atkins case harding v glyn June the that SC wh t l c that ed see brown v Higgs  Ves Jun Ves Jun distinguish in re bind coal v haw Ch d see Wilson v Duguid Ch  d n h by will give to Elizabeth his wife all his estate lease and interest in  his house in Hatton garden and all the good and furniture therein at the time  of his death and also all his plate jewel c but desire her at or before her  death to give such lease c unto such of his own relation as she shall think  most deserve Elizabeth by her will give all her estate and interest to h in  the say house in Hatton garden and after several legacy the residue of her  personal estate to the defendant and two other person and make they executor  but neither give at or before her death the good in the say house or her  husband jewel to his relation the master of the roll be of opinion that  Elizabeth under the will of n h take only beneficial during her life and that  so much of the household good in Hatton garden not dispose of by her accord to  the power give her by the will of n h in case the same remain in specie or the  value thereof ought to be divide equal among such of the relation as be his  next of kin at the time of her death so in the follow case the word relation  or kindred in a will without any specification of what relation or kindred be  confine to such as be within the statute of distribution car v Bedford Charles  Rep Griffith v Jones Charles Rep roach v Hammond Prec Charles Thomas v hold  can tempt Talb anon p W Whitborne v Harris Ves edge v Salisbury Amb Brunsden v  Woolredge Amb lsaac v Defriez Amb Widmore v Woodroffe Amb green v Howard bro  Charles Rep Crosslee v Clare Amb Phillips v Garth bro Charles Rep Rayner v  Mowbray bro Charles Rep contra Jones v beal vern Bennet v Honywood Amb but  notwithstanding the above construction yet the share and proportion of such  relation and kindred must be regulate accord to the intent and construction of  the will under which they claim and not accord to the statute of distribution  as particular appear by the above cite case of car v Bedford Thomas v hold  Brunsden v Woolredge and Phillips v Garth butler v Stratton bro Charles Rep  Nicholas Harding in make his will and thereby give to Elizabeth his wife all  his estate lease and interest in his house in Hatton garden and all the good  furniture and chattel therein at the time of his death and also all his plate  linen jewel and other wear apparel but do desire her at or before her death to  give such lease house furniture good and chattel plate and jewel unto and  among such of his own relation as she shall think most deserve and approve of  and make his wife executrix and die the d of January without issue Elizabeth  his widow make her will on the that of June and thereby give all her estate  right title and interest to Henry Swindell in the house in Hatton garden which  her husband have bequeathe to her in manner aforesaid and after give several  legacy bequeathe the residue of her personal estate to the defendant Glyn and  two other person and make they executor and soon after die without have give  at or before her death the good in the say house or without have dispose of  any of her husband jewel to his relation the plaintiff insist that Elizabeth  Harding have no property in the say furniture and jewel but for life with a  limit power of dispose of the same to her husband relation which she have not  do bring their bill in order that they may be this tributed among his relation  accord to the rule of distribution of intestates effect master of the roll the  first question be if this be vest absolute in the wife and the second if it be  to be consider as undisposed of after her death who be entitle to it as to the  first it be clear the wife be intend to take only beneficial during her life  there be no technical word in a atkins will but the manifest intent of the  testator be to take place and the word Willing or desire have be frequent  construe to amount to a trust It seem that any word of a testator intimate a  request wish desire recommendation c be sufficient to create a trust provide  there be certainty of the gift and of the object to be benefit thereby breast  v Offley Charles Rep Parry v juxon Charles Rep eales v England Prec Charles  vern S c Eq ab pl S c Clowdsley v Felham vern Jones v nabbs Eq ab pl  Richardson v chapman burn ecclesiastical law Vernon v Vernon Amb bro Charles  Rep S c cite Clifton v lombe Amb Massey v Sherman Amb nowlan v Nelligan bro  Charles Rep Pierson v Garnet bro Charles Rep finch pre Charles in note S c  Lewis v king bro Charles Rep but by where the gift or the object appear to be  uncertain palmer v scribb Eq ab pl buggins v Yeates Mod Harding v Glyn above  per Lord Hardwicke Le maitre v Bannister bro Charles Rep cite finch Prec  Charles S c Bland v Bland bro Charles Rep cite finch Prec Charles S c Harland  v trigg bro Charles Rep win v Hawkins bro Charles Rep spring v Bernard bro  Charles Rep the case of Cunliffe v Cunliffe Amb finch Prec Charles S c bro  Charles Rep S c which be determine contrary to the first of the above position  be overrule by the master of the roll in the case of Garnet v Pierson cite  above see bro Charles Rep hill v the bishop of London post eacles ux v England  ux vern and the only doubt arise upon the person who be to take after her  where the uncertainty be such that it be impossible for the court to determine  what person be mean it be very strong for the court to construe it only as a  recommendation to the first devisee and make it absolute as to he but here the  word relation be a atkins er p legal description and this be a devise to such  relation and operate as a trust in the wife by way of power of name and  apportion and her nonperformance of the power shall not make the devise void  but the power shall devolve on the court and though this be not to pass h  virtue of the statute of distribution yet that be a good rule for the court to  go by and therefore I think it ought to be divide among such of the relation  of the testator Nicholas Harding who be his next of kin at her death and do  order that so much of the say household good in Hatton garden and other  personal estate of the say testator Nicholas Harding devise by his will to the  say Elizabeth Harding his wife which she do not dispose of accord to the power  give her thereby in case the same remain in specie or the value thereof be  deliver to the next of kin of the say testator Nicholas Harding to be divide  equal among they to take place from the time of the death of the say Elizabeth  Harding