case tailor and joan his wife against george sayer Trinity term Elizabeth roll  thou devise of a remainder to a man issue where he have several child be void  for uncertainty ante Gilhert on Dev and godb say vide lev   contra and ray  where this case be deny to he law Mod ld ray a general writ by jointtenants on  Henry c be sufficient without recite the case particular post Bl Rep partition  upon issue non to hold accuse el pro undivided a special verdict be find the  case be Thomas sayer seize in fee of the land in question hold in soccage  devise they to his wife for life and after her death the same shall remain to  my issue it be find that at the same time he have issue two son videlicet  Rohert and George the now defendant and two daughter videlicet Alice and Joan  the now plaintiff and croak Elizabeth devise to his two daughter each of they  l to loosen at their age of eighteen year and that one of they shall he heir  to the other of their legacy and die Rohert the old son die without issue  Alice the daughter die without issue the wife of the devisor die George the  now defendant and tailor who marry Joan enter with he and bring partition et  si super tolan c after argument it be adjudge for the defendant that he do not  hold accuse e pro undivided for they hold that this devise of the remainder to  his issue be uncertain what issue he intend he have diverse issue and it shall  not he extend to all his issue for a will shall he construe accord to the  intent of the devisor where a certain intent may he collect but where it be  uncertain it be void and therefore a devise to his son where he have two son  be void because it appear not which of they he intend and it shall not he  construe to he to the old more than to the other but chapman case in Elizabeth  may have a good construction because it be to the most worthy of blood and the  intent of the devisor ought to be collect upon plain word and not upon word  which engender confusion and if it may not he collect by the word it be void  as a devise to two et hoeredibus so a devise melioribus man in d be void for  it can be know who he intend to he the hest man and as Walmsley say it be a  good uva that when the word in a will be ambiguous so as the intent may not he  collect to expound the will accord to the law so there shall not he any  prejudice and here they all hold if by the devise to the issue it shall he  extend to the issue they shall have it for life only and when the reversion  descend to one jointtenant for life or the other jointtenant for life purchase  the reversion the jointure be sever and the estate for life drown a and not  like where two purchase to they and the heir of one of they for there the  agreement at the beginning be that the estate for life shall continue and it  be cite to he so rule Elizabeth in lady Morgan case in the court of ware and  in Elizabeth to he so adjudge in this court and hetween Portley and Portley it  be rule that it be all one where the one purchase the reversion and where the  reversion descend to the one jointtenant b a ante     light and cro James b  this case deny ray vent lev and I salk leg v pool hill Geo c b l c b Parker ms  croak Elizabeth er p a exception be take to the writ because it be general  against the defendant as joint to swim out which be intend a jointteriancy in  fee whereas it ought to have be special frame upon the Henry c and to have  show the special matter how it be a jointtenancy for life say win allocalur  because the precedent be that always in such case the writ be general  wherefore it be adjudge for the defendant see will c