Charles holms versus Elizabeth MEYNEL ejectment derby see Taafe v Conmee h l c  estate Danv ab p Jon show Pollexf skin of the demise of Francis Meynel of the  moiety of the manor of MeynelLangley and KirkLangley message acre of land acre  of meadow and acre of pasture in MeynelLangly and KirkLangly upon not guilty  plead the jury find a special verdict videlicet that one Isaac Meynel be seize  in fee entire as well of the manor of Meynel and Kirk langly as of all the  tenement in the declaration novemb make his will in write thus I give and  devise all my land in Meynel and KirkLangly in the county of Derby unto my two  daughter Elizabeth and whether Meynel and their heir equal to be divide  betwixt they and in case the happen to die without issue then I give and  devise all the say land to my nephew Francis Meynel old son of my brother  William Meypel decease and to the heir male of his body and for want of such  issue to William Meynel brother of the say Francis and the heir male of his  body the remainder to Godfrey Meynel brother of the say Francis and William in  tail male the remainder to John brother of the say Francis William and Godfrey  in tail male and for want of such issue I give and devise the say land to the  next heir male of the name and family of the Meynels and die without issue  male have issue Elizabeth now defendant and whether his two only daughter who  enter and become seize prout law c whether die without issue Francis the  lessor of the plaintiff enter and if for the plaintiff for the plaintiff c  after several argument at the bar the court by the mouth of the chief justice  give judgement for the defendant I have prepare my argument as the rest of the  judge have do but in regard we be all unanimous it be think needless for we  all to argue my argument follow in this case two point have be raise Raymond  sir t what estate Elizabeth and whether have by this will whether upon the  death of whether without issue Francis in remainder take any thing as to the  be it I conclude that Elizabeth and whether have several estatestail by  moieties for though the devise be to they and their heir in the beginning yet  when the will afterward say and if they die without issue it show that heir be  intend heir of their body so it have be construe in rant Raymond sir t er p h  a land grant to man and his wife other hredibus of the husband if the heir of  the husband and wife shall die without heir de see the husband and wife have a  entail a strong in a will cro king versus rumbal where many book be cite and  Bridgman pell versus brown so that as to this point it be not much deny on  either side as to the d point I conceive Francis take nothing upon the death  of whether but that her part remain to her sister by way of a cross remainder  I take notice that the main design and intent of the testator be that in the  first place he will take care of his own child and then look after the  continuation of his own name and family for first he give to his daughter and  afterward the remainder to his nephew then to the next heir male of the name  and family of the Meynels follow herein the law of nature and the ordinary  course of the world that this be the intent appear by the word of the will in  case they die without issue I e both of they it be not they or either of they  all the say land which intend both part and not a moiety and all can pass till  both be dead without issue and if the testator have be ask what he mean by the  land go to his nephew after the death of his daughter without issue he will  have answer that he shall have the land when both of his daughter shall be  dead without issue and not before this intent consist with the rule of law for  it be a general rule that a will shall never be construe by implication to  disinherit the heir at law unless such implication be necessary and not only  constructive and possible h Br devise a man devise his good to his wife and  after the decease of his wife his son and heir shall have the house wherein  his good be the son shall not have the house during the wife life for though  it be not Raymond sir t express devise to the wife yet by his intent it appear  that the son shall not have it during her life and therefore it be a good  devise to the wife by implication and the devisor intent but if it be a devise  to a stranger after the death of the wife the heir shall have it during the  wife life because it be not a devise to the wife by a necessary implication  hill car c b gardener versus Sheldon Vaughan William rise make his will thus  my will and meaning be that if it happen that my son George mary and Katherine  my daughter do die without issue of their body then all my freehold shall come  remain and be to my nephew William rise and his heir for ever resolve the son  and daughter have no estate by the will and so be the book of more pl and pl  cro florton versus Horton in our case here be no necessary implication that  Francis must take immediate after the death of whether without issue for  Elizabeth be still alive and he be not to have the land till the devisor  daughter shall die without issue have the testator set forth at length the  cross remainder this question have be out of doubt now be be weak council we  ought by construction to make his word answer his intent appear in other part  of the will as near as may be as for authority we must not expect many in case  of a will for the old book can have any unless of a devise by custom which be  rare and every case upon a will stand upon its own leg accord foe the pen  thereof yet mich Elizabeth c b Leon pl be direct in the point the case be a  seize of land have issue two son and devise part to his old in tail and the  other part to his young in tail with this clause in the will that if any of  his son die without issue that then the whole land shall remain to a stranger  in fee and die the son enter into the land devise to they respective and the  young die without issue and he to who the fee be devise enter and adjudge that  his entry be not lawful and that the old son shall have tl e land by the  implicative devise as to the case object which be cro Guilbert versus witty a  devise of three several message to three several child provide if all my say  child shall die without issue of their body then all the say message shall  Raymond sir t remain to my wife and her heir and two die resolve the wife  shall have the two part resp that differ much from this case because there be  three devise in which case cross remainder will be more difficultly settle for  whether the survivor shall be jointtenants for life with several inheritance  or tenant in common in tail will be perhaps some question as appear by the  report of the same case roll Rep but in our case no such difficulty can arise  Raymond sir t er p object pasch James c b Johnson versus smart roll Abr f pl a  devise to two for their life remainder to their two son equal to be divide and  to their heir and each of they to be the other heir and if they both shall die  without issue the remainder to another one die his share shall go to the  remainder man resp this case can be law because it be apparent that each of  they be to be the other heir which be as plain a cross remainder as can be  this case be receive by roll from some other hand and it be report in a  private report to be quite another case for it upon evidence in a trial at bar  in a case of a surrender of a copyhold and not a devise and roll can not be a  reporter at that time for it before he come to study the law and each to be  the other heir make a cross remainder Br devise do pet Br b pl object dyer a  Huntley case which be that he be seize of two house one in saint Michael  Queenbith and the other in saint Micbae FleshShambles which last parish be lie  to the parish of ChristCburch in LondOD and devise that house in saint Michael  FleshShambles to his wife for life the remainder to a woman and her brother  and the heir of their body and for default of such issue to the right heir of  the devisor the brother die without issue the sister have issue and die and  whether the entire house shall go to the issue or only the moiety and the  other moiety to the heir of the devisor be the question resp though this  question be put in the book yet I find no argument of it and that case will  differ from this in regard there the particular estate be not timited to the  child but to stranger and so entrench not upon the rule in h whereby a heir be  disinherit and dyer seem to intimate that the plead of the case be more insist  upon than this point for be put the stress of the case to lie upon the plead  that the house lie in the Raymond sir t parish of christchurch whereas the  will say in saint Michael flesh shambles without averment of the union of  those parish and I and say the stress of the case be upon the apportionment of  rend as to justice wyndham case it be not to our purpose because that be the  case of a deed which must be take strong against the grantor here it be the  case of a will the construction whereof be to be make accord to the intent of  the devisor and so upon the whole matter in regard the word make against the  plaintiff and the intent make for the defendant I conceive judgement ought to  be give for the defendant