boon v Cornforth may see Marrall v Sutton Ph will construction of repugnant  word in a will may be reject or transpose in this case the court reject a  repugnancy by interlineation bequest of the use and enjoyment of every thing  else at my house mean such thing as be proper to with the house as heirlooms  videlicet fixture and ornament not watch c c see Trafford v Trafford atk  chapman v heart Ves sen and supplement p and Stuart v marquis of Bute on  rehear Ves with the case refer to estate for life in land by implication rebut  by the party have a bequest for life in a particular part of they and by  testator desire she shall not be turn out supplement Thomas boon a east India  captain have only one natural daughter marry to defendant by his will give  pound Southsea stock to Richard dyer on the trust herein aftermentioned that  he shall from time to time during the life of my dear vesey senior er p  daughter employ and dispose of all the interest and produce arise from hence  to and for the sole and separate use of her and not of her husband Cornforth  but to be pay into her hand and her receipt to be a sufficient discharge and  notwithstanding my care of my say daughter my intent be that she live and  cohabit with her say husband and from and after her decease on further trust  to dispose of they say pound and interest in dividend from thence to and  between her husband Cornforth and my daughter child and child videlicet her  husband shall have and enjoy one half of the interest thereof for and during  his natural life if there shall be no child or child which last word be  interline and the child or child the other half on his death his half shall go  to the child or child but till the child or child attain twentyone the husband  shall have the whole interest and on the death of their father they shall have  the remain pound but if no such child or child at the time of her death or  they shall die before twentyone then to go on further trust as I shall  hereafter mention in another part of his will item I give to Richard dyer his  heir and assign on further trust the above pound after death of the aforesaid  Cornforth and his wife and all the child before come of age provide those  child die without issue nothing be say in this place what that further trust  shall be but afterward he give to his daughter and the aforesaid dyer their  heir and assign my pound stock which shall always remain in my name and other  stock which shall also remain in my name and also all jewel rest residue and  remainder which shall be turn into money and make stock on trust nevertheless  that Richard dyer and my daughter their heir and assign so far as concern her  trust shall dispose of all the interest of the pound and other stock to my  nephew Daniel boon in another vesey senior clause item I give to my say  daughter the equal possession and right for life to live at lee place where I  now live with her husband to have the use of the house plate linen and every  thing else as her occasion shall require as also stable and field and not to  be subject to be turn out by the family of boon or any thing else  notwithstanding the entail I be go to make and that all my good furniture  plate book picture and every thing else which at my decease shall be at my  house at lee shall remain there and be enjoy by the person who for the time be  shall be in possession of the say house item I give and demise all that  capital message call lee place and all those three piece of ground in lee  which I late buy of h c and other tenement describe they and the little house  at lee to Richard dyer and his heir in trust for my daughter for life without  impeachment of waste and from and after her decease as well as the say little  house message and tenement so limit to her for life as all other land tenement  and hereditament with their appurtenance in trust for my nephew Daniel boon  for life with remainder over to all his nephew and the issue of those nephew  there be a clause in the will that his nephew shall not sell or dispose of any  of those heirlooms but that they shall go with the house as far as the law  will admit of it have be suggest that this be one of three will liberty be  give to apply to the prerogative court and accord a probate be grant of that  which be the original will by which there appear to be some interlineation all  the question arise on this will first as to the personal estate as to the  pound and the particular good and chattel comprise under the bequest of the  thing at lee to the daughter then as to the real estate whether those three  field pass with the use and occupation of the house to her and whether she  take a estate for life in the residue and bulk of his real estate by  implication before such time as the estate be limit to Mr boon Lord chancellor  I have in the best manner I can consider the will but of all the will ever  under my consideration it be in many part the most inconsistent repugnant and  the most difficult to make common sense of that I ever meet with all the  question be occasion by the strange inconsistent pen the first on the personal  estate depend on several part of the will Ves sen the further trust refer to  as to the pound be in another part and must still be take from the subsequent  clause which be a disposition of the whole residue of personal estate of  testator vesey senior who in make his daughter a cotrustee of that surplus  which may be a continue trust do not mean to make her trustee as to the pound  of which she be to have the beneficial interest during life after her decease  her husband if she leaves child be clear entitle to one moiety during life  vesey senior er p and to the other till all the child attain twentyone but if  she leave no child the question be whether he be to take any interest in those  dividend during life or whether they go to boon and his child by the bequest  over I be of opinion on the best construction I can make of this very odd will  that he will be entitle to all the dividend of this during his life first  consider as it stand before the alteration by the interlineation as appear by  the probate of those word which make the nonsense and contradiction of the  first clause videlicet if there shall be no child or child clear as it stand  at first if she leave child he will be entitle to half during life and to the  other half till the attain twentyone or death if no child and he survive her  it be to go to boon the residuary legatee of all his personal estate but after  death of Cornforth and his wife which be a plain and necessary implication  that he be to take the dividend of this whole stock in that case this be  strengthen from the consideration of the circumstance of the party for  testator can not mean to give he a less interest if no child and it be to go  to a collateral relation than he mean to do if she leave child to the  prejudice of those child Cornforth be to have it till they attain twentyone if  that be the construction then next consider what effect the insertion of those  word will have read they with the other part they be entire inconsistent and  repugnant something therefore must be reject as no sense can be make of it for  if there be contradictory word in a will which can be reconcile some must be  reject which ought I to reject the word interline or the entire provision they  creep in by chance and on this will there be a strong foundation than in most  case for reject they because it appear by the probate how this interlineation  come in that it arise from the testator not attend to it that in the draft of  his will there be a complete provision make before for that case it be a rule  in law by holt c I in coal v Rawlinson Lord raym sal that word in a will may  be reject or transpose if nonsensical these word be twice write in this will  once by mistake it be natural therefore to transpose those word to the proper  place where they be sensible and not repugnant and to construe they as if  write but once next as to the good and thing at lee which arise on two clause  in the will it be take at the bar that these two clause be coextensive as to  the word every thing else but they be not so these thing express enumerate  will clear pass to the daughter picture put up in a house be consider as part  of the furniture and so be householdlinen but a question arise vesey senior as  to provision of any kind either for the house or stable as liquor corn hay c  and some curiosity he have in his house china Japan India piece for  handkerchief watch and a cane whether these pass by either and which of those  clause take it on the last clause which make they heirlooms every thing else  which at my decease shall be at my house must be construe the same noble birth  such as be proper to go with the house as heirlooms Eq ab atk and that the  cane watch and India piece not make up can pass as heirlooms much less the  liquor hay c for it mean thing fix to the freehold the china and every thing  of that kind set up by way of ornament and to have continuance along with it  and not consumable as those thing be but on the first clause the question be  what the daughter shall enjoy there the construction go far take in sufficient  corn hay and provision in the house for it mean her occasion of reside and  live there not any occasion whatever and will take in all kind of provision  for man or horse in the house or stable but thing which pass not as heirlooms  fall into the residue of the personal estate as to the three field he mean to  pass the use and occupation of the same to his daughter in the first clause  though it be general that he have give in the latter it be inaccurate and the  pen different but he mean they coextensive as to the bulk of the real estate  how much do not appear nor be it material I be of opinion upon the  construction of the whole of this strange will the daughter do not take a  estate for life by implication and it plain be not intend brown it be insist  that accord to the case h and other case where there be a devise to a heir at  law after the death of the wife or any other person there be a devise to the  wife or that other person by implication it show the heir at law shall not  take it and that the land can be in abeyance and that here be a devise after  death of the daughter of all other land to boon who be heir at law that be the  general rule so hold in gardener v Sheldon Vau with several refine distinction  put by Vaughan but all those case depend on and arise from circumstance vesey  senior er p indicate the intent of the testator and that be not the intent of  testator here Vaughan say it be a vain idle distinction and I be of opinion  with he in that videlicet that where another thing be give by express word to  a devisee yet he shall not take a different thing by implication but it be  another question where it be the same or part of the same thing here testator  have give to his daughter the use and occupation of this house and lee place  be the very first thing devise by this clause under which the devise by  implication be contend for it be not to be think he intend to give her the use  and occupation of this house for life and afterward the estate to be leave for  her by implication but it be strong from the other word if he intend vesey  senior to give the family of boon nothing but a remainder of this house and  the rest of the estate after the daughter death he can not think she will be  liable to be turn out his meaning be this he be go to devise this house and  the rest to boon and his family in possession which will give the legal estate  and make her liable to be turn out he therefore direct the possession of this  house to her for life and that they shall not turn her out this be distinct  from all the case put by Vaughan which by the way be do by he in a very odd  manner for he put case and answer they by make those case different by add to  they but I will mention this in general that the case be to be take cum grano  salt throughout and there be a plain opinion of Vaughan put at the end of that  case direct contrary to law and so hold ever since videlicet as to a executory  devise after a general die without issue but there be one observation plain  show the testator do not intend the daughter shall have a estate by  implacation by this devise videlicet the clause create the heirlooms where the  person he declare shall be restrain from dispose of any of they be all those  who he make tenant for life of this house and other part of his estate it be  impossible if he intend to make his daughter tenant for life of this house  land and tenement that he shall not name her among those person he make tenant  for life the question then be whether the word will bear this construction  they plain do be to be construe distributive reddendo one one like the  distribution of word in marriagesettlement the point contend for the defendant  be only a devise by implication and there be all this in the will to rebut  that it be impossible this observation distinguish this from all the case cite  in gardener v Sheldon for there it be impossible to make that construction no  distribution can be make to imply part of the estate in possession and the  other part in remainder it be necessary there to make a construction of the  whole the rest of the real estate therefore be give to Mr boon with remainder  over Reg lib a fol