case nurse against YEARWORTH in the court of chancery a be seize in fee make a  lease for ninetynine year to b to the use of his will and devise his estate to  the heir of his body on the body of his wife beget and for want of such issue  to the say b in fee equity will decree the assignment of this trust term to a  posthumous heir of the testator of who his wife be enseint at the time of his  death notwithstanding the term be extinguish in law by unite in b with the  remainder in fee S finch Ch Rep Richard Yearworth be seize of land in fee make  a lease to the defendant Christopher Yearworth for ninetynine year to such use  as by his last will he shall direct afterward he make his will in write have  then no issue but his wife grossement enseint and thereby devise the same land  to the heir of his body on the body of his wife beget and for want of such  issue to the say Christopher the defendant and his heir Richard die and about  a month after a son be bear the son by virtue of this devise enjoy the land  but when he attain his full age of one and twenty year he suffer a common  recovery and afterward devise the land to the complainant nurse and die modern  the complainant exhibit a bill against the defendant to have the lease for  ninetynine year assign to he the question be whether he shall have it assign  or not first it be pretend that a estate in fee be limit by the will to  Christopher who be lessee for ninetynine year the term be thereby drown a see  Silvester v Wilson term Rep a second it be object that the devise by Richard  to the infant in ventre sa mere be void and then the complainant who claim by  a devise from the posthumus can have no title but that the defendant to who a  estate be limit by the will of Richard in remainder shall take present finch  Lord keeper notwithstanding what be object decree that the lease which be in  trust shall be assign to the complainant nurse he say that at the commonlaw  without all question a devise to a infant in ventre sa mere of land devisable  by custom be good so that the doubt arise upon the statute of Henry c which  enact that it shall be lawful for a man by his will in write to devise his  land to any person or person for in this case the devisee not be in a thing  nature in strictness of speech be no person and therefore it have be take that  such a devise be void more be Rep and it be leave as a quaere in the Lord dyer  b and see the case of snow v cutler lev side salk godb where it be say that  the record be different from the case as report by dyer see Powell on devise b  but in two case in the common plea one in the time when the Lord chief justice  hale be judge there the other in the Lord chief justice Bridgmans time it be  resolve that if there be sufficient and apt word to describe the infant though  in ventre sa mere the devise may be good in the king bench the judge since  have be divide upon this point that as the law stand now adjudge tlis devise  in our case seem not to be good but shall the case come now in question modern  er p be say he be not sure that the law will be oh adjudge for it be bare to  disinherit a heir for want of apt word to describe he and there be all the  reason in the world that a man intent lie in limit when most common he be  destitute of counsel shall be favour a see the case of hale v hale Prec in Ch  Scatlergood vedge Salkeld Musgrave v Parry vern beal v beal Peer wms Northey v  strange Peer wms ellison vellison vezey ill Burdet v Ro egood Peer wms Edward  v freeman Peer wms Wallis v Hudson atk hargrave   light b note the attorney  general v Crispin bro Ch Rep Gulliver v Wichel will and Fearns count Rem a