burdet the plaintiff grandfather be seize in fee of the manor and  priory of Modney in the county of Norfolk by his will date that Dec devise the  premise in case he shall leave no son at the time of his death to his cousin  Francis hopegood and his heir and as a reward for the trouble which the  testator have give he and for the many obligation he have to he give he all  his personal estate and make he sole executor and die leave his wife peer  William privement ensient which child afterward prove to be a son the now  plaintiff and one of the question be whether hopegood the devisee be entitle  to these land in regard as be object the testator die without leave a son at  the time of his death hereupon Lord chancellor Parker refer it to the judge of  the king bench who be unanimous of opinion that the plaintiff sir Robert  though not bear have yet a existence in the eye of the law as in ventre sa  mere which in many respect be regard as if a woman take poison to kill her  child then in her womb and the child be bear alive and afterward die of that  poison the woman be guilty of murder vide beal v beal ante also a child in  ventre sa mere may be vouch and may be a devisee and it will be hard to  disinherit such a only child nor can it be imagine the testator ever intend so  to do the certificate of the judge be as follow we be of opinion that the  devise of the say manor and priory of Modney c to Francis hopegood and his  heir be not a absolute devise but subject to the contingency of the testator  leave no son at the time of his death so that such contingency not happen the  devise to the say Francis hopegood and his heir can take place the testator as  we humble conceive have express no intention in the will of disinherit his  only son the consequence of which be that Mr hopegood be not entitle to the  premise John Pratt rob Eyre Litt powis John fortescue aland peer William with  which his lordship agree and accord on the that of October decree the  defendant hopegood to deliver up possession of the premise and account for the  rend and profit which he have receive a child en ventre be now consider for  all purpose either of benefit or detriment thellusson v Woodford Ves Blackburn  v stable v b in the same light as if actual bear except in the case of a  descent of land Goodtitle v Newman will it be entitle to a share of portion  provide for child beal v beal ante so of the personal estate of a intestate  Wallis v Hodson atk burnet v Mann ves and of the customary part of the  personal estate of a freeman of London Walsam v Skinner pre Charles it shall  take under a devise or bequest to child peer William er p bear in the lifetime  of the testator c do v clarke h Bl clarke v black bro c c Ves jun Blackburn v  stable ub sup Rawlins v Rawlins Cox Trower v butt S S which be subsequent to  Freemantle v Freemantle Cox a devise to its issue be not too remote long v  blackall t r Ves jun thellusson v Woodford ub sup Ves if I n r S c on bee a  posthumous tenant in tail be entitle to rend accrue between the time of the  death of tenant for life and its own birth Basset v Basset atk marriage and  the birth of a posthumous child be a presumptive revocation of a devise of  land do v Lancashire t r as to which see cook v Oakley ante as to a devise or  bequest to a bastard en ventre see Metham v Devon post and see Northey v  strange ante vide beal v beal ante Northey v strange ante millar v turner ves  Bennet v honeywood Amb Cooper v Forbes bro c c clarke v black ib