case hook versus tailor e contra June Lord keeper a devise of two farm to the  father and mother for their life remainder to trustee till a and b respective  come of age and then to convey one farm to a and the other to b a die before  the time come for the conveyance a be to have have a estate in fee the  conveyance shall be make to his heir Hugh Phillips be seize in fee of two  several farm devise they to Richard Carill the father and Richard Carill  Vernon chancery case the son and their heir in trust to permit his father and  mother to receive the profit for their life and after their decease to permit  his two nephew to receive the profit until place out apprentice and when his  nephew respective attain their full age of twentyone then to convey one farm  to one of the nephew and the other to the other nephew the devise be in trust  that the say Richard Carill and John Carill shall apply the rend and profit  thereof towards the maintenance of the testator father and mother during their  life and after their deceases to apply the profit towards the maintenance and  bring up of his nephew Richard hook the plaintiff late brother and the  defendant Samuel Mountford until they can be put apprentice and after they  shall have attain their several age of year then that the farm in the  possession of James Russell and all land thereto belong shall be by the say  trustee or the survivor of they settle upon the say Richard hook and his heir  in such manner as the say Abraham hook by the advice of his friend shall  direct and as to the farm in the possession of one Edward wile that the say  trustee or the survivor of they shall stand seize thereof to the use of the  say defendant same Mountford to be settle on he as his friend shall direct the  circumstance and decree as in the print report Reg lib a fol Richard hook one  of the nephew die in the lifetime of the testator father and before he attain  the age of twentyone the now plaintiff bill be as brother and heir of Richard  hook to have the farm intend for Richard hook convey to he per cur the case be  no more than a devise to the father and mother for their life remainder to  trustee till a and b come of age and then to convey to they respective  although one of the devisees die before the time come for the conveyance yet  as he be to have have a estate in fee he be dead the conveyance shall be to  his heir and decree for the plaintiff accord vide Borastons case   a as to  what word will pass a fee it seem that a fee have be hold to pass by the force  of circumstance couple with word that otherwise or alone will only pass a  estate for life as where a be seize of land of pound per and in possession and  pound per and in reversion give certain legacy to be pay at certain different  time and then devise all his land to his young son r who do not pay the legacy  Vernon chancery case er p within the time mention hold that a fee pass to r  because it appear that the sum to be pay be more than the profit of the land  in possession will amount to in the time prescribe for payment reak v lie  Freem so spicer v spicer cro James Hawker v Buckland ante p reeves v Gower Mod  cliff v Gibbons Lord raym so where a devise of all my land tenement and  hereditament to my wife and her assign reserve a annual sum to be distribute  among the poor of the parish for ever this will pass a fee by reason of the  perpetual charge smith v Tyndall Mod salk holt SC so any word that describe or  signify the interest the devisor have in the land devise will without more  such word describe or signify real estate pass a fee e g the word estate which  be genus generalissimum Hyley v Hyley Mod Johnson v kirman style countess of  Bridgewater v duke of Bolton Mod salk holt SC which last case have never be  doubt per Hardwicke Lord chancellor Ridout v pain atk Barry v Edgeworth t p  wms hogan v Jackson Cowp so tenantright estate Wilson v Robinson Le v so the  word temporal estate tanner v wise p wms worldly estate beachcroft v  beachcroft post so the word whole remainder Norton lad case Lutw Ent so a  devise of all testator land tenement and hereditament and whatsoever else he  have in the world to his brother desire he to pay his debt and legacy ackland  v ackland post so no difference where word describe real estate be join with  word describe personal estate as where testator bequeathe pound to his  daughter to be pay within three month after his decease and then all the rest  and residue of his real and personal estate whatsoever he give to his dear  belove wife whether not who he make the sole executrix of his will hold a  devise in fee Murray v wise post pre Ch SC so hold and the point a good deal  discuss in Ridout v pain atk ves SC so where testator make his wife sole  heiress and executrix of all his land tenement good and chattel whatsoever the  same to sell and dispose of as she shall think proper hold the fee pass Roger  v Roger p wms Forr SC send vide piggot v Penrice pre Ch Com Rep pale yellow Eq  Rep SC where testator make his niece executrix of all his good land and  chattel and die not have any leasehold interest the land of inheritance hold  not to pass and the reason give by the court be that nothing certain can be  infer from such a devise and that by testator make his niece executrix of all  his land the rend of the land will pass et vide hogan v Jackson Cowp so the  word all his right will carry a fee as where a seize in fee have have issue  two son a and b and by his will devise several land to b and that b shall  renounce all his right in Blackacre of which devisor be then seize to c hold  that c shall take a estate in fee in Blackacre Hodgkinson v star cite in baker  v wall Lord raym so the word all I be worth Huxtep v Brooman bro Ch Rep what I  may die possess of per master of the roll barn v patch Ves so all my effect  hogan v Jackson Cowp cite in Wilson v major Ves arg so money give in trust to  be lie out in land young v comb Ves for the principle of which vide Kettleby v  atwood ante vol and case cite in note there so a estate give to such use as a  shall appoint Langham v Nenny Ves so devise of a estate in a will that mention  the same estate as feesimple land before the inheritance will pass cliff v  Gibbons raym and as to the effect of the word estate interest right at law  vide   Litt a b but it seem clear the effect of those word as to pass a fee  may be restrain and control as where the word estate which may carry the fee  in one part of the will evident and clear refer to the same word as  descriptive of a life estate only in another part of the will ibbetson v  Beckwith Forr not so decide but seem to be allow so by the clear intention of  the testator which indeed when it can be discover be the foundation of the  whole Bailis v gale Ves ibbetson v Beckwith ub sup Macaree v tall Amb style v  Watford black do v chapman h Blackst barn v patch Ves Woollan v Kenworthy Ves  and case there respective refer to whether this intention may be infer from  the use by the testator of such word as describe particular right e g when the  devise be of all my estate in the occupation of particular tenant seem to have  be a matter of some doubt with Hardwicke Lord chancellor in Goodwin v Goodwin  ves but from the reason use by the Lord chancellor in that case as apply to  the Vernon chancery case er p doctrine deliver by Lord Mansfield in hogan v  Jackson Cowp it shall seem at the first glance that the use of such word will  restrain the general construction for though it appear to be consider in  Goodwin v Goodwin ub sup as the result of the late case on this head that a  local description of the subject will make no difference and that therefore  word describe the particular occupation of tenant will not yet in hogan v  Jackson ub sup and cite by the master of the roll in barn v patch Ves without  comment Lord Mansfield be state to say it be now clear settle that the word  all my estate will pass every thing a man have but if the word all be couple  with the word personal or with a local description there the gift will pass  only personalty or the specific estate particular describe he however further  say if the word of the testator denote only a description of the specific  estate or land devise in that case if no word of limitation add the devisee  have only a estate for life but if the word denote the quantum of interest or  property of the testator in the land devise then the whole extent of such his  interest passes to the devisee the whole be matter of construction it be  evident that from this position of Lord mansfield as lie down in the book it  do not necessary follow as the conclusion of his mind that the conjunction of  the word personal or of word of local description alone will give a estate for  life only in the land devise for in the first place no case be cite by he in  support of that notion in the next place the class of case above mention be  against it and three the word will pass only the specific estate particular  describe be inconclusive inasmuch as they still leave the precise meaning of  the word estate as applicable to the word specific estate unascertained and  undefined unless the word specific be consider as restrain it to the thing  only it be apprehend therefore that the word personal and word of local  description will not of themselves restrain the general construction of such  word as without they will carry a fee unless from the context it plain appear  that the testator intend they shall have that effect et vide on this point  Pettiward v Prescott Ves and as to the word land lie in or at c consider by  Lord Mansfield not sufficient right v Sidebotham Doug Rep as to the word  estate alone in the plural number which in common parlance seem to be consider  as meaning mere a description of the land the court seem doubtful in Goodwin v  Goodwin ves but it shall seem that if the devise be simple of all my estate at  c there the word estate will carry the fee for in the case of sayer v  masterman Amb where the testator devise all his estate and farm at c per  Wilmot Lord commissioner the word estate in this case mean only the thing and  not the interest in it it be couple with the word farm et vide Cowper v marten  all term Rep Fletcher v Smiton term Rep but it be say that the word  hereditament alone will not pass a fee Hopewell v ackland salk but the fee  pass in that case by the word whatever else the testator have not before  dispose of dub in palmer v Richard term Rep but seem to be take clear by grose  just that it will not more v Mellor term Rep et vide a distinction take  between the word inheritance and the word hereditament per Powell just smith v  Tyndall Mod salk holt SC nor will the general introductory word of a will as  to all my worldly estate c alone be sufficient to explain a testator intention  of enlarge a particular estate or pass a fee though as connect with other word  or with circumstance they form a strong circumstance for that purpose Loveacre  v blight Cowp den v gaskin Cowp right v Sidebotham Doug Frogmorton v wright  will Goodright v Stocker term Rep and further on the general question vide lee  v Jones show sir Thomas Jones SC Purefoy v Roger sand and note at the end of  that case Baddeley v Leppingwell burr Frogmorton v holiday ibidem Markham v  cook ibidem do v Richard term Rep Andrews v Southouse term Rep Goodright v  Allen Blackst Rep vin ab title devise z a pale yellow law of devise Fonbl Tr  equity vol the above case seem to comprise the material law on this subject  the editor think as the subject have be a good deal canvas it may be useful to  the student to collect they else after all it appear that very little of  general principle can be gather from they as the grand govern rule be the  intention of the testator it may however be consider as the result so far as a  general principle do appear that the court will in make its construction on  this point seize on any clause or expression to enlarge Vernon chancery case  er p the estate of a devisee to effectuate the intention and two rule may be  extract saint that as to a charge on land devise be consider as indicative of  intention to give the fee it must be such a charge as devisee may lose by  Frogmorton v holiday burr Rep and dly that word which without more describe  mere the thing devise and not the quantum of interest e g farm will not carry  a fee Vernon chancery case de term S michaelis in curian porter