case falconer versus falconer Eq can ab pl S c the lord of a manor where by  the custom he have the cut of the wood grow on the land grant all the wood and  underwood on the copyhold land to the copyholder in fee this shall not merge  in the copyhold devise of land to the heir at law for year after the death of  the wife this be a estate for life in the wife by implication otherwise if the  devise be to a stranger the case be that a copyholder of land in fee where by  the custom of the manor the lord have as a profit a prendre the cut of the  wood and underwood grow on the copyhold obtain a grant from the lord of all  the wood and underwood grow and Vernon chancery case which afterward shall  grow on the say copyhold land to he and his heir the question be whether this  shall not merge in the copyhold be as be allege only a profit a prendre saint  if a copyholder pay a rend to the lord and the lord grant or release this rend  to his tenant this shall merge in the copyhold say non allocatur but where  tenant in tail of copyhold take a conveyance of the freehold in his own name  it be presume the copyhold be merge Parker v turner post dly in this case the  copyholder devise to I S these underwood for twenty year after the death of  his wife to raise portion for his young child and the question be whether the  feme have not by implication a estate for life Vernon chancery case er p the  Lord chancellor say that where such a devise be make to the heir there indeed  a estate shall arise to the wife by implication but where it be devise to a  stranger as in this case there in the mean time it shall descent to the heir  Reg lib a fol so Henry pl Welcden v elkington blow roll pl Horton v Horton cro  James gardener v Sheldon Vaugh bro Abr title devise city of London v Garway  post vol Holmes v Meynell sir t raym smartle v scholar Jo keb Ackroyd v  Smithson bro Ch Rep Pickering v Lord Stamford Ves these case all go upon the  principle that the heir at law shall not be disinherit but by express word or  necessary implication and which be the establish principle of the court  Boutell v Mohun pre Ch simpson v Hornsby ibidem aspinall v Petvin S S see also  Nash v smith Ves Tregonwell v Sydenham dow Kellett v Kellett l ba be dow king  v denison v b and this principle hold good as well where he be heir of  customary land as of freehold Gascoigne v Barker atk Rep bias v bias ves and  the doctrine contain in the above case be recognize Upton v Lord Ferrars Ves  and the next of kin as to the personal estate stand in parity of reason with  the heir at law as to the real Pickering v Stamford Ves but a contrary notion  seem to have prevail former vide rayman v gold more where say there can be a  estate for life by implication in a term as there may be a inheritance but  though the heir at law do not want a express intention in the case of a will  it be otherwise in the case of a deed for there since the statute of fraud and  perjury the heir must show a express trust for he in order to entitle himself  Lloyd v spillet atk and where there be no ambiguity the plea of heirship must  not control a plain and express will per holt Ch I Lord Falkland v bertie post  vol as to what shall be consider a necessary implication to disinherit the  heir vide Boutell v Mohun ub sup