case Marlow versus smith Eq can ab pl one make his will and say as to such  estate as God have bless I with I devise in manner follow after which he give  part to I S and his heir c and devise the rest of his estate to his wife in  fee this passes a trustestate sir Charles pitfield seize in fee of the manor  of Hoxton near Shoreditch in Middlesex on the marriage of his son Alexander  with Elizabeth Waller by indenture of lease and release date the that and that  of April convey the say manor of Hoxton to trustee sir John Buckworth and  Francis more and their heir to the use of the say sir Charles pitfield for  life remainder to the use of his son the say Alexander pitfield for ninetynine  year if he shall so long live remainder to the use of the say trustee and the  heir lure the life of Alexander pitfield in trust to preserve contingent  remainder remainder to the use of the first c son of Alexander pitfield by the  say Elizabeth in tail male successive remainder to trustee for year to raise  portion for daughter of the marriage remainder to the use of the heir of the  body of the say Alexander pitfield who be still live remainder to the use of  the right heir of sir Charles pitfield sir Charles die Alexander pitfield have  issue Charles pitfield who take ill course run in debt and endeavour to sell  this estate in his father lifetime prevail with the heir of more the survive  trustee for support contingent remainder to join in a deed of bargain and sale  enrol for the make a tenant to the prcipe recovery be suffer to the use of  Charles pitfield in fee who devise all his estate to trustee to pay his debt  peer William but it happen that Francis more the survive trustee have by his  will devise in manner follow as to such estate as the Lord have bestow upon he  he devise part to I S and his heir and all the rest of his real estate he  devise to his wife and her heir Charles pitfield die leave a infant son and  Alexander pitfield have issue one daughter upon a bill bring by the creditor  of this Charles pitfield it be decree that this reversion of Hoxton shall be  sell before the master to the best purchaser for payment peer William er p of  the debt of Charles and Mr Swinfen be allow the best purchaser at a Southsea  price in trust for sergeant mead who deposit pound part of the purchasemoney  whereupon it be refer to a master to state the title the only question be  whether the will of more the survive trustee in the settlement for preserve  contingent remainder do pass his interest in the premise be a freehold  descendible and make devisable by the statute of fraud for that if the will of  more pass this estate then the join of his heir will not make a tenant to the  prcipe and so the recovery be void the consequence of which will be that the  purchaser have no title make he must be discharge from the purchase and have  back his deposit for the creditor it be insist that when more the testator  devise all the rest of his estate he must be intend to have mean his own  estate and not a state of which he be peer William but a bare trustee for such  estate be real true and in equity the estate of the beneficiary and trust and  this construction appear to be the more reasonable front the word which the  testator have use in his will videlicet as to such estate as the Lord have  bestow upon I for they must be suppose to have be make use of with a eye to  such estate of which the testator be to have the benefit now he be to be never  the better for the trustestate nor to have any advantage therefrom that if a  executor shall grant in all respects good svan this will not pass the good  which he have as executor especial if at the same time such executor have any  good in his own right from all which it follow that the devise will not pass  the trust estate on the other side it be say that more be devise of all his  land pass these land of which he be but a trustee for in law they be his land  and it be at law that the operation of this will must be determine at law he  be the only person who can recover they that if the testator have by his will  devise all the land of which he be seize it must undoubted have pass these  land for it be most plain the testator be the person seize thereof that have  the testator be attaint or outlaw for treason or felony he will have forfeit  these land so that if the land in question be the testator land to forfeit  they be consequent his land to grant or devise for forisfacere be another to  make and that in this case there be a manifest diversity betwixt a estate  which a trustee have in trust and the peer William interest which a executor  or a administrator have in good as executor or administrator for if a executor  or administrator be attaint of treason or felony the good which he have as  executor or administrator will not be thereby forfeit whereas the land which a  man be seize of as trustee will in such case be forfeit but if there be the  least doubt of the title which it be make to appear there be by the opinion of  sergeant Hooper and Mr web it will by no mean be proper for the court of  chancery to compel the party to accept the title for in such case if the  purchaser shall be sue where can he have recourse to for redress and here the  court be compel the party to purchase a special verdict or a suit master of  the roll though this be a trustestate yet the legal estate be in the devisor  in the eye of the law it be his estate and his property and therefore passes  by the devise of his estate and if he have devise all the land which he have  be seize of these land will certain have pass neither can there be any  inconvenience in such construction for as the testator himself be a trustee so  shall his devisee also be a trustee to preserve these remainder and there be  the opinion of learned man against the title videlicet that the will of the  testator do pass this trustestate I will not nor do I think it reasonable that  a court of equity shall compel the purchaser to accept the purchase and  therefore he must have back his deposit see Colton v Wilson post vol note in  this case Mr Talbot insist that though when all the remainder be vest  remainder in tail the trustee may join in make a tenant to the prcipe in order  to the peer William suffer a recovery yet if any remainder be in contingency  the trustee who be appoint to preserve all the contingent remainder ought not  to join in suffer a recovery to bar any such remainder if they do it will be a  breach of trust that accord in the principal case the remainder to the use of  the heir of the body of Alexander pitfield who be still live be a contingent  remainder and the say Alexander have issue a daughter if the infant son of  Charles pitfield shall die without issue in the life of Alexander Alexander  daughter may be heir of his body peer William er p and if this shall be a  breach of trust in the heir of the trustee the purchaser have notice of such  trust may be liable to the same and then for this reason also it can not be a  good title vide Mansell v Mansell post it be now settle though there have be  some doubt upon the subject duke of Leeds v Monday Ves ex part Sergison Ves  attorneygeneral v buller Ves ex part Brettell Ves that trust estate pass by a  general devise unless a contrary intention can be collect from the will roe v  read t r Lord Braybrooke v Inskip Ves ex part Morgan Ves