case daw versus ferrers Lord chancellor Macclesfield prece in Charles Eq can  ab pl vin pl one seize in fee devise land to his grandaughter for life  remainder to his right heir male for ever and die leave his grandaughter his  heir at law and his decease brother son his next heir male the devise of the  remainder be void one seize in fee devise his land to his grandaughter be his  heir at law for her life remainder to his own right heir male for ever and die  leave his grandaughter his heir at law and also leave a decease brother son be  the next in the male line which nephew bring this bill against the  grandaughter to perpetuate the testimony of the will and for the write and to  stay waste the defendant demurrer for that by the plaintiff own show he have  no title to the reversion or inheritance of the premise against the demurrer  it be object that it be the declare intention of the testator that his  grandaughter his heir shall have a estate for life it be the same as if it  have be peer William say by the will that the say heir at law shall have but a  estate for life and the remainder be limit to the right heir male of the  testator this be description of the next heir male or of such person as at the  testator death shall be next heir male of his name that agreeable thereto the  case of brown vern precedent in Chan have be determine by Lord Cowper where  the notion of Lord coke Inst b that he who take as heir male by purchase must  be complete heir as well as heir male be deny and the case in vent of Pybus  and Mitford be cite as also the case there cite by Lord hale where a man have  three daughter and a decease brother son by his will give pound to his  daughter and devise his land to his heir male with a condition that the peer  William er p daughter who be his immediate heir shall forfeit their legacy in  case they shall give the heir male any disturbance as to the land upon which  it be resolve that the devisor take notice that the other be his heir the  limitation to his brother son by the name of heir male be a good name of  purchase but Lord chancellor interrupt the plaintiff counsel say that he will  not suffer the bar to dispute what be the foundation and landmark of the law  and though what be contend for may be reasonable if it be to be then first  adjudge yet whatever the law be provide it be certain and know it will be well  for the subject though in some particular instance it may seem unreasonable v  that in the case of ford and Lord ossulston salk Mod the remainder be limit by  the will to the heir male of sir Edward ford and this be determine to be void  at trial at bar every court in peer William westminsterhall and appear to be  so very plain case that in the king bench the plaintiff own counsel will not  ask a special verdict that the word heir male must be intend heir male of the  body and will never extend to a heir male of any collateral line and it not be  say in the will heir male of his or of his name the grandaughter who be his  heir at law may have a heir male though not of his name as to the case of  brown and Barkham that be mere of a trust but the principal case be that of a  legal estate where the rule of law that have so long prevail and be take for  grant must be observe videlicet that he who claim as heir male by purchase  must be heir as well as heir male beside this differ from the case of brown  and Barkham the remainder be there limit to the heir male of the body of sir  Robert Barkham the grandfather whereas here the devise be to the heir male  without say of any body wherefore allow the demurrer on a bill of review bring  before Lord Hardwicke in November the decree in brown v Barkham be affirm but  accord to the note of this case in hark   Litt note to b his lordship consider  the case as a exception to a general rule this case be again bring before the  court in gwynn v hook that November when Lord Hardwicke direct a case for the  opinion of the court of king b Reg lib a fol who certify in confirmation of  Lord macclesfield order vin pl note and that certificate be afterward confirm  and the bill dismiss with cost Reg lib a fol but in will v palmer burr on a  case send to the court of king b by the court of chancery the question arise  on both a will and a deed whether a take by purchase under the description of  heir male of the body of b not be heir general b be in the first case the  grantor the court certify that a take a estate tail by descent but they add in  the certificate that if a three person bad be the grantor they shall have  think that a will have take by purchase as heir male oh the body of b and they  also certify that he do so take under the will see baker v wall ld raym  Goodtitle v Burtenshaw Fearne c r Goodtitle v pugh ib Cholmondeley v Clinton  James W