atkins case edmund Robinson a infant by his next friend plaintiff William  Robinson clerk and other defendant July see bow v Lewis App Cas SC I burr SC  Ves on a case make by order of Lord Hardwicke for the opinion of the judge of  the court of king be h they hold that l h must by necessary implication to  effectuate the manifest intent of the testator be construe to have take a  estate in tail male notwithstanding the express estate devise to l h for his  life and no long upon the that of July George Robinson of Boehym in the county  of Cornwall Esq make his will attest by three witness and after give to his  wife one guinea and to his fatherinlaw a groat he give and devise in the word  follow I give and devise all my real estate wheresoever to John hill Thomas  lukey and Samson Sandys and their heir to the use follow here the testator  direct they to raise a thousand pound for a particular purpose and then go on  and say my will be and I bequeathe all my say real estate except my estate at  Endellion and all m presentation in the say county to Lancelot Hicks of  Plymouth in the county of Devon gentleman for and during the term of his  natural life and no long provide he alter his name and take that of Robinson  and live at my house of Boehym and after his decease to such son as he shall  have lawful to be beget take the name of Robinson and for default of such  issue then I bequeathe the same to my cousin the defendant William Robinson of  Landewedrick and his heir for ever and after several legacy the testator give  all the rest of his good and chattel together with his say estate at Endellion  to the say William Robinson and make he sole executor of his will on the that  of September the testator die without issue leave the defendant William  Robinson his heir at law and Lancelot Hicks do after the testator death take  upon he the name of Robinson Lancelot Hicks have two son George his old son  and the plaintiff Edmund his young son and George be call by the name of  Robinson and die in march a infant in the lifetime of Lancelot Hicks his  father and of the plaintiff his young brother in July Lancelot Hicks die leave  the plaintiff Edmund Hicks alias Robinson his only survive son the plaintiff  bring his bill in the court of chancery for the execution of the trust in the  say testator will and that a sufficient atkins part of the real estate may be  sell to discharge the debt and encumbrance affect the same and that the  residue of the say estate may be convey to the plaintiff the defendant William  Robinson by his answer insist that by the testator will George Hicks alias  Robinson the elder brother of the plaintiff be tenant for life in remainder of  the testator estate immediate expectant on the estate devise to his father and  that such estate be a vest remainder in he and that no other son of Lancelot  Hicks can under the testator will take a estate or interest in the land  thereby devise and that on the death of such son the defendant as heir at law  of the testator or by virtue of his will become seize in fee of the reversion  of the estate of the testator immediate expectant on the estate devise for  life to Lancelot Hicks and that on his death that defendant become seize in  possession thereof subject to the charge and encumbrance thereon Lord  chancellor give his opinion in this cause the d of July the question be  whether the plaintiff Edmund Robinson take any estate under the will of George  Robinson I can find no place where the word son have be construe to give a  estate tail atkins er p in the first taker but in the case of Byfield in the  time of queen Elizabeth cite by Lord chief justice hale in the cause of king  versus mell vent S c I do not know what weight to give to this case because  though I have look into cro Elizabeth and all the contemporary reporter yet I  can find it report and notwithstanding it be mention by Lord chief justice  Eyre in the case of dubber versus Trollop vin SC Robinson be gavel S c yet he  state it from the case of king versus mell and so do every one who cite it in  any case subsequent to king and mell and therefore it be probable hale quote  it from a manuscript and upon such a authority as this be t can justify it to  myself to construe the word son to give a estatetail in the case before I  because the devise to Lancelot Hicks be to he for life and no long and  consequent by no implication whatsoever can this be construe to be a  estatetail in he but I do not intend to give a absolute opinion and if the  party approve of it I will make a case for the judgement of the court of king  bench atkins the direction to alter the name of Hicks and take that of  Robinson mean bear the name of Robinson and therefore can not desert it as he  may have do if it have be take only but still I think this be a condition  subsequent and do not divest the estate and the son who be but just bear will  have a reasonable time to take the name Lord chancellor say after mention the  case of king versus mell in Ventr report that the argument of Lord chief  justice hale in Ventris be not copy from his own argument but the argument in  the case of the seven hundred of Cirencester and a case upon alienation be  copy verbatim from a manuscript of hale upon the that of November the cause  come on again before Lord chancellor when his lordship order that a case shall  be make for the opinion of the judge of the court of king bench upon the will  of the testator George Robinson and the material fact appear in the plead upon  the follow question whether any and what estate or interest in the premise in  question be by virtue of the say will vest in the plaintiff Edmund Robinson  the infant and it be order that the say case shall be state as of a devise of  a legal estate to Lancelot Hicks and the several person to take in remainder  after he without regard to any trust N B the above question have be under the  consideration of the court of chancery in another cause which be as follow  upon the death of George Robinson his widow bring a bill in chancery against  William Robinson his heir at law and Lancelot Robinson his devisee and oh have  a performance of the article make upon her marriage and a cross bill be bring  by that e say Lancelot Robinson to prove his will and to have a execution of  the trust thereof upon hear the cause before sir Joseph Jekyll on the that of  April the follow remarkable declaration be insert in the decree his honour  declare that by the say testator will the defendant Lancelot Robinson be  entitle to a estate for life in all the estate of the say George Robinson  except the estate of Endellion with remainder to the old son and but one son  of the defendant Lancelot Robinson for his life they perform the condition in  the say will and that the remainder will go over to the defendant William  Robinson the heir at law of the say testator atkins a copy of the opinion of  the judge of the court of king bench in the case of Robinson against Robinson  the saint of December we be of opinion that upon the true construction of the  will of George Robinson Lancelot Hicks therein mention must by necessary  implication to effectuate the manifest general intent of the testator be  construe to have take a estate in tail male be and the heir male of his body  take the name of Robinson notwithstanding the express estate devise to the say  Lancelot for his life and no long Mansfield I denison m foster I e Wilmot vide  Bamfield v Popham p W Allanson v clitherow Ves wile v Lewis atk lethieullier v  Tracy atk Vaughan v farrier Ves Evans v Astley burr hay v the earl of Coventry  term Rep do v applin term Rep atkins er p