BAMFIELD versus Popham all hill see SC I salk with note vern c S c Henry Roger  by will devise his estate to trustee and their heir in trust for the defendant  Popham for life and to his first and other son in tail but in case the  defendant Popham die without a heir male of his body beget the trust to be  void and in such case he give the estate to defendant the bill be bring to  stay waste and for a account of timber already sell Mr Popham have no son the  question be whether the word if he die without a heir male of his body beget  give he a estatetail by implication and it be hold it can not enlarge a  express estate devise to he for life afterward mich this case come on to be  argue before the Lord keeper assist with the Lord chief justice holt and  Trevor and justice Powell who all unanimous agree that Mr Popham holt KB have  only a estate for life and that it be a fix rule in law that a express estate  for life can be enlarge by a implication by express word it may as in the  common case if a estate be give to I S for life and after his decease to the  heir of his body that by express word enlarge his estate and make he tenant in  tail but it be otherwise in this case where a express estate for life be limit  to he and his first and other son in tail provide if he die without a heir  male or if he die without issue male or for want of issue male although such  word be sufficient to create a estatetail yet it be only by implication and  when a express estate for life be not before limit Even in a will a  implication shall not alter a express estate but where there be a subsequent  devise in express word to the same person to who a estate for life be before  devise that will enlarge the estate as in the case of Plunkett and Holmes or  Wedgewood S case in siderfin the case of king and mell cite milliner and  Robinson S case more Frencham S case Elizabeth Burleigh S case cite by hale  clerk and Davy roll devise to rise for life and if she have heir of her body  the heir to have it adjudge that rise have only a estate for life cro  Elizabeth Owen Bullington and Barnardiston devise to Evers armin for life if  he die without issue male remainder over agree it will not make a estatetail  and it be say that the reason of the thing and intent of the testator as well  as the rule of law be against he first for that it be plain the testator  intend that the first and other son shall take by purchase and not by descent  and the occasion of the proviso that if he leave no heir male c be not intend  to enlarge the estate but to govern and direct what be to become of the trust  in case there be no son to carry it over to the plaintiff and as to the  objection that a posthumous son be not express provide for but may be by this  imply estatetail it be answer that be a remote contingency and it may be not  think of by the testator he may not think it necessary to provide for a  posthumous son but manifest think it necessary to provide that it shall not be  in the power of the father to bar his son and therefore make he but tenant for  life and beside it be of a trust that may support the remainder to a  posthumous son holt KB second it be object that by the codicil the testator  recite he have devise a estatetail to the defendant it be answer that in  common parlance and in ordinary acceptation where a estate be give to the  father for life and to his first and other son in tail it be look upon as a  entail and be the strict way of entail a estate but second a recital in a will  or codicil can amount unto a devise vent three as to Sunday S case in the that  report if he have issue male his son to have it and if he die without issue  male the estate to go over there adjudge the son shall have a estatetail but  that no way affect this case because no express estate for life holt KB er p  it be admit that no estatetail even in a deed may be raise by implication as  be adjudge in the case of gardener and Sheldon in Vaughan S report and where  there be not any express estate before limit as a devise to a man and the heir  of his body and then come the clause if he die without heir that shall not  enlarge the estate by implication but by express word it may be do as in Lewis  howl S case Rep covenant to stand seize to the use of a man and his wife for  their life remainder to the first and other son remainder to the heir of their  two body there the remainder be express and good decree a injunction to stay  waste and a account of what timber be fall