case earl of Salisbury against lamb and other legacy vest at twentyone devise  of a sum of money to a for life then to her daughter and young son in such  share as she shall appoint and in default of appointment for the daughter and  young son equal and to the survivor and in case no daughter or young son or  that they shall die before twentyone or marriage then over hold that the  portion vest in a s child at twentyone though they die in her life time see  Gordon v levy ante lib Reg a foe S C Eden in chancery that and that Dec the  parliament of thanet by a codicil to his will date d April declare his mind  and will be and as a testimony of ambler the great love and affection he have  and bear to his five daughter Catherine lady sondes whether countess of  Salisbury Margaret lady Lovel mary countess of Harold and lady Isabel Tufton  and the respective daughter and young son they respective have or shall have  he thereby give pound to his executor in trust for the equal and separate use  of his five daughter equal among they and their respective child be pound  apiece for each of his say daughter and their respective child to be place out  at interest with the approbation of each of his say daughter respective as to  her respective share and if any of his five daughter shall die then the pound  give for the benefit of such daughter and her child shall be in trust for her  daughter and young son in such manner proportion and to be Payable at such  time as such his daughter so die shall by deed or will appoint and for want of  appointment in trust for the daughter and young son equal among they and to  the survivor and survivor of they and in case there shall be no such daughter  or young son or all shall die before twentyone or marriage then in trust that  his daughter so die shall dispose of the pound and interest to such of her  sister and her young child and in such proportion as she shall then judge they  will have most occasion for the same and for want of appointment then in trust  for all and every the daughter and young son of her sister that shall be live  at her death equal to be divide among they lady Salisbury make her will and  appoint the pound among her child in unequal proportion her child all die in  her lifetime have respective attain twentyone bill to have trust perform and  to settle right of party plaintiff and defendant stride claim as  representative of two of the young child of lady Salisbury Lord Egmont claim  as administrator to his wife who be the survivor of the young child Isabel  Pawlett and mrs Southwell and lady Gower claim as young child of Lord thanet  who survive lady Salisbury ambler Lord keeper Henley I be of opinion that the  pound vest in lady Salisbury child on their attain so as to be transmissible  to their representative this question have be settle over and over again and  entire to my satisfaction as to the word survivor and survivor of they they  can only mean to give cross remainder to the child before the devise over can  take place vide haw v haw that June atk Ves sen note as the child all die in  the lifetime of lady Salisbury no claim be set up under the appointment vide  Cholmondeley v Meyricke April Eden ambler er p and the distinction take in  Gordon v Leir by the master of the roll that November but it be consider as a  lapse legacy accord to the resolution in case of oak v heath Ves and of the  duke of Marlborough v earl Godolphin Ves that the appointment lapse by the  death of the child in the lifetime of lady Salisbury see Sugden on power oak v  heath Ves Vanderzee v aclom Ves burgess v Mawby Ves see duke of Marlborough v  Godolphin Ves it be argue on the part of Lord Egremont that as the appointment  be void owe to the death of all the child in the lifetime of lady Salisbury  that therefore the clause of survivorship be let in by which lady Egremont if  alive will have be entitle to the whole pound for instance where the word  survivor or survivor of they or word of a similar kind as with benefit of  survivorship when couple with a demise to two or more person have be hold not  to constitute a jointtenancy see Lord bindon v earl of Suffolk peer wms  maberly v stride Ves roebuck v dean bro c c S c Ves stringer v Philips Eq can  Abr pl very v wood Ves Jones v Randal Jacob walker Harrison v foreman Ves the  question in the case upon this subject seem general to be to what period the  consequence of survivorship be intend to apply see further on this point  Cripps v Walcott Maddock Russel v long Ves Daniel v Daniel Ves jenour v jenour  Ves Houghton v Witgreave Jacob walker trotter v William pre Ch brown v Lord  Kenyon Maddock king v tailor Ves hallifax v Wilson Ves Brograve v window Ves  Armstrong v Eldridge bro Barker v Giles p W tread v down atk Bayard v smith  Ves