case bampfield versus Popham Ant case a express estate for life can be enlarge  by a implication but man by express word this case come on to be argue before  the Lord keeper assist with the Lord chief justice holt and Trevor and justice  Powell who all unanimous agree that Mr Popham have only a estate for life and  that it be a fix rule in law that a express estate for life can be enlarge by  a implication by express word it may as in the common case if a estate be give  to I S for life and after his decease to the heir of his body that by express  word enlarge his estate and make he tenant in tail but it be otherwise in this  case where a express estate for life be limit to he and his first and other  son in tail provide if he die without Vernon chancery case a heir male or if  he die without issue male or for want of issue male although such word be  sufficient to create a estate tail yet it be only by implication and when a  express estate for life be not before limit Even in a ill a implication shall  not alter a express estate but where there be a subsequent devise in express  word to the same person to who a estate for life be before devise that will  enlarge the estate as in the case of Plunckett and Holmes or wedgewood case in  siderfin the case of king and mell cite milliner and Robinson be case more  Frenchman case Elizabeth burleigh case cite by hale clerk and Davy roll devise  to rise for life and if she have heir of her body the heir to have it adjudge  that rise have only a estate for life Cr Elizabeth Owen Bullington and  Barnardiston devise to Evers armin for life if he die without issue male  remainder over agree it will not make a estatetail and it be say that the  reason of the thing and intent of the testator as well as the rule of law be  against he saint for that it be plain the testator intend that the first and  other son shall take by purchase and not by descent and the occasion of the  proviso that if he leave no heir male c be not intend to enlarge the estate  but to govern and direct what be to become of the trust in case there be no  son to carry it over to the plaintiff and as to the objection that a  posthumous son be not express provide for but may be by this imply estatetail  it be answer that be a remote contingency and it may be not think of by the  testator and he may not think it necessary to provide for a posthumous son but  manifest think it necessary to provide that it shall not be in the power of  the father to bar his son and therefore make he but tenant for life and beside  it be of a trust that may support the remainder to a posthumous son Vernon  chancery case er p Vernon chancery case second it be object that by the  codicil the testator recite he have devise a estatetail to the defendant it be  answer that in common parlance and in ordinary acceptation where a estate be  give to the father for life and to his first and other son in tail it be look  upon as a entail and be the strict way of entail a estate but second a recital  in a will or codicil can amount unto a devise vent three as to Sunday case in  the six report if he have issue male his son to have it and if he die without  issue male the estate to go over there adjudge the son shall have a estatetail  but that no way affect this case because no express estate for life it be  admit that no estatetail even in a deed may be raise by implication as be  adjudge in the case of gardener and Sheldon in Vaughan report Vaugh and where  there be not any express estate before limit as a devise to a man and the heir  of his body and then come the clause if he die without heir that shall not  enlarge the estate by implication but by express word it may be do as in Lewis  bowless case Rep b covenant to stand seize to the use of a man and his wife  for their life remainder to the first and other son remainder to the heir of  their two body there the remainder be express and good decree a injunction to  stay waste and a account of what timber be fall Reg lib a fol vide ante p p  wms that edit SC and case cite in note and that there Humberston v Humberston  post pre Ch S c et vide note to the report in this case in salk that edition  and the judgement of Willis Ch just in ginger v white Willis Rep p where the  doctrine and case be much discuss but no mention either of Sunday case or of  Blackborn v edgley say vide the case of Blackborn v edgley p wms where it be  say the court explode the notion that word of implication shall not turn a  express estate for life into a estatetail accord to Sunday case   b but in the  report of the principal case p wms it be say as to Sunday case there be a  devise to a general express no estate and if a shall have no issue male  remainder over the devise as in the print report of that case be as follow if  testator son Samuel have no issue male then his son Thomas to have the house  the subject of the devise in question if Thomas marry have a male issue of his  body lawful beget then his son to have the house after his decease and the  like devise as many word to other son and in the will be a clause that if any  of testator son or their heir male issue of their body go about at any time to  alien c and this clause as explain the first word to mean that the male issue  shall be heir and take by descent be among the reason state to be give by the  court in Sunday case for resolve that Thomas shall have a estatetail in the  argument there against the estatetail it be urge that when the testator devise  that Thomas shall have the house if the will have not go further he shall have  have but for life of this no notice appear to have be take by the court but  the reason for the judgement be saint because he far say if he have no issue  male then over which say the court be as much as to say if Thomas die without  issue male which word be sufficient to create a estate tail in he dly the  clause as above and dly the prohibition of alienation contain therein if there  before the presumption be allow that from the silence of the court on that  point the word have the house be consider by it as equivalent to a devise of a  estate for life then the doctrine of Sunday case seem to be correct consider  in Blackborn v edgley unless a clear distinction be hold between a express  devise for life and a devise for life by clear implication which a devise or  grant that limit no estate clear be   Litt but which distinction on the  principle of construction hold in the case particular in ginger v white it be  presume be make at all event the reason state in Sunday case appear to  establish the conclusion draw by Mr Cox in his note to the principal case p  wms from the case cite there that court both of law and equity consider the  raise estate by implication as depend upon such implication be necessary to  effectuate the general manifest intention of the testator note it appear that  the trustee of Warwick bampfield Esq petition the house of lord for leave to  proceed on a bill of review and reversal bring by they against the decree in  chancery but the petition be dismiss Colles p c under the name of Popham and  Horner et vide journ Ho lord Vol Vol vol p Vernon chancery case er p