case hide versus parrot all Lord keeper summer vern a devise household good to  his wife for life and afterward to his son the court allow this a good devise  over and to be the same as if the devise have be only of the use of the good  to the wife for life one hide of Hoddesdon in come Hertford by will date  September inter all devise his household good in his dwell house at Hoddesdon  unto his wife Margaret hide for her life and after her death to his son Joseph  hide and die have make one parrot his soninlaw executor the son Joseph hide  bring his bill in equity against Margaret hide and parrot to have a inventory  of these good and that Margaret hide shall give security that they at the time  of her death shall be forthcoming to the plaintiff and not be imbeziled the  cause come on to be hear before baron Powell he reserve it for the opinion of  the Lord keeper summer whether this devise over of the good be void where upon  the cause be beard before the Lord keeper when the only question be whether  this devise of the good to one for life peer William with remainder over be  not void as to the remainder it not be by way of use and I argue that this  devise over be void insist first upon the reason of the thing second upon the  authority in point and three that if such devise over be void at law there be  no reason that equity shall support it or in this case vary from the law Even  in the case of a chattel real where it have be devise to one for life the  remainder over such remainder have former be hold void as in dyer and in child  and Bailey case cro James where it be say by the court that if Matthew man  ease   b have be res integran the construction there make will hardly have  prevail but since it have be adjudge they will peer William er p not disturb  it now there be not near so much reason to support a devise of a personal  chattel to one for life with remainder over as there be to support a devise of  a chattel real make in that manner for first personal chattel be liable to be  lose steal or burn but land or other thing of which real chattel consist be  not subject to such casualty and therefore no reason that the one shall endure  so large a limitation as the other second out of a chattel real lesser estate  or interest may be derive as lessee for year may make a lease at will or a  under lease for year and grant the remainder or reversion over but the  interest of a personal chattel can be so divide neither strict speak can a man  be say to have a estate in a personal chattel for that which be call a estate  in land and tenement be term a property and not a estate in personal chattel  the law consider the first as permanent the other as temporary and precarious  it be peer William true the book say if I devise the use of a personal chattel  to one for life and after to another this devise over be good but the same  book also say that if the first devise be of the good themselves as in the  principal case the devise over be void and there seem to be some reason from  the rule of law to maintain that diversity for where the good themselves be  devise to one for life and after to another the devise over accord to the rule  of law can take effect the devise or grant of a personal thing to one for a  hour or minute be a gift for ever and a absolute disposition of the entire  property to the first person but where the devise be only of the use of the  good to on e for life and after to another here the first devisee have not the  property of the good but only a special interest in they and still there  remain a property which may be give over as for authority there be as many  upon this point as in any case in the law in Henry abridge in bro devise the  devise be that a shall use the book call the grail for his life and that  afterward b shall use it and it be agree that the devise over be good the  first devise be of the use only but say the book if the first devise have be  of the thing itself to one for life and after to another then the devise over  have be void and the lord c I brook do so much approve of this distinction as  in his abridgment of the case to call it greatly bone diversity and the same  case be cite by the lord c I Popham in Plowd welldone versus elkington and in  Henry as appear in brook new case sect the same difference be take and so in  Edward brook new case sect in Owen Eliz this diversity be take betwixt the  devise of the use of the thing and of the thing itself and so far prevail that  peer William the lord Fitzjames who be chief justice of England do by his will  devise the use of his jewel and plate to Nicholas Fitzjames and the heir male  of his body which may indeed be strain it somewhat too far yet in that case  the Lord dyer and the court hold that Nicholas Fitzjames the devisee have no  property in the jewel or plate in roll Abr James it be agree per curian that  in case of a devise of a personal chattel to one for life the remainder over  this devise over be void in cro car car Lord Hastings versus sir Archibald  Douglas the same distinction be make betwixt the devise of the use of a  personal chattel to one for life the remainder over and the devise of the  thing itself in march car there be the same case with this in all its  circumstance certain good be devise to a for life the remainder over and as in  the principal case the devisee over bring his bill in equity to compel the  devisee for life to give security that these good upon the death of the  devisee for life shall come to the plaintiff and this bill be bring in the  court of equity of the march of Wales but the court of c b grant a prohibition  resolve the devise over to be void and make the same distinction betwixt the  devise of good themselves and the use of the good and this say the book be do  upon consideration wherefore if the law be so that the devise over of the good  in the principal case be void as be full prove by the judgement and opinion of  many judge in many successive reign then the only remain question be whether  equity will in this case interpose in favour of the devisee over and in  prejudice to the first devisee so as to take from he the absolute property  which the law give he now it be a settle rule in equity that where there be no  purchaser or creditor in the case but both party concern be peer William  volunteer as both the devisees be in this case equity will not hurt nor  prevent either of they from enjoy that advantage which he have at law and this  be the foundation upon which many solemn decree have be make whereas it can on  the other hand be pretend to have be settle in equity that such devise peer  William er p over be good though perhaps there may have be some decree to that  purpose which have pass sub silence but the saint case of this nature be that  of the duchess of Albemarle vern upon the late duke of albemarle devise of his  jewel and plate which point the court do not resolve but leave as a doubt and  so I conclude that the devise over be void sir Thomas powis e contra cite some  precedent where it have be determine in favour of such devise over of personal  good particular the case of Vachel and Vachel case in Chan decree peer William  in this court add that however it may have be determine have this be the case  of a grant yet where the thing pass by way of devise or trust the modern  practice have be to admit of a limitation over after a estate for life with  respect to personal chattel the Lord keeper take time to consider of it and  afterward on the strength and authority of the late precedent which have  follow the civil and canon law in construe the use of the thing and not the  thing itself to pass where the first devise be for a limit time in order the  better to comply with the intention of the testator allow the devise over to  be good and thus it be now settle vide post the case of tissen versus tissen  and Upwell versus Halsey post the other precedent cite by the counsel for the  plaintiff on this occasion be first the case of Catchmay versus Nicholls  Morgan et all can tempt finch hear first at the roll in July car and in the  October follow before the Lord keeper finch where Ann Catchmay by her will  date August make her sister Catherine Catchmay executrix and bequeathe her  whole estate consist of personal thing to her for and during the term of her  natural life and after her decease her will be that inter all the sum of pound  shall be give to the daughter of Christopher Catchmay be the plaintiff and  niece to the testatrix by equal portion and if the say Catherine shall die  before the child shall come of age then the say pound to be pay into the hand  of the defendant Morgan who she appoint to see her will perform Catherine die  before the child come of age and leave the defendant Judith wife of the  defendant Edward Nicholls executrix after which the child of Christopher  Catchmay come of age bring their bill for their respective share of the pound  the defendant counsel insist that this be avoid devise to the plaintiff be the  remainder of a personal thing after the death of another to who the same be  give before and the question then arise on the word of the will it be order  that the party shall attend Mt justice Ellis with the say will in order that  he may peruse the same and deliver his opinion on the point aforesaid who  certify his opinion that the plaintiff ought to have relief for the pound  legacy give they by the say will on the that of July the cause come on again  on the say certificate his honour order the defendant Nicholls to pay to the  plaintiff the say pound with interest from the time of the bill afterward the  Lord keeper on a appeal though he differ from the master of the roll as to the  manner of relief yet concur with he that the plaintiff ought to be relieve for  the several legacy give they by the will and for which the say Catherine be in  nature only of a trustee to be pay after her death dly that of Shirley et all  versus Ferrer et all hear the that of may Gul mark which be thus John Ferrer  esquire the plaintiff whether late grandfather be seize in fee of the several  manor and land in the bill mention inter all devise to the defendant the lady  Ferrer for her life as a addition to her jointure the castle manor and honour  of Tamworth and also his good and furniture in Tamworth castle and by his say  will desire that the good and furniture may be preserve for the heir so that  the child which she have by the plaintiff father may enjoy the same appoint  the say lady Ferrer executrix the bill inter all be to have the good and  furniture at Tamworth castle inventory and preserve for the plaintiff whether  whereupon as to the good and furniture it be order by the lord commissioner  that a inventory thereof shall be take and deliver to the master by the  defendant of which good c she to have the use during her life after which they  be to be deliver and remain to the plaintiff use and benefit vide hark   Litt  a the latter part of note and Foley v Burnell on the first argument in hill  term bro c c in which case good devise to one for life with remainder over be  take in execution for the debt of the devisee peer William er p for life and  the nature of the property which a devisee for life have in personal chattel  and the remedy of the remainderman be very full discuss et vide S c on appeal  Toml bro p c and S p on a writ of error to reverse a decision of the Exch  Chamber on a action of trover bring for the same good Toml p c but semble that  a gift for life of thing queen Self use to use up as corn or wine if specific  be a gift of the property and the old rule will prevail but if residuary the  thing must be sell and the interest of the produce pay to the legatee for life  Randall v Russell mere and see car erroll Ves peer William de term S michaelis  b r