case austen and tailor that June and d July devise on land to trustee in trust  to pay a annuity and subject thereto in trust to plaintiff for life remainder  to trustee to preserve c remainder to the heir of the body of plaintiff  remainder to testator own right heir and the residue of personal estate to be  lie out in land and settle to the same use lib Reg a foe S c Eden John Holman  by his will after devise certain land in Northin give all his other freehold  and copyhold land to trustee and their heir to the use trust and purpose  thereinafter mention in the saint place to the intent his four sister shall  respective have a annuity or rentcharge of pound for their life with a power  of distress and entry in case of nonpayment and subject thereto in trust for  plaintiff for life remainder to trustee to preserve c remainder to the heir of  the body of plaintiff remainder to his own right heir and he also give the  residue of his ambler personal estate to trustee in trust to buy land in  feesimple which premise he direct shall remain continue and be to for and upon  such and the life estate and estate use trust intent and purpose and under and  subject to the like charge restriction and limitation as be by he before  devise limit or declare of and concern his land and premise therein before  last devise or as near thereto as may be and the death of person will admit  bill for account of personal and to have the residue lie out accord to the  will Q whether plaintiff be entitle to a estate for life or in tail in the  land to be purchase Lord keeper question arise upon the intent of the testator  it be argue that if the intent be plain yet if the testator have use word  which by the rule of law import a different signification the rule of law and  not the intent will prevail but there be no such rule applicable to this case  in case of a will the intent shall prevail if not contrary to law the meaning  of which be if the limitation be such as the law allow but do not mean that  the word must be take in such signification as the law impose on they if word  which in consideration of law be general take to be word of limitation appear  in a will to be very plain intend as word of purchase they shall be consider  as such both in court of law and equity but the safe way to determine property  be to use word in the most know sense unless it appear plain that the testator  mean they in some other it be argue that it be a executory trust but those  word have no certain signification in butterfly v voice Lord king call that a  executory trust where the party be oblige   come to this court for a execution  of the trust but it be the same in every case of a trust and the determination  must be the same in all case that be accord to the intent Papillon v voice be  a sound determination ambler in the case of marriage when there be only head  of a settlement which the trustee m be to make the court can decree otherwise  than a estate for life in the first taker with contingent remainder a estate  tail in the first taker will be no settlement at all so in Leonard v earl of  Sussex the distinction seem to be where the testator have direct the trust and  where something be leave and refer to the trustee to be do as in Lord  glenorchy v Bosville I be of opinion that in the case of imperfect trust only  this court can make a different construction from a legal limitation in the  present ease there be no reference to the trustee without that ingredient I do  ambler er p not find any case where the court have give a different meaning  from what a court of law will on a legal limitation nothing be leave to the  trustee to be do but to buy the land the testator have declare the use of the  land when purchase I do not believe the testator intend the trustee shall make  a conveyance Lord Eldon in green v Stephens Ves doubt the accuracy of this  passage and from Mr Eden report of the case from Lord nothingness own ms it  appear that Lord Northington do not make such observation there be no  necessity for it it be say if the word in the former limitation have be again  repeat it will have be the very cause of Papillon v voice but I think  otherwise there be a direction to the trustee in that case to convey and  settle but there be no direction here the true mode be this where the  assistance of trustee which be ultimate the assistance of this court be pray  in aid to complete a limitation in that case the limitation in the will not be  complete it be a sufficient declaration of the testator intention that the  court shall model the limitation but where the trust and limitation be express  declare the court have no authority to interfere and make they different from  what they will be at law see wright v Pearson ante Bruncker v Bagot Meriv v  Lister and swire that July Garth v Baldwin that and that July Ves note the  above opinion be very dissatisfactory to the bar in general see Humphrey v  tayleur ante Letheulier v Tracey ante post Jenkins v herries mad but technical  word shall have their legal effect unless from subsequent inconsistent word it  be clear the testator mean otherwise Jesson v wright Bligh do v haw b c and a  court of equity will therefore where it be plain evident on the face of the  will that the testator mean that the first beneficiary and trust shall take a  estate for life only construe the word heir of the body of the first  beneficiary and trust as word of purchase and not of limitation Leonard v earl  of Sussex vern Papillon v voice p W Lord glenorchy v Bosville can t Talb earl  of Stamford v sir I Hobart bro p c and Edward bro p c Allgood wither burr Ves  sen bagshaw v Spencer Ves atk Baskerville v Baskerville atk Robert v Dixwell  atk countess of Lincoln v duke of Newcastle Ves bastard v Roby Cox white v  carter post green v Stephens Ves Ves