Bridgman oh Meredith v webber No report of this case appear to have be print  but it be allude to in Acherley v Vernon Mod and Mod and the first point argue  upon here be determine pursuant to sir Orlando Bridgmans opinion in a case  which his lordship mention and which be report in style and roll ab viner pl a  where a testator give all his feesimple land wheresoever to a b and his heir  and from one part of the will it be necessary to be infer that the word land  must comprise tithe the same construction of the word land shall be apply to  another which will not alone have support the same inference distinction  between the construe of will and grant distinction between a implication upon  a implication and a explanation of one part of a will by a implication upon  another part condition hark ms No fol Bridgman c j I think judgement ought to  be give for the defendant the point in question upon this will be but single  this whether the tithe in Comblory now in question do pass by the devise of  all his feesimple land to John sander and his heir the devise be in these word  if my wife be deliver of a daughter as she be I devise all my feesimple land  whatsoever to John sander my brother and his heir for ever upon condition that  my wife shall hold and enjoy my free land at Holford during her life after the  decease of Margaret sander my mother the doubt arise because when he make his  will he have house at Comblory which be sufficient to satisfy the word land in  the will but he have no land in Holford but he have tithe and those in the  occupation of his mother Margaret for life and he have copyhold land in  Holford at the time of his death as to which though upon the verdict it be not  find that he have there when he make the will yet it appear that he die short  after make of his will for his wife be ensient when he make it and be deliver  after his death and the truth of the case as I conceive be that he have  copyhold land in Holford when he make his will though I think it not material  to our case when Bridgman oh there the copyhold be purchase after the will  these position have be overrule in Brunker v cook Mod and archer v bokenham ib  where holt c j and Trevor c j explain the case from Plowden and deliver  elaborate judgement on the question see Jones v roe t r Longford v Pitt p wms  Whittaker v Whittaker b c c and broom v monk vesey and see Lord Raymond the  case of Lord chief justice sander will b Bridgman oh er p or before if he  purchase the land after the will make he die within a few day it will be  understand by his mention his free land that he then have the copyhold land in  Holford in his eye to buy they for by mention free land it import be  distinguish they from copyhold and so the will have influence upon the  copyhold in Brett and Rigdens case Com a a strong case be put if it be law a  man devise land certain as the manor of dale or Whitacre to I S and after  purchase it it shall pass for it shall be take that his intent be to purchase  it see the precede note c but whether the law be so or no in our case we make  no further use of the word free land express in the will but for explanation  of the farmer part of the devise and whether copyhold be then purchase or  intend by he to be purchase either case will serve to show his intent be to  distinguish between free land in Holford and copyhold there so that the  discuss of this case require a twofold consideration first whether by the  devise of all his feesimple land to John sander upon this condition that his  wife shall hold and enjoy free land in Holford any tithe at all even those in  Holford can pass and second admit the tithe in Holford do pass by the devise  of all his feesimple land by reason of the latter word on condition his wife  shall hold and enjoy his free land in Holford contrary to the propriety of the  word yet whether those word mention only Holford they shall cause the former  devise to be extend to the tithe also in Combflory now in question and true  though the tithe in Holford be not now in question yet the resolution of that  point be absolute necessary to the determination of the other for if those  tithe in Holford do not pass without question those in Combflory can pass and  yet admit those in Holford shall pass it be not so conclusive as to the tithe  of Combflory but it will require a sound consideration whether they pass or  not and first I conceive that the tithe in Holford do pass by this will we be  upon the case of a will when not the propriety of the word but the  signification of they agreeable to the intent of the testator appear in his  will be to be take many case have be already cite at the bar and many more may  be cite to show that the propriety of the word shall be subdue and bring under  the intent of the testator Bridgman oh in many case land will pass in a will  by word which proper do not signify land and other thing will pass by the word  land in a will which in a proper or legal signification be not land as Cr  kerry and derricks case by devise of his rend his reversion of the land as  well as his rend pass Cr Roland and doughty case by the devise of his live all  his land as well in reversion as in possession passed and so by devise of his  livelihood Owen fol so in a will by the general word land other thing may pass  in ewer and Heydons case Owen Rep Popham put the case that if a man have a  rend issue out of other land by a devise of his land the rend passes and this  be also agree Elizabeth by dyer manwood and mounson and land which be the  legal Latin word for land have a various acceptation sometime for in all  respects of the globe or super land as earth devoted to son hominum laudate  owner all men terrae there it be take figurative we translate it all the land  that be all inhabitant on earth but in our legal sense land be take sometime  for solum soil or ground sometime for any real inheritance and co raprebends  tenement tithe common general as in a warrant of attorney in placita terrae  and sometime for arable only as in fine de forty promontory terrae centum  promontory prati c and in a vulgar acceptation land be many time take for all  a man annual revenue be it land tenement tithe or other hereditament and tithe  be not so whole heterogeneous from land but that they may pass by a will of  land if the intent of the testator be so I mean such a intent which the will  itself and necessary consequence thereupon imply not a bare conjectural  intention in common acceptation as I say land be often take for all a man real  estate or annual revenue if the question be put how much land have he resp a  Bridgman oh er p year that be a proper answer and yet the value be answer not  the quantity or the quality of his estate but in this computation we shall  reckon tithe rend profit a prendre or render any thing whereof he have a  freehold or feesimple estate and tithe impropriate and in a layman hand quoad  law execution be as land and a formedon or other real action or common  recovery may be bring of they and the warrant of attorney shall be in plea  terrae as I say before a eject strong lie of they and so they be comprehend in  the word strong and a indictment upon the statute of forcible entry within the  word entry upon land and tenement lie of they I Cr and a assize lie de  possession no  yet it be bring de book property and to say truth tithe though  the original right of they be in their nature spiritual yet in Bridgman oh  pernancy quoad use produce even in the hand of spiritual person they be  temporal and part of the product of the land and in a manner concern land a  strong where the right of they be also temporal and make a temporal  inheritance by statute they may very well in a will pass by the name of land  if so intend and if the word be satis to reach though not consulta as justice  walmesley say Cr in Shaylands case they shall be construe in a will accord to  the intent and in hill Elizabeth c b I have the report from my brother brown a  man have the rectory of dale in fee consist of glebe and tithe and he have not  other land and be devise all his land in dale and dyer manwood and mounson all  hold that the whole rectory pass for parsonage appropriate since h be become  lie fee to all purpose and by manwood it be freehold and therefore it passes  as a rend charge passes by the name of all his land for it be land in its  nature which case seem to I a much strong case than our principal case for  there the glebe land without the tithe may have satisfy the word of the will  but this literal and favourable construction be to be make only in will the  law will have be otherwise in a grant and in our principal case I agree if the  testator have by deed grant all his land whatsoever nay all his land in  Holford though with such a proviso as this be and that he have nothing then  but tithe yet the tithe will not have pass for where a man have time to  dispose of his estate and he do it by deed he must attend as well to the  propriety of the word by which he convey as to his intent and therefore the  difference hold good in the case of a grant when the word may proper carry two  sound accord to the genuine or the legal propriety of the word I shall expound  the word in the most proper and vulgar intendment but if the intent appear  otherwise I shall expound they be that sense of the word though less proper  which be congruent to the intent of the grantor appear in his deed but I shall  not ordinary carry they to another sound vary whole from the propriety of the  word in ewer and Haydons case cite at the bar in Elizabeth b r now in print in  croak last report the case be Haydon seize of land and house in Launton in the  county of Oxford and of land and house in Watford in the county of Hertford  devise to I S all his message and land in Launton in the county of Oxford and  all other his land meadow and pasture in the county of Hertford omit house and  adjudge the house in Watford pass not and affirm upon a writ of error in the  exchequer Chamber Bridgman oh the general intendment of the word land in the  clause touch Watford be restrain to arable land and exclude house carter and  Ringsteeds case   in Banhams case and Elizabeth be to the same purpose but I  cite this because it be affirm in error so in the case cite out of row and  bartlett case Cr query Bartlet v Rhodes cite in Styl viner d but in truth it  be the resolution take in Bracebridges case Com a man devise all his land in  dale and he have only a term for yearsthen it passes for it be a estate in  land but if he have other land there it do not pass for there be sufficient to  supply the word and then by the vulgar intendment by the word land be mean a  freehold estate or inheritance but in case of a grant though the intent appear  yet the grant shall not carry any thing for which there be not significative  word to draw near to our case if a man have grant all his land in England to a  upon condition that I S shall enjoy his land in dale during his life and he  have nothing in dale but tithe and have land and tithe in other town I  conceive no tithe at all either in dale or elsewhere will have pass yet his  intent appear by the word of the condition he mean tithe but in Bridgman oh er  p a grant as I say then must be proper and significant word upon which the  court must make construction and not the intent but now in the case of a will  if the intent appear I shall construe the word accord to the intent contrary  both to the grammatical and legal sense as word of condition for word of  limitation and word of limitation for word of condition copulative for  disjunctive disjunctive for copulative and the like and it be all one in  construction of law to take away from word what they proper signify as in the  case which I have before cite where the word land be restrain from its genuine  to a more narrow sense and to stretch they further than natural they signify  by extend they as far as the testator intend but of this learning so much have  be already say that I misspend time by give instance so that in our case the  question be only what be the intent of the testator and I take it with some  clearness that he intend the tithe of Holford shall pass to John by the devise  for he have no other free land there but tithe and Margaret his mother hold  nothing but tithe and the demise be of all his feesimple land wheresoever to  his brother John sander upon condition that his wife shall enjoy his Bridgman  oh free land in Holford after the decease of his mother the condition that his  wife shall enjoy his free land in Holford be a restraint upon John now what  cause be there for the testator to restrain John as to Holford by the  condition unless be be concern in Holford by the devise in Sunday case   he  devise to his wife for life and after her decease his second son William to  have it and if William marry and have any male issue then his son to have it  and if he have no issue male then Thomas to have it and if be marry and have  issue male then his son to have it after his decease it be the resolution in  that case that William and Thomas Sunday have a estate to they and the heir  male of their body yet the estate be devise to they and to their sons because  there be a provision in the will I that if they or any of the heir male of  their body alien they their estate shall cease and the reason be there give  that every restraint especial in will imply that the party have power to do  that which be prohibit if the restraint have not be and in Shaylands case Cr a  man have child by two venture devise land to those of the second venture  videlicet to John and Francis his son and if they or either of they or their  heir do sell the same that it shall revert to the whole heir again by the  first word they will have have the estate only for their life it be adjudge  that John and Francis have a fee in respect of the word of restraint to the  heir from sell though it be void as a restraint so that it must necessary be  enforce here that by the first part of the will accord as the testator intend  it John sander may have hinder the testator wife from have or enjoy the tithe  in Holford during her life have it not be for the condition if in our case the  word have come in with a proviso provide that my wife shall enjoy my land in  Holford it may have be more doubtful for many time such clause be add for  explanation sake as upon the statute of e of office concern administration of  justice provide it extend not to a partnership and such a clause be a sentence  of itself and not depend upon the other clause but here the condition be part  of the same sentence and if it be speak draw out with the same breath as one  entire sentence make the case much strong whether the condition be a devise to  the wife of the tithe or only a restraint to John be not material in our case  but I hold it be both as be hold at the bar because unless it be a devise the  word that she shall enjoy can be supply but this be not a rule for all devise  in like nature as a devise to I S upon condition he Bridgman oh shall pay l to  I d I will not say this be a devise out of the land in lieu of l to I d that  though the heir enter for the condition break he shall have the l let those  case stand upon their own bottom in our case it be apparent by the restraint  in the very same clause whereby he devise his land to John that John be to be  concern in the tithe of Holford and that can not be otherwise than by their be  devise to he for otherwise they will have go to the testator daughter who he  expect shall be bear if this devise take place and so the tithe of Holford do  by the will pass to John in the general word of devise of land there be one  thing more to this point observable in his will he devise all his feesimple  land wheresoever in England to his brother John there be find no other  feesimple land in the manuscript the word print land be he have e but tithe  except the house which lie in Taunton house be not proper Bridgman oh er p  land but in a large signification and the word wheresoever have a strong  implication that he conceive he have more than in Taunton only else probable  he will have devise all his land in Taunton not all his land wheresoever but  that more be intend to pass than those in Taunton and that will be nothing  else but tithe and this though in itself it be no cogent argument yet concur  with the testator expression in call his land in Holford free land in Holford  make it a strong proof that his tithe in Holford pass by the devise of all his  feesimple land in Holford I think it necessary to say thus much in this point  because it be main insist on at the bar and it be the foundation of the rest  but I shall say no more but that it be adjudge accord to my opinion in this  very case in b r between sander and bish S C roll Abr vin title devise n pl  and sty f but enter h rot et such requiescat in pace the second thing in our  case be take it by admittance that the tithe in Holford do pass to John sander  by this devise of all his feesimple land wheresoever whether the tithe of  Combflory which be not mention in the condition do also pass and I think they  do the point I confess to I be of some difficulty and probable reason may be  give on both side and therefore no wonder if we differ in opinion but I shall  endeavour to establish my opinion by weigh the ground and reason of the  contrary opinion Bridgman oh the sum whereof be this it can be deny that by  the devise to John of all his feesimple land the tithe as I say before without  other expression can pass because he have house devise to satisfy the word of  the will and because tithe and land in their proper and legal sense be  heterogeneous and one do not include the other second that the tithe of  Holford pass as a devise by the will only by reason of a implication or  inference of his intent draw from the subsequent word upon condition that his  wife shall hold and enjoy his fee land in Holford after his mother death but  what reason be there to extend proper word which imply only his intent as to  Holford to carry also the tithe of Combflory the law will not allow a  implication upon a implication or a intention draw out of a intention but as  relation and they must be eager ad One and it be well say by justice walmesley  in the case of Sheyland v baker h Elizabeth now in print in cro Rep fol a will  shall not be construe by a intent upon a intent for then it shall be usque in  infinitum and it have be no further urge that though Holford tithe shall pass  by the word of the will yet it be but a consequence of the second or three  hand that the tithe of Combflory shall pass by it as first that by his free  land in Holford the tithe of Holford must pass to his wife and second that  therefore that they must also pass to John by the word feesimple land and  three that therefore John must also have Combflory tithe by these word and it  must be agree that it be dangerous to infer thing by second or reflexed  ratiocination in will and to extend they by second consequence and reduction  for that be to suppose those who make will and be presume to make they in  limit et weak consillii to have the vigour of their reason about they and to  be able to draw out logical and mediate consequence upon they but  notwithstanding all this I think the tithe of Combflory pass by this devise as  well as the tithe of Holford for first it be not the condition which give the  tithe of Holford to John though it be enough to give they to the testator wife  as I say before but that which give the tithe of Holford to John be the former  devise of all his land explain by the condition whereby it appear he intend to  comprehend tithe within those word land it explain the word his feesimple land  in the devise but qualify not the devise itself Bridgman oh and the influence  of the word of the condition even touch Holford tithe as to John be not to  bring Holford to be devise to he by they but to bring those tithe within the  compass of the former devise as manifest and expound his intention by that  devise of all his land wheresoever to John then here the natural and proper  conclusion from the devise to John of all his land upon condition that his  wife shall enjoy Holford be not that therefore be intend that Holford tithe  pass by the devise though that be true but that therefore within the word of  devise of his feesimple land he intend tithe shall Bridgman oh er p be  comprehend for by that expression the tithe even of Holford be devise to John  or not at all and so that the word expound be make adequate to the word  expound indeed I take it to be a necessary and immediate consequence if any  tithe do pass by the devise all his tithe do pass by it for if tithe pass by  the word feesimple land then by the devise of all his feesimple land  wheresoever all his tithe pass three it be incongruous to say that by devise  all his feesimple land he intend the devise of all his land proper so call and  part of his tithes for what ground be there to restrain the word all and all  things to say nothing to shut out and as I say before the word upon condition  that my wife hold and enjoy my free land in Holford devise nothing at all to  John but only show that the testator intend more by land than bare land proper  so call even all his feesimple land be it land or tithe and to say that by  this construction here be a implication upon a implication or a intention upon  a intention be a mistake a devise to his son after his wife death be explicit  to the son but implicit to the wife and here it be a explicit devise to the  son as to the person and as to the estate but the word be general be expound  by other word in the devise for illustrate this a little put the case I put  before A man seize of house and land in Oxfordshire and house and land in  Hertfordshire devise all his house and land in Oxfordshire and all his land in  Hertfordshire to his son after his wife death here be a implication that his  wife shall have they during herlife but though the word land will carry the  house in Hertfordshire yet his intent appear otherwise and the house in  Hertfordshire will not pass this be not a implication upon a implication or a  intention upon a intention but his intention serve to explain the word land  that it shall not extend to the house in Hertfordshire so here the word upon  condition that my wife shall hold and enjoy my free land in Holford explain  his Bridgman oh meaning that by the word feesimple land he mean tithe and what  he have in feesimple and be thus explain of itself it carry the tithe of  Combflory not by a implication but by a express devise though by word which  need a explanation that which passes by implication in word suppose something  to be want in the words As a devise to my son after the death of my wifethere  want wordswords that my wife shall have it for her life and therefore it be  supply by construction of law subintelligitur quod to be away but in a  explanation no word be want but those which stand without a subintelligitur  and be only explain by somewhat that follow the same clause here that explain  they to reach to Holford tithe explain they also to reach to Combflorytithes  another reason why I think all the tithe do pass in this case by the devise of  all his feesimple land to his brother John sander be for that I take the  emphasis rest as much upon the word feesimple as the word land if it have be a  devise of all his feesimples to his brother John tithe have pass without  question for his estate be a feesimple estate in they as well as in the land  in the will there be several expression of land first feesimple as contra  distinguish to term for year which he have give to his brother by his will  second free land which be contra distinguish to copyhold and yet both  feesimples accord to their kind the one by custom the other by the commonlaw  and if there have be a surrender of his copyhold in Holford to the use of his  will I think they will have pass by the devise of his feesimple land and  though the law will not suffer the copyhold in Holford to pass to John there  be no surrender yet still his will be the same his intent be that his wife  shall have his freehold land there not his copyhold his freehold land there be  contra distinguish to his copyhold land but not to his feesimple land and that  answer the objection that be make at the bar why the wife shall not have  Combflory by the will as well as John have Holford the reason be  apparent Holford land can comprehend Combflory land but land be a general word  may if the intent of the will be so comprehend both Holford and Combflory if  in our case he have devise his feesimple land in Taunton to his brother John  upon condition his wife shall enjoy his land in Holford neither his tithe or  land in Holford or Combflory will pass to John but devise general all his  feesimple land wheresoever to his brother John and by the condition it appear  that he intend some tithe to be comprehend in that devise quod Bridgman oh  generally dictum Bridgman oh er p generally to come to know and some tithe be  certain comprehend in they I argue this point as admit the tithe in Holford do  pass I know no warrant to qualify those word all his feesimple land that they  shall take in some tithe and exclude other but that since tithe be within the  devise of his feesimple land all his tithe be also comprehend within the  devise of all his feesimple land and so upon the whole matter I think  judgement ought to be give for the defendant who claim under the devise and  judgement be give f or the defendant some exception be take to the plead on  the behalf of the defendant but I conclude with the defendant need not take  advantage of they