case Perkins versus Micklethwaite one devise portion to his child a b and c  and if any die before twentyone or marriage the portion of the child so die to  go to the survivor one of the child die in the lifetime of the testator this  be not a lapse legacy but shall go over to the survive child one Micklethwaite  who be the defendant father have two son Thomas and Joseph and also two  daughter and make his will give thereby pound to his young son Joseph and  pound to each of his two daughter and direct that if any of his three young  child shall die before their age of twentyone or marriage then the portion of  he or her so die shall go over to the survivor and give his real estate to his  old son Chargeable with these portion one of the daughter die within age and  before marriage Joseph the young son die also within age and before marriage  in the lifetime of his father the testator peer William the father live to  have another son who he name Joseph and afterward write a codicil at the  bottom of his will by which he confirm the will thereby take notice that since  the last it have please God to give he another son and give a legacy of pound  apiece to his son Joseph and his survive daughter over and above what he have  give they by his say will upon this cause come on first before Lord chancellor  Harcourt touch the share of the decease daughter portion Viz whether upon the  death of the son Joseph the share of the say decease daughter that be vest in  Joseph shall survive with josephs portion his lordship decree it shall not  because the portion of the decease daughter become vest in distinct share in  the survive child and there be no word for create a jointtenancy of these  share qure autem for a devise over to two or more be a joint devise of course  unless there be word to sever the jointtenancy but the other point be reserve  be argue now before Lord chancellor Cowper and whereas it be object that by  the death of Joseph in the lifetime of the testator his father the pound  portion give to he become a lapse legacy and shall sink into the estate Lord  chancellor say it be improper to call this a lapse legacy but it be a portion  give over and shall take effect ante Lord bindon v Lord Suffolk and post  Northey v strange that the make the codicil be a republication of the will and  do amount to peer William a substitute the second Joseph in the place of the  first as in the testator have make his will anew and have writ it over again  by which new will the peer William er p second Joseph must take and that the  fix intention of the testator appear to be that Joseph shall have more than  his daughter whereas if the pound legacy shall be take to be a lapse legacy  then the survive daughter shall have twice as much as Joseph so miller v  warren vern Ledsome v Hickman ib and post Vol III note S c Willing v baine  post Vol III Scoolding v green pre Charles Hornsby v Hornsby mos Massey v  Hudson mere so Rudge v Barker can tempt Talb pain v Benson atk ex part west  bro C C S c walker v main I W in the matter of Scaife a bankrupt hear before  Lord Thurlow in Lincoln inn hall June the only question in the petition arise  upon the follow clause in a will I leave to a b and c son of Arthur Scaife  pound each the interest to be add to the principal c yearly until they shall  respective attain the age of year and in case one of they shall die before  that age then to the survivor a die and then b die both under year Q whether  that part of the share of a which survive to b upon the death of a survive  afterward to c upon the death of b or whether bs original share only survive  Lord chancellor it be impossible for I to determine this cc survive part to  survive again without contradict Lord Talbot decision in Rudge v Barker the  question be whether the word share in the case cite do not mean all that the  party take under the will which will take in the survive part as well as the  original share and which I shall think a very natural construction but here be  case in point express determine otherwise I own it strike I forcible from the  first that the whole ought to survive but I can find any difference between  this and the case cite as to the case of pain v Benson it seem to I that Lord  Hardwicke disapprove of the general rule which induce he to endeavour to find  a distinction I can agree with he in consider that case as a exception to the  general rule although perhaps I shall in his opinion of the rule itself  however it will be too much for I sit in bankruptcy when I can have no  opportunity of reconsider my opinion to decide this against the authority if  the party choose to bring this before I in a more solemn way upon bill and  answer I will give it more consideration in consequence of what fall from the  Lord chancellor a bill be file and the cause of west v Oliphant come on to be  hear before sir Lloyd Kenyon at the roll on the d June when his honour express  his concurrence with the cite case and say that it will be too much to extend  the word by conjecture beyond their natural import and therefore declare that  the moiety of the legacy which survive to b on the death of a vest absolute in  b and do not on his death under the age of survive to c