case bartlett against Hollister devise of real estate to h his daughter for  life and after her death without issue to sell and divide the money among all  and every the child of his two sister the sister have several child bear in  the lifetime of the testator one of they have a child bear afterward but in  the lifetime of h h die without issue hold the afterborn child entitle lib Reg  a foe nom Bartlett v lynk S c bro c c in note at the roll that may William  Adam devise his real estate to trustee and their heir to the use of Hannah his  daughter for life with remainder to the heir of her body and after her death  without issue in trust to sell and to divide the money equal among all and  every the child of his sister Elizabeth the wife of Bartlett and of his sister  mary the wife of John may at their respective age of twentyone ambler the  sister have each of they several child bear in the lifetime of the testator  and Elizabeth have issue mary one of the defendant bear about eleven month  after the death of the testator but in the lifetime of Hannah his daughter who  be since dead without issue Q whether such afterborn child be entitle to a  share of the money or whether only such child as be bear in the lifetime of  the testator sir Thomas clarke master of the roll seem very clear of opinion  that the afterborn child shall be entitle and observe that all case of this  kind depend upon their own peculiar circumstance that this be a case of a  trust where the court will be more liberal in make a construction than in the  case of a legal estate that as the child be not name there do S not appear to  be any predilection that he describe his sister as be then wife that the word  use be as general as possible videlicet all and every the child that this be  to be consider as a devise of money and nothing can vest at the testator death  but it be a disposition of a remote interest after the death of Hannah without  issue Maddison v Andrews Ves Michaelmas in chancery be strong to the present  purpose Goodwin v Goodwin Ves atk in chancery that march be in point one  devise to a woman for life and then to her child and hold that a child bear  after the death of the testator and during the life of the woman be entitle  vide oat v Jackson in king bench Michaelmas v post Hodges v lsaac ellison v  airy ves decree accord see Congreve v Congreve bro c c it seem to be now  settle that where there be a bequest to a particular class of individual  Payable at a future period as to the child of b when the young shall attain  twentyone or to be divide among they upon the death of c any child who can  entitle himself under that description at the time of distribute the fund may  claim a part of it videlicet as well those live ambler er p at the period of  distribution though not bear till after the testator death as those bear  before and live at the happen of that event Hugh v Hugh bro Belsford v hunter  bro c c Ellson v airy Ves devisme v Mello bro c c Gilmore v Severn ib Ayton v  Ayton Cox Middleton v messenger Ves Barrington v Tristan Ves Gilbert v Boorman  Ves Hugh v Hugh Ves walker v shore Ves Diffly v Goldschmidt Meriv teak v  Robinson Meriv laffer v Edward mad Sladey miller mad see Hodges v Isaac post  shepherd v Ingram post