case wright against pearson and other in chancery d and that June devise to t  r for life remainder to trustee to preserve c remainder to the heir male of t  r and their heir provide if t r shall die without issue male live at his death  then over hold t r take a estate tail lib Reg b foe S c hill ms vol vol p ken  Eden Fearne count Rem Henry rayney have five grandchild by his only daughter  who have be marry to Robert wright and be dead by will of d may devise all his  freehold estate in the parish of Darfield and Roystone in the county of York  to trustee and their heir and assign for ever in trust after his death to  raise by the rend and profit pound together with ambler interest and to pay  the same to his five grandchild name they the son and daughter of his late  daughter Elizabeth wright to be equal divide between they and to be pay to  they respective at twentyone with benefit of survivorship and subject to the  raise and pave the say pound and the interest thereof to the use of his nephew  Thomas rayney son of his sister Frances rayney and his assign for life subject  to his disqualify himself as aftermentioned with remainder to trustee to  preserve contingent remainder with remainder to the use of the heir male of  the say Thomas rayney beget and their heir provide that in case his say nephew  Thomas rayney shall die without leave any issue male of his body I lie at his  death then and in such case he subject the premise to the payment of pound  apiece to his two niece Frances and Priscilla rayney daughter of his say  sister if then live at twentyone with benefit of survivorship and he empower  his say trustee after the death of his ambler er p say nephew to raise and pay  the same and for default of such issue male of his say nephew Thomas rayney  then as to all the premise subject to the payment of the say pound and pound  in manner and upon the contingency aforesaid to the use of all and every his  say five grandchild or such of they as shall be live at the time of failure of  issue male of the say Thomas rayney to take as tenant in common and to their  respective heir and assign equal to be divide between they share and share  alike provide that his nephew shall upon his death be place out apprentice to  some eminent surgeon for seven year and continue so long or else reside in  some college till qualify to be a clergyman and shall be ordain and in case he  shall refuse he direct that the estate limit to his nephew Thomas rayney for  life shall from the time of such his refusal cease determine and be say as if  he have be dead and in such case the premise so limit to his say nephew for  life and his issue male as aforesaid shall go over revert and remain to such  of his say five grandchild as shall be then live equal and to their heir as  tenant in common ambler Thomas rayney the nephew enter upon the death of the  testator and suffer a recovery of the premise to the use of himself in fee and  afterward die in without issue leave his two sister his heir at law bill by  the plaintiff as grandchild and representative of other of they who be dead  and be entitle to a share of the pound and as heir of such of they who survive  Thomas rayney and be since dead to have the pound raise and for a conveyance  of the estate to the plaintiff it be admit in the defendant answer that the  whole of the pound have not be raise but insist that Thomas rayney in his  lifetime or William Seaton the husband of one of the sister have pay pound  part of the pound to George wright the survive trustee in the will of Henry  rayney but it do not appear with any certainty the say William Seaton and  George wright be both dead and the latter insolvent Q whether Thomas rayney  take a estate for life with contingent remainder to his heir male in fee or  whether he take a estate tail on the part of the plaintiff it be insist that  the testator intend thatThomas shall have only a estate for life with  remainder to his issue male in fee in case lie shall have any such at his  death that the remainder to his grandchild shall take place only upon the  contingency of Thomas die without issue male at his death that he intend if  his nephew Thomas have issue male then his grandchild shall not have it that  the limitation to Thomas be express for life that the limitation to trustee to  preserve contingent remainder during the life of Thomas suppose that Thomas  take a forfeit a estate that the testator in many part of his will speak of  the estate limit to Thomas call it a estate for life that the word at the time  of failure of issue male do not mean failure of issue male general but failure  of issue male at his death that the precede word at the beginning of that  clause be in default of such issue and the same meaning ought to be put upon  the latter word that ambler this construction be agreeable to the testator  intention appear from the estate limit to the grandchild be make subject to  the charge of pound which by the plain word can take place in any event but of  failure of issue male of Thomas at his death d that suppose the present to be  the case of a legal estate the ruleof law as lie down in Shelleys case   Rep  will not control the intention by reason of the super additional word after  the word of limitation which turn the former into the word of purchase though  in themselves proper word of limitation that otherwise they will have no  effect or meaning and many case be cite for that purpose archer case Lisle v  grey lev raym Jon waker v snow palm king v mall Ventr lev dictum of Lord hale  clarke v day more shaw and weigh Mod Cas in law and Eq ledington v kime salk  which last be a limitation to the issue male in fee but dly it be insist that  this be the case of a trust the legal estate be to the trustee and their heir  so that the use be execute in they and therefore whatever may be the  construction in a court of law upon the legal operation of the word yet a  court oh equity will mould they accord to the intention it be say that this  case differ great from those case where the trustee be consider as take a  chattel interest only there the estate be give to they general ambler er p  without any word of limitation but here it be express give to they and their  heir that it be a trust throughout and whoever be entitle upon the contingency  happen must have a conveyance of the legal estate from they that the whole fee  be in law devise to the trustee no remainder can be limit upon it it will be  to mount a fee upon a fee that suppose Thomas can take by executory devise yet  the contingency have not happen to this day for the whole of the pound have  not be raise that the recovery can not be support at law but only in equity  ambler bagshaw v Spencer be cite as a case in point on the other side it be  argue that the trustee take only a chattel interest as in   light a Cordals  case cro Elizabeth carter v Barnardiston wms that Thomas take a estate tail  both by the intention and rule of law with remainder over to the grandchild on  failure of issue male general that if it be otherwise and Thomas shall leave a  son who die the next day the grandchild can not take notwithstanding there be  no issue male of Thomas in be and the case of Coulson v Coulson be cite Lord  keeper the general question be whether Thomas take a estate for life or in  tail that depend on two question saint whether the trustee take the  inheritance or only a chattel interest d the operation of the word to saint  the case cite do not apply to the present trustee take a chattel interest only  where the interest be uncertain here the limitation be to they and their heir  therefore they take the fee cart bagshaw v Spencer Ves sen atk see die v  Willan b a but though it be a trust estate yet in the case of a trust execute  there ought to be no difference of construction in a court of equity from what  there be in a court of law upon a legal limitation Jones v Morgan bro c c  Philips v bridge Ves piggot v Waller Ves bank v Sutton p W Cholmondeley v  Clinton I W Elton v eason Ves green v staple mad in wright v Englefleld post  to d testator have disinherit his heir at law for the sake of his name the  word heir male independent of the subsequent word be proper word of limitation  not only upon the doctrine in Shelleys case but as in cart Rundle v Ely it be  true there be many case where superadditional word have make the first word of  limitation to be word of purchase but all those case be find on archer case  and the first limitation have be to the heir ambler in the singular number or  the word each or every have be use so as to be descriptive of one individual  person who be to take Minshull v Minshull g king v burchell in chancery that  June Arab in bagshaw v Spencer the court construe the word heir in the plural  number to be word of purchase but there the intention be plain which be the  foundation of the judgement I proceed on the same principle here and I be of  opinion Thomas rayney tool a estate tail videlicet by the intention it be  beyond a doubt that the testator do not intend to give the heir male of Thomas  the fee the subsequent limitation over depend upon the word failure of issue  male general the proviso be collateral and if place upon the limitation the  whole will be consistent it will then stand thus in default of issue male of  Thomas to his grandchild with a proviso that if Thomas shall die without issue  male live at his death to raise pound for the portion of his niece see Austin  v tailor Amb n the above opinion be very dissatisfactory to the bar in general  Pratt attorneygeneral jewel Wilbraham and I be counsel for the plaintiff  Perrot de grey and clarke for the defendant there be a appeal from this decree  to the house of lord but before it come on to be hear there be a compromise of  this and other matter among the party ambler er p