case nottingham versus Jennings salk Lord ray Com Rep Eq can ab pl a devise by  a father to a second son and his heir for ever and for want of such heir then  to the right heir of the testator be a estate tail but have the devise over be  to a stranger the second son will have take a feesimple and consequent the  devise over have be void in ejectment on the trial this case be make I S have  three son a b and c and devise his land to b his second son after the death of  his mother to hold to he and his heir for ever and for want of such heir then  to his the testator right heir the testator die after which b enter and die  without issue live a who be lessor of the plaintiff it be argue by Northey for  the plaintiff that the estate devise to b be but a estatetail and not a  feesimple and that the word heir shall be construe heir of his body for that  it must be intend the testator take notice that his second son b can not by  any possibility die without heir so long as his father have any other issue  who will be heir to he that this construction be find upon the same reason as  where a devise be to one and his heir and if he die peer William without issue  of his body then to another which be construe to be a estatetail because the  testator appear to have intend only the heir of the body of the first devisee  cro James web versus herring roll Rep cro James roll Abr keb vide also the  case of Parker v Thacker lev Carthew for the defendant insist that b take a  feesimple and rely on the case of hearne versus Allen cro car that this case  differ from that of web versus herring forasmuch as here be a express devise  of a feesimple but there the son take only by implication and therefore the  imply estate be make to give way to that which be express which diversity be  the foundation of that judgement that it must be agree if this remainder have  be limit to a stranger it have be void and b will have take a feesimple h b  cro James Yelv that this devise over to the testator right heir be entire void  for the old son shall not take by purchase by the word of the will but will be  in by descent for which reason this clause be a nullity and pass no estate it  ought not to assist the construction of the will by make a estatetail by  implication that the devise over be general to his the testator right heir and  no particular person in view and there be a express devise of a feesimple and  no express remainder b ought to take a feesimple and no implication to be make  of a estatetail but the whole court adjudge it to be but a estatetail in b and  by holt c I though the old son shall not take by this will but shall be in by  descent and so the devise over void in peer William point of limitation yet it  be sufficient to manifest the intent of the testator and aid the construction  of a estatetail see Vol III n a it appear to have be the testator intent that  the land shall descend from himself see kellow v rowden I show and not from  his son b that the reversion shall go to his own right heir and since that  clause discover his intent it be not material whether the devise over be good  or not I agree if the devise over have be to a stranger it have be void and b  have take a feesimple but in the present case the word heir can import nothing  more than issue for how can be possible die without heir live the other  brother so that the word heir must be qualify as suppose in this case the land  have be devise to b and his heir and if b die without issue then to another  this without all doubt will have be a estatetail the case of web versus  herring be a strong case upon the authority of which I shall peer William er p  have make no difficulty of adjudge it a estatetail at my chamber vide post Vol  the case of the attorneygeneral v Gill judgement for the plaintiff so Allen v  Spendlove Eq can Abr pl tyte v Willis can tempt Tal tilburgh v barbut ves  Goodright v Dunham Doug Pickering v tower Amb S c Eden Ives v leg t r note do  v perryn t r Morgan v Griffiths Cowp do v Welton b p do v Bluck marsh taunt et  vide Philips v Philips post Acc Brice v smith will do v river t r do v  Whichelo t r do v Ellis east Tenny v agar east Dansey v Griffiths m S