Barnardiston king b davis and johnson how far the rule of law be that a heir  at law shall not be disinherit by a will without a necessary implication this  be a matter which come before the court upon a case make at the trial in a  ejectment the doubt arise upon the construction of a will of one Matthew trig  the will recite that his wife Rebecca be with child and take notice likewise  of the great care she have take of he in his illness and then provide that if  she shall be deliver of a son that son shall have the moiety of his real  estate at his age of and if she shall be deliver of a daughter that daughter  shall have the same and as to the other moiety after the death of his say wife  he give the same to his brother Thomas trig and his sister mary Hogland for  their life if they shall be live at the time of her death and if they shall  not then to his brother and sister child and then the will go on and provide  that if the say Rebecca shall be deliver of no child alive or if such child  shall die before the age of then he give his whole real estate to the say  Rebecca for life the testator die in and Rebecca be afterward deliver of a  daughter who come to the age of the daughter be heir at law to her father as  well as devisee Rebecca make a feoff of that moiety devise to the testator  brother and sister after her decease to the defendant and now in a ejectment  bring by the plaintiff on a joint and several demise of this moiety from the  daughter and the brother and sister child the brother and sister die in the  life of Rebecca and after the feoff make by her the question be in the first  place whether Rebecca have a estate for life in this moiety at the time of the  feoff and in the second place admit that she have whether the interest to the  brother and sister child be a contingent remainder so as it may be destroy by  the feoff or whether they take by way of executory devise sergeant Skinner  argue for the defendant and say he submit it Rebecca have clear a estate for  life he do agree that the case have go so far in favour of heir at law as to  allow that if land be devise to a stranger after the death of a man wife the  wife shall have nothing by this devise but the land shall descend to the heir  till the death of the wife happen but he do apprehend the case have never go  so far as to allow the land to descend to the heir in such case where there be  a express devise of a moiety to the heir the court say that they do agree that  a heir may be disinherit by word of implication where such implication be  necessary to make the word of the testator take effect and therefore it must  be allow that if land be devise to the heir at law after the death of another  that other take a estate for life but wherever the implication be not absolute  necessary the rule of law be establish and certain that the heir shall not be  disinherit of any part and in the present case the implication be not so for  the devisor may well intend Barnardiston king b that this moiety shall descend  to his heir during the life of his wife and that the other moiety shall come  to he by purchase under the will the court say far that the determine this  point will determine both for if Rebecca have not a estate for life it be  certain her feoff can not disturb the interest limit to the brother and sister  child accord they refuse to hear any far argument but give judgement for the  plaintiff Barnardiston king b er p