case simpson versus Hornsby refer to king v inhabitant of Ringstead b c Eq Abr  pl S c pl vern S c pale yellow Eq Rep S c and p the question in this case  arise upon the will of one Thomas Addison who have a wife and only two  daughter devise land in several town to his wife for life for her jointure and  afterward towards the close of his will devise all his land tenement and  hereditament in those town after the death of his dear wife to his daughter  Bridget and the heir male of her body and for want of such issue to his  daughter jane who be his old but have disoblige he by marry improvident and  her assign during her natural life and after her death to her first and other  son in tail male successive with several remainder over Bridget die in her  father lifetime leave issue a son who the grandfather take to his own house  and express much kindness for afterward the grandfather make a codicil which  begin thus a codicil to be annex to my will and by that he give some part of a  leasehold estate which by his will be give to his daughter Bridget to her son  add another trustee for some charity he have give by his will and then duly  precedent in chancery execute this codicil but the codicil be not actual annex  to his will so that the execution of that can not amount to a republication of  his will and now the question be saint whether the wife take a estate for life  in the land remain undisposed of by implication dly whether the son of Bridget  can take at all as to the first point the court seem pretty clear that the  wife take no estate for life by implication because the implication which  shall disinherit a heir at law must be necessary ante and here be no necessary  implication though the daughter be heir because it may be intend to extend  only to those land which be before express devise to the wife for life that  they shall not have they till after her death but for the other they shall go  to they immediate precedent in chancery er p and therefore the will shall be  take distributive accord to the case of cock and Gerrard I sand lev as to the  second point it be argue that the son of Bridget can take nothing in this case  that as in Brett and Rigdens case Plowden I Eq Abr pl S c wms fearne count Rem  Vid wms and Vid post the word heir be only to denote the quantity of the  estate so in this case the word heir male of her body be only to express the  quantity likewise that be in the one case the devisee be intend to take a  feesimple so in this case the devisee be intend to take a feetail and in  neither case be the word heir or heir male of the body any description or  designation of the person who be to take by purchase that in case of such a  devise in fee the first taker may immediate dispose of and give it away from  his heir so may the devisee in this case too by proper conveyance that this  point have be settle long since in Hartopps case in cro Elizabeth that this be  hold clear likewise in my Lord lansdown case Eq Abr S c n comens S c cite Mod  late in the kingsbench where my Lord of bath devise land to Bernard Granville  and the heir male of his body and Bernard die in the lifetime of the precedent  in chancery testator leave issue male the testator my Lord of bath afterward  make a codicil and the will and codicil both lie together upon the table my  Lord take up the codicil and say this be his will and then publish and execute  it in the presence of three witness and when he have do put both the will and  codicil together in a box and yet in that case it be hold that this make of  the codicil be no republication of the will be not affix together and then the  heir male of the body of Bernard Granville can not take no more can they in  this case that admit the make such codicil may amount to a republication of  the will yet while the word of the will continue as they be the heir male of  the body can not take no more than a grandson can take as son by such  republication accord to the case of steed and berry vent Mod that a codicil be  a distinct instrument of itself and if the make of that shall amount to a  republication of the will it will entire elude the statute of fraud and  perjury that in Lord lansdown case indeed upon the importunity of great  counsel a special verdict be direct to be find though the court be clear of  their opinion as to the point and that case be afterward agree by the party  that in side a like devise to four daughter be hold void for a four part by  the death of one of the daughter in the lifetime of the testator and so be  likewise the case of Popham and Bamfield in this court I wms and Eq Abr c S c  my Lord chancellor be clear of opinion that the codicil in this case can not  help they but he say the construction of law in those case be extreme rigid  and severe that the testator in this case most certain mean that jane shall  have nothing while there remain any issue male of Bridget that he will  consider of the will and if any thing can be find to distinguish this case  from those which have be cite he will give relief for a moiety but if not  precedent in chancery the case be too strong and he must submit to be bind by  they and afterward give his decree accord which with begin brown v Barkham  precedent in chancery er report date case brown versus Barkham general report  under the name of newcomen v Barkham with post and n post coke Inst hark  Edward b b a John de mandeville case ibidem b Eq Abr pl S c vern S c pale  yellow Eq Rep and wms S c and n win Str S c vin title devise viner title heir  to fearne count Rem burrow blackstone Rep a devise land in trust after debt  pay to convey the premise to the heir male of the body of b the testator great  grandfather c be the heir male of the body of b but not heir general there be  a daughter of a elder brother who be heir general whether the trustee be to  convey to c as c will be well entitle to take as heir male by descent so he be  sufficient describe to take by purchase sir Edward Barkham be seize in fee of  the land in question by his will date the that of January devise all his  estate to sir William Massingberd and precedent in chancery er p Dymoke  Walpole and their heir in trust to sell the same or so much as will be  sufficient to pay his debt and legacy and after payment thereof direct his say  trustee to convey the residue of his estate to his cousin Robert Barkham and  the heir male of his body and for want of such heir male to the heir male of  the body of sir Robert Barkham his great grandfather and for want of such heir  male to his own right heir for ever and give to his sister mrs newcomen pound  to be put out at interest by his trustee during her life and after her death  to be pay to her old son but if no son then pound be to go to her executor or  administrator and the other pound to his say cousin Robert Barkham or his heir  male and after some other legacy give all the residue of his personal estate  to his second son Robert Barkham and make he sole executor but if it happen  that the say Robert be not in England at the time of his death then he make  the say trustee executor in trust for he till he shall return but in case the  say Robert shall die before he return then he make his heir male sole executor  and give he all his personal estate and soon after die without issue Robert  Barkham the cousin die without issue in Spain before the testator and now the  question arise upon this will whether Edward Barkham who be heir male of the  body of the great grandfather or mrs newcomen who be sister and heir of sir  Edward Barkham the precedent in chancery testator and likewise heir general of  the great grandfather have the better title it be argue by sir Thomas powis  that Edward be live and no notice take of he it be plain the testator never  intend he shall have it in the same manner with his brother Robert that the  pound be only a recompense for the present devise of the estate tail to Robert  and not to be carry as a recompense throughout to the last remainder that that  be only to go to those who full come within that description that the word  heir be either to denote the person who be to take and then it be vice a means  of knowing or it be to express the quantity of estate that be to pass and hob  he that will take as heir male by purchase must not only be male but heir too  and say the principal case of Cownden and clerk in hob and Mod and the case of  Ashenhurst cite at the end of that case be direct in point that without all  question it be so in a limitation by deed and have always be hold to be the  same in will that in I   archer case it be hold to be plain a contingent  remainder to the next heir male of Robert archer and not such a description of  his person as to vest it in he present for then it can never have be destroy  by the feoff of the father and Leon Challoner and bowyer come up direct to our  case and show that the same construction have prevail in a will as well as in  a deed that in the case of Burchett and Durdant I vent if it have not be for  the word now live it will have be a plain contingent remainder and so the  judge in that case agree and cite the case of Goodright and Cornish Mod Lord  Raymond salk to the same purpose and that in the case of Beaumont and long wms  and with fearne count Rem the word beget be hold equivalent to the word now  live and amount to a description of the person that there be a wide difference  between the word and for want of such issue and the word for want of his heir  male that in the first case the word issue be a explanation and precedent in  chancery correction of the general import of the word heir of the body but in  the last case the same word be still use none can claim who be not complete  heir male by purchase that in this case he seem to have do with Robert family  when lie have limit it to he and the heir male of his body and that he intend  it shall go as the law direct Lechmere to the same intent that the pound give  to mrs newcomen can only be a recompense for the estate tail limit to Robert  that he only postpone his heir for the sake of Robert and his issue male and  whenever they fail his heir must come in that indeed of late day limitation of  this kind have be carry much far than in ancient time but he think they ought  not to be carry any far for that will shake a great many settlement and  destroy the peace and quiet of many family that the case of Burchett and  Durdant be the first case that make any alteration in the construction of  devise of this kind and say in mandevill case   light b it be hold quite  otherwise that there be a great deal of difference between a lineal heir male  and a collateral heir male and that no case have be carry so far as to let in  a collateral heir male unless he be complete such that in the case of Burchett  and Durdant with wms Wilson and the whole stress and foundation of the  resolution go upon the word now live which they precedent in chancery er p  hold to amount to the same as heir apparent and yet that case be strong oppose  and undergo a very great litigation that in the case of Beaumont and long the  word then beget be hold of the same force as the word now live be in the other  case and that case go on and for want of such issue which be plain explanatory  and show that the word heir be mean the issue of his aunt long but here it be  and for want of such heir male which still preserve the notion of a legal heir  and then to take by purchase he must be both heir and male which in this case  he be not to the precedent in chancery case of Cownden and clerk have be  always cite on these occasion and be never yet deny to be law that my Lord  Hobart in that case be clear of opinion that the statute de gift be only to  preserve the descent to the heir male of the body not to direct their take by  way of purchase that in   light b a if a man have a son and a daughter and the  land be give to the daughter and the heir male of the body of the father and  the heir female of the body of the father she take only a estate for life and  the other limitation be void because she ought to be both heir and female to  take by purchase which in that case she be not the brother be heir on the  other side it be argue by sir Joseph Jekyll that there can be no sound reason  assign for the difference between the heir male take by descent and when he be  to take by purchase that at commonlaw before the statute de gift such  limitation be take notice of and allow to be good that in a will the intent of  the testator who be suppose to be weak council be always to be regard that in  the case of Pybus and Mitford vent with fearne count Rem my Lord hale be of  opinion that if the heir male by the second venture can not have take by  descent that he may take by purchase that the case of Beaumont and long be a  case in point for they though indeed this be a much strong case for there the  personal legacy give to the heir at law be give but once but here the pound be  limit to the heir so as in some sort to resemble land for it be to go to her  old son if any and if not then to her executor c that there be no difference  between the limitation for want of such issue and for want of such heir that  in neither case can it be carry further than the word of limitation import and  so it be hold in dyer Frenshams case that the word then beget in Beaumont case  will be of no weight to direct that resolution for my Lord precedent in  chancery coke tell we in his first institute bring into existence and to bring  forth be the same attorneygeneral to the same intent that if this have be a  estate tail in sir Robert the great grandfather there can have be no doubt the  defendant will have take as heir male of his body that in this case the intent  of the testator be plain to exclude his heir general that he have sufficient  provide for her by give her pound that the meaning of the book which say the  word heir be not a good name of purchase be no more than that it be not a  sufficient description of the person who be to take but if by any circumstance  he be so describe as to notify who be mean then it be a sufficient name of  purchase and so be the opinion of my Lord Anderson pm in his report of shelly  case I   that the limitation to the heir male of the body of one who be dead  be quasi a estate tail in the dead person that take of it in that sense will  reconcile all the difference and answer all the difficulty that have be object  against it and that it be to be take in this sense he cite Leon cro Elizabeth  light sect cro car Hodkinson and wood Mod and Mod the case of Southcote and  Stowell that this differ from the case of Cownden and clerk for the heir male  be not limit or mention to be of his body as in this case and say the case  Elizabeth at the end of Pybus and Mitford vent be a case in point for they Mr  Cowper to the same intent he think the distinction take by Mr attorneygeneral  will reconcile all difference and destroy all the fiction of the law against  they that it will take away all uncertainty in the description of the person  and carry on the descent as the testator intend it that if this notion of its  be g a estate tail in the great grandfather be but a fiction yet it may well  be make use of to destroy another fiction which exclude the heir male from  take precedent in chancery sir Robert Raymond to the same intent that general  speak a limitation to the heir male or heir female of such a one will carry it  only to those who be complete be any word that will mount to a description of  the e mean by those word there it will be sufficient though he be not heir  male or female in a strict legal construction especial where precedent in  chancery er p the heir general be exclude as in this case as to the objection  that the pound be a recompense only for the loss of the first estate tail he  say it must be take as a recompense for the whole for the defendant newcomen  can no more take under the limitation to the heir male of the body of the  great grandfather than he can under the first limitation to Robert in tail and  therefore the recompense must be suppose to extend to the whole and cite a  case of baker and wall in c b pasch IV rot that a person may take as special  heir where the intent be manifest to exclude the heir general Mr Vernon to the  same intent that the will of the testator be to be observe as far as it may be  that it be here in the case of a trust which this court have the direction of  that they have sometime vary from the rule of law and when they have so do the  court of law from the inconvenience that will otherwise follow have come into  the rule of the court of equity as in the settlement of term for ear beyond a  person life and so they may in this case Mr William on the same side put this  case if a man have issue two son a and b and a have issue a daughter and the  grandfather devise a rentcharge out of his estate to the daughter of a and  then devise the estate to his heir male no doubt the second son shall take  though the daughter be heir and say they come into this court only to know how  the estate shall be settle Lechmere by way of reply say that the notion  advance by Mr attorneygeneral that the heir male of precedent in chancery the  body of the great grandfather shall be in quasi by descent from he be entire  new and be attend with very great inconvenience for then lie Edward Barkham  quite out of the case suppose the sister have be dead leave a on he will be  complete heir and male too and yet he can never take because deprive through a  female and if Edward Barkham be to bring a formedon in this case he can not  lie the esplees in his great grandfather and cite Litt sect and my Lord coke  opinion thereon and the case of Mandeville there cite Lord chancellor this  will be perfect executory a conveyance be still to be make and they come into  this court to direct the manner of it suppose Edward have be heir and heir  male of the body of the great grandfather the conveyance can never be make in  the very word of the will for then he can not take at all it be like the case  of marriage article for settlement of a estate on the husband and heir male of  his body yet when they come into this court for a specific execution the court  model the settlement so as to make it effectual and will give the husband but  a estate for life the special heir male in this case be certain within the  testator intention to take but as it have be so solemnly argue he will take  time to look into the book before he will give his opinion but say he be  strong of opinion for Edward the special heir male and think that the  settlement ought to be make to he and the heir male of the body of the great  grandfather Vid post