case BAMFIELD versus Popham salk vern Eq can ab pl No estate raise by  implication in a will can destroy a express estate as where a devise be to a  for life remainder to his first son and so to every other son in tail male and  for want of issue male of a remainder over this be no estatetail in a by  implication Q whether this case be not wrong report by Salkeld so say in  Allanson v clitherow ves the case in effect be a seize in fee of the land in  question devise they to trustee and their heir to the use of they and their  heir in trust for the defendant Popham for life with remainder to his first c  son successive in tail male and for want of issue male of Popham remainder  over afterward the testator by a codicil recite that he have by his will give  the premise to Popham and the heir male of his body now he will that if that  estate shall peer William er p determine and Popham shall die without issue  mate then his estate shall be dispose of in such manner c Popham have no issue  male and on the remaindermans bring a bill to stay waste the question be saint  whether the word of the will sure for want of issue male of Popham peer  William do not by implication give a estatetail to Popham and consequent  render he dispunishable for waste or second whether admit the word in the will  do not give a estatetail the codicil recite that the testator have by his will  devise the premise to Popham and the heir male his body will not so far  influence and explain the will as to make it a estatetail though it be not so  before and this have be argue already in chancery come now to receive a solemn  determination before Lord keeper wright c I holt c I Trevor sir John Trevor  master of the roll and Powel I who all give their opinion seriatim that Popham  have only a estate for life by the will and that the same be not enlarge or  alter by the codicil first they all resolve that here be a express estate give  to Popham for life with remainder to his first and every other son c the word  if Popham shall die without issue male shall not enlarge his estate to a  estatetail in regard these amount only to make a estatetail by implication and  word of implication will never destroy what be before express ante fisher v  Wigg so that the word if he shall die without issue male can mean no more than  if he shall die without son and though it may be object that unless these word  be construe to create a estate tail in Popham then a posthumous son will not  take see Burdet v hopegood post which will be contrary to the intention of the  testator the answer be that notwithstanding it may have be intend that such  posthumous son shall take yet the testator be herein mistake as to the law or  may not consider peer William of it and this be but a remote mischief or  contingency whereas if be very obvious that the testator intend it shall not  be in the power of Popham to bar the remainder which it be plain he can do if  he have a estatetail so that this be a mischief near and easy to be foresee it  be certain in the intent of the testator to obviate and prevent the same and  it be a maxim in law equal certain that where there be a express estate limit  no implication ought to be admit to control it post idle v cook and  Humberstone v Humberstone a forcing apparatus compose to be remiss Tacitus et  per Trevor c I in the case of Penhay versus Hurrel vern it be hold that if  there be beneficiary and trust for life remainder to his first c son in  contingency the beneficiary and trust for life can destroy the contingent  remainder chapman v Blissett can tempt Tal Hopkins v Hopkins atk and the  devise in the principal case be by way of trust that may support the right of  a posthumous son but to raise a estate by intention or implication contrary to  what be before express be to say a man think different from what he speak  which be unnatural and unreasonable its true if I devise a estate to a for  life remainder to the heir of his body in this case notwithstanding the  express estate for life yet the subsequent word do merge and destroy it by  turn it into a estatetail but the reason be because here such subsequent word  be express word heir of his body be express word of inheritance and a  limitation in tail which be a answer to the objection from Lewis bowless case    for there also we find a express limitation in tail but in the principal  case the raise a estatetail by implication will contradict the express  limitation and consequent the intent of the testator peer William as to Sunday  case in   b post Blackborn v hewer edgley et e contra there be a devise to a  general express no estate and if a shall have no issue male remainder over  which for that reason be right adjudge a estatetail Powell I there be no  difference between a deed and a will in this case for if a man do by deed give  land to a without express any estate and afterward add the word if a die  without issue then to b this make a estatetail Perk sect as to Robinson be  case cite by lord hate vent king versus melt if deviselands to a for life and  if he die sale issue then to b as this case be put in more and I roll Abr pl  it differ from the case put by lord hale videlicet no express estate for life  be give to a but if it be law as put by lord hale it must be upon this  supposition that the devisee over be heir at law videlicet one devise land to  peer William er p a for life and if a die without issue then to his the  testator right heir now this may be allow to be a estatetail in a without  contradict the resolution in the principal case for where the devisee over be  heir there must have be a most necessary implication that a the first devisee  shall have a estatetail because the heir of the testator be exclude from take  until the first devisee die without issue see Nottingham v Jennings ante which  distinction serve also to answer burley case put by lord hale in the same  place in Ventris with regard to the case of clark and day report roll peer  William Abr pl more Owen cro Elizabeth where one devise land to mrs daughter  rise for life and if she marry after the testator decease and have heir of her  body that then such heir shall have it after her death and the heir of their  body and if she shall happen to die without issue then the testator devise the  premise to his daughter p it be indeed say per roll that rise have a  estatetail but by more with who Lord hale agree in king and Mellings case rise  have only a estate for life though in the argue of the case of king and mell  the roll be bring into court it appear that no judgement be ever enter in the  case of Loddington and kyme c b W a devise be to t S for life remainder to his  issue and if he die without issue then to another yet resolve that a have a  estate for life only in regard the word be express as to the second point  videlicet whether the testator recital in his codicil that he have devise the  estate to Popham and the heir male of his body will alter and enlarge the  estate give to he by the will it be resolve it shall not these word be  sufficient satisfy though Popham have no estatetail for ad vulgus where a  estate be settle upon one for life remainder to his first c son this be usual  call entail a estate that be when it be so limit as not to be in the power of  the first taker to dispose of it and every one that be to claim by such  settlement must be heir male for the first son after the death of his father  be heir male peer William but if it be not so and the recital false in this  respect yet per holt c I a false recital in a will shall not amount to devise  so right v Hamond stram as in Ventris wright versus Wyvell one by will recite  that he have give a estate to his wife for her jointure whereas in truth he  have not and resolve that the will do not amount to a devise nothing be intend  to pass thereby Skerratt v Oakley t r three it be agree likewise that the word  heir be not always and of necessity to be in tend as a word of limitation thus  in vent burchet versus Durdant a devise to a for life remainder to the heir  male of the body of a now live these be word of purchase so in raym Jones  Lisle versus grey land be limit to a f or life remainder to his first and  every other son in tail and so several and respective to every of the heir  male of the body of a and the heir male of the body of such heir male in this  case the word heir male be understand to signify son and to be word of  purchase vide bale v Coleman post attorneygeneral v Sutton post and Papillon v  voice Vol two upon which the court decree a injunction to stay waste and a  account to be take ofwhat timber have be already fall the case upon this  subject be collect in Robinson v Robinson burr vide also Allanson v clitherow  ves Vaughan v Farrer ves lethieullier v Tracy atk Evans v Astley burr do v  Applyn t r hay v earl of Coventry t r from all which case it seem that no  general rule be lie down in the construction of word of this kind but 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 vide attorneygeneral v Sutton Payman post see also  Fonbl Eq note h but of this the Lord keeper doubt and vide Vaugh et ante  fisher versus Wigg contra vin ab estate r pl and see idle v cook post and Lord  ray S c but his lordship field that where in the premise a estate be give by  deed to one and his heir and if he die without issue c these word be  sufficient to restrain the former word and turn the fee into a entail but will  not of themselves create a estatetail peer William er p it appear from the  report of this case in croak that gaudy and Fenner justice hold rise have but  a estate for life against the opinion of Popham c I who think she have a  estatetail lev and salk in both which place the case be report strong than  here cite there be the clause without impeachment of waste and also word of  limitation superadd to the devise to the issue vide the case of Langley v  Baldwin refer may out of chancery to the judge of c b and how that differ from  the case above forasmuch as the limitation there be not to all the son of the  grandson if there have be more than six and the six have die without issue  male unless it have be construe to be a estatetail in the grandson the  remainderman must have have the land in preference to a seven son vide also  post attorneygeneral v Sutton and Payman den v Puckey t r do v Burnsall t r  Burnsall v Davy Bos p Daintry v Daintry t r do v hally t r do v Cooper east  king v m of Stafford east do v black taunt marsh Romilly v James taunt do v  goldsmith marsh taunt mere v James Brod b aspinall v Petvin S S peer William  de term S michaelis