case barker versus giles Lord chancellor king Sel can in Charles Mod Eq can ab  pl a devise of land to a and b and the survivor of they and their heir equal  to be divide betwixt they share and share alike a and b be jointtenants for  their life and have several inheritance one devise his land to be sell for  payment of debt and legacy and the surplus of the money arise from the sale to  be lie out in land and to be settle to the use of the testator two nephew  Jerome and Robert Barker and the survivor and survivor of they and their heir  and assign for ever equal to be divide between they share and share alike  Jerome Barker one of the devisees and nephew of the testator die in the  testator lifetime and then the testator die leave Penelope wife of John black  his heir at law the question be what shall become of the devisee Jerome Barker  the nephew moiety whether it shall descend as a lapse devise and undisposed of  to the testator heir at law or go to the survive nephew and devisee the  plaintiff Robert Barker peer William this cause be argue before the lord  commissioner Gilbert and Raymond who not agree adjourn it over as a case of  difficulty and so it be the first cause that come on before Lord chancellor  king and it be agree that money direct by will or article to be lie out in  land shall be take as land wherefore it be the same thing in this case as if  the devise have be of land itself see the case of legate v fuel vol but on one  side it be argue that if Jerome Barker the nephew and devisee have survive the  testator he will have be tenant in common in fee and not jointtenant with the  other devisee Robert Barker that jointtenancy be a odious title in equity  there be no reason that because a man live long and have the better  constitution therefore he shall be entitle to the whole estate on this subject  vide staple v Maurice bro p c bro p c and ed that the intention of this will  be to provide not only for the testator two nephew personal but also for their  posterity that the word equal to be divide be tantamount with say I devise my  land to my two nephew in equal part or the same thing as to say in moieties  videlicet one moiety to one and the other moiety to the other which be a  express tenancy in common create by the most proper word for that purpose and  to this Lord commissioner Gilbert have agree see also light tenor sect and the  case of blisset and Cranwell salk and lev in point then take it that the  nephew of the say testator will peer William have be tenant in common it be  plain that upon one of these two devisees die in the testator lifetime his  share become as a void devise and lapse to the testator heir at law as a  estate undisposed of by the will on the other side it be urge that the word  equal to be divide and share and share alike be but a imply tenancy in common  in a will and will not make a tenancy in common in a deed and that it be for  some time a question whether they will make a tenancy in common even in a will  see the case of fisher and Wigg peer William er p vol and post doughty v bull  but still as it be but a imply tenancy in common the word survivor create a  express jointtenancy must prevail and take place for which be cite Ro Abr pl  and style in point and that it will be against the rule of exposition to  reject word in a will especial so significant a word as survivor be but to  this it be reply that some word must be reject either way and there will be a  necessity to reject more upon the other construction to make it a jointtenancy  for then the word equal to be divide and share and share alike must all go for  nothing and blisset and Cranwells case be much rely upon as be the last  resolution in which the former case in style and roll be cite and consider  Lord chancellor it be a certain rule in the exposition of will especial that  every word shall have its effect and not be reject if any construction can  possible be put upon it and here I think there may the first part of the  devise be to two and the survivor of they make they plain jointtenants peer  William for life and therefore he shall be so take and then as to the next  word and to their heir equal to be divide between they share and share alike  these be plain word import a tenancy in common and shall operate accord so as  to make they tenant in common of the inheritance by which construction of the  will every word take effect wherefore the two nephew will have be jointtenants  for life with several inheritance to they in common but one of they die in the  life of the testator by that mean the survive nephew become entitle to the  whole for life and the inheritance be devise in common the one moiety whereof  have lapse by the death of one of the devisees in the life of the testator for  this reason though the survive nephew shall have the whole for his life a  moiety of the inheritance expectant upon the survive nephew death shall  descend to the testator heir at law and the other moiety of the fee shall go  to the survive nephew heir and his lordship say that if the bar be not satisfy  with this opinion he will take time to consider of it until the next morning  but it seem his lordship deliver his think with so much clearness that both  side acquiesce and thereupon the cause be decree as above this decree upon a  appeal to the house of lord be affirm bro p c bro p c and Edward sub nom  Barker v gyles vide Lord bindon v earl of Suffolk ante vol haw v haw atk and  ves S g S c will Cru dig devise c xv stone v Heurtley ves S g grum dig devise  c xv rise v hill burr Wilson v baily bro p c bro p c and ed folk v western Ves  garland v Thomas n r do v abey m S do v tomkinson m S