case fillip versus fillip vern precedent in Chan Eq can ab pl free a by will  devise land to trustee and their heir in trust that the profit shall be equal  divide between his wife and daughter the heir of the testator during the wife  life and after her death he devise the same to the use of his daughter in tail  with remainder over the daughter die without issue and intestate during the  mother life resolve by the opinion of all the judge of c b that the mother and  daughter be tenant in common and that the mother shall have a moiety of the  profit during her life and that the other moiety by the statute of fraud and  perjury shall go to the executor or administrator of the daughter as before  that statute it will have be liable to occupancy and not to the heir of the  testator as profit undisposed of and result to he Turkerman v jeoffrys holt  this be a case send out of chancery to the justice of c b for their opinion  William Philips have a wife name Elizabeth and one only daughter name Martha  and be seize in fee of diverse land in the common county of flint and Denbigh  devise his land to trustee and their heir in trust that the profit thereof  shall be equal divide betwixt his wife and his daughter during the life of the  wife and after her decease he devise the land to the trustee and their heir to  the use of his daughter Martha and the heir of her body for ever with diverse  remainder over one of which as to part of the land be to the plaintiff the now  heir at law of the testator peer William the testator die after which Martha  the daughter die without issue and intestate in the life of the wife who take  out administration to her daughter and the question be betwixt the plaintiff  the testator heir at law and the defendant the wife whether the daughter  moiety of the premise shall descend or result to the testator heir at law or  whether the testator wife shall have the whole for her life and I argue on  behalf of the wife as follow I will admit that this be a devise of a trust  shall have the same operation and construction vide post Watts v ball as it be  of a legal estate and that nothing in this case can make a question but the  word equal divide for if they be out then the case will be I devise the profit  of my land to my wife and daughter during the life of my wife which will plain  make they jointtenants and the wife survive will have the whole for her life  so that first it be to be consider whether the word equal to be divide will in  this case make a tenancy in common vide the case of fisher v Wigg ante p and  the authority there mention second admit they do make a tenancy in common  whether there be not a subsequent devise to the wife for her life by  implication the word be after the decease of my wife I devise the land to my  daughter who be heir at law and the heir of her body three admit both these  point to be against I videlicet that it be a tenancy in common and that the  wife have no devise to her for her life by implication whether this estate do  not peer William go to the daughter executor or administrator and not to the  heir at law of the testator in which case it will belong to the wife who have  a right to administer to the daughter as to the first I take it that the word  equal divide or to be divide will not make a tenancy in common in this case I  admit these word in case of a devise of the inheritance or of a lease for year  will make a tenancy in common but where the devise be for life which be our  case the law be otherwise in case of a devise of a inheritance where land be  give to two and their heir equal the reason why it be a tenancy in common be  for that it appear to be the intent of the testator that each of the devisees  heir shall have a equal share in the inheritance which can not be if they the  ancestor be jointtenants for then if one be to die the heir of he die first  shall have nothing and the survivor will be entitle to the whole estate as  from the donor but in case of a devise to two for their life equal it can be  of no advantage peer William er p to the devisees to have it construe a  tenancy in common for if one die suppose it to be a tenancy in common the  estate as to a moiety determine and the remainderman or reversioner shall  enter wherefore it can be any loss to the devisees to construe it a  jointtenancy and tocarry such moiety to the survivor of they this I say be no  prejudice to the devisee that die first and agreeable hereto be the opinion of  the lord I Popham cro Elizabeth lewen v Cox which I do not remember to have  see impeach in any book and it be peer William exact our case as to this point  for there can be no difference betwixt a devise to two for their life and a  devise to two for the life of one of they in regard that though in the last  case there be not a equal advantage of survivorship yet accord to I Inst b it  be a good jointtenancy and this opinion of c I Popham hold that the word equal  divide do not make a tenancy in common in case of a devise for life as they  will where the devise be of a inheritance seem to have the more reasonable  foundation for that the word equal divide accord to roll Abr furse versus week  make a tenancy in common by construction only and collection of the intent of  the testator ante fisher v Wigg salk vern that case be a man seize in fee have  two daughter and a son and devise his land to his two daughter equal to be  divide between they and the survivor of they and the heir of the body of the  survivor upon which devise the two daughter be adjudge to be jointtenants and  not tenant in common notwithstanding the word equal to be divide for say the  book in a deed or grant the word equal to be divide will not make a tenancy in  common and in a will they only make a tenancy in common by construction for if  other word in the will show it to have be the intent of the testator that it  shall rather be a jointtenancy than a tenancy in common it shall be so and in  this case the habendum be to the survivor of they and the heir of her body be  a strong evidence that the testator intend a jointtenancy without which the  survivor can not take it so that here it be adjudge a jointtenancy and not a  tenancy in common notwithstanding the word equal to be divide peer William now  the intent in the principal case seem to have be chief to provide for the wife  it be the wife life only that the will express mention I admit by the will the  profit be to be divide during the mother life between the mother and daughter  but when the daughter be dead so that there can be no long a division of the  profit between they then the mother the testator wife shall have the whole but  if the intent be not so plain express as I contend it be yet it be a devise of  the premise for life only I adhere to the lord popham opinion that the word  equal to be divide will not in such case make a tenancy in common as to the  second point that seem very plain for I the devise be of the profit to the  testator wife and daughter during the life of the wife and after the decease  of the wife then to the use of the daughter and the heir of her body with  remainder over now by virtue of these word I devise after the decease of my  wife to my daughter and the heir of her body the daughter be heir at law this  be a devise by implication to my wife for her life I agree a devise to one who  be not my heir at law after the death of my wife be no devise by implication  to my wife for in that case it shall descend to the heir at law in the mean  time but where the devise be to the heir at law after the death of the wife  this be a plain and necessary implication that the wife shall have it for her  life for no other person can peer William take it the heir be express exclude  until the death of the wife this be the know case of h post Willis v Lucas bro  devise cro James Horton versus Horton Vaugh gardener versus Sheldon so in  Hutton v Simpson vern and S c pre Charles by the name of Simpson v Hornsby a  devise to a after the death of b although a be but one of two coheir will give  b a estate for life by implication in cro Elizabeth Higham versus baker there  be a much strong case adjudge and that be one seize in fee of a message and  land thereto belong call Mascals devise this message c to his wife Alice and  his young son Robert for payment of debt and legacy and after the death of the  wife the remainder to Robert in fee the debt and legacy be pay and upon this  it be resolve the wife shall have a estate for life by implication which  differ from our case only in be strong for there the devise after the death of  the wife be not to the heir but to a young son and yet it be adjudge to  operate as a devise to the wife for her life so that it peer William er p seem  to be pretty clear in the principal case that the wife have a estate for life  by implication but three admit it to be a tenancy in common admit it likewise  to be no devise by implication to the wife yet the executor or administrator  of the daughter and not the heir at law of the testator will have title for  then suppose it to be a tenancy in common the case will be but thus I devise  my land to my wife and my daughter for the life of my wife to hold by moieties  and the daughter die during the life of the wife Q what shall become of her  moiety if this be all the case such moiety must go to the daughter executor or  administrator during the life of the wife for the daughter be plain tenant pur  auter vie as to peer William her moiety and as the remainderman or reversioner  can claim nothing till after the death of the wife then this estate pur auter  vie in the daughter moiety must go to the occupant which the statute of fraud  appoint to be the executor or administrator and in the present case the mother  be administratrix car cap sect if I devise land to a for the life of b on a s  death they must go to a s executor during the life of b so if I devise land to  a and b for the life of b to hold by moieties if a die his moiety shall go to  his executor or administrator during the life of b and the mother in this case  be the administratrix or occupant and consequent it belong to her wherefore  upon the whole wherever way data if the mother and daughter be jointtenants  the mother as survivor have the whole so likewise if there be a devise to her  by implication and if both these be against we then the m other as occupant or  by the statute of fraud as administratrix to her daughter will be entitle to  her moiety note the variety of opinion in this case for Elizabeth Philips the  mother bring a bill for a account of the profit of her daughter moiety since  her death and the cause be hear before the master of the roll he hold that  Elizabeth and Martha be jointtenants and that all survive to Elizabeth upon a  appeal to Lord summer then lord chancellor his lordship hold that Elizabeth  and Martha be tenant in common and that Martha estate determine by her death  the remainderman or reversioner have a right to that moiety peer William  afterward Lord keeper wright upon a rehear be of opinion that a estate by  implication do arise to Elizabeth in Martha moiety after the death of Martha  but upon his refer it to the court of c b for their opinion they conceive that  Elizabeth and Martha be tenant in common and that Martha have a estate pur  auter vie which upon the statute of fraud that take away occupancy ought to go  to Martha administratrix sure Elizabeth the mother and that Martha have not a  estatetail in the trust for that mergers be odious in equity and never allow  unless for special reason S c pale yellow Rep Eq et vide dyer v dyer I mere do  v bowl b a aspinall v Petvin Dashwood v Peyton Ves the estatetail which she  take in all the land be a legal estate and therefore can not unite with her  equitable estate for life in the moiety tippin v cousin Carth Mod see Fearne  count Rem that ed and note to bale v Coleman post