case unton crook and gracious his wife plaintiff thomas BROOKEING all  defendant refer to crook v Whitley de g m g in re hopkins trust Ch d in re  Fleetwood Sidgreaves v brewer Ch d lord commissioner S c ante devise of pound  to a and b for such use as testator have declare to they and by they not to be  disclose a in the life of b write a letter disclose the trust this be a good  declaration of the trust devise of pound in trust for the child of a a have  only one child and several grandchild the child only shall take and not the  grandchild but if there have be no child of a live the grandchild may have  take Roger Mallock the plaintiff grace grandfather the that of February make  his will and thereby give to his brother Simon and Joseph snow one thousand  five hundred pound for such use as he have declare to they and by they not to  be disclose charge they Vernon chancery case that they will perform the same  as they will answer it at God tribunal the say snow accord receive the say one  thousand five hundred pound and afterward Joseph snow die Simon survive and  receive the one thousand five hundred pound Simon in the lifetime of his  brother Joseph write a letter to he date that November therein mention the  trust to be that they out of the profit shall allow whether crew a maintenance  for her livelihood during her husband lifetime and if he die before her she to  have the money at her own disposal but if the husband survive the money to go  among her sister child as she shall advice whether die in in the lifetime of  her husband have only one sister grace the mother of the plaintiff gracious  without give any advice or direction touch the dispose of the one thousand and  live hundred pound grace have only one child live at the death of whether crew  but have five other child live at the death of the testator Mallock who all  die intestate and their administrator be before the court as also such of the  child of the dead child as be live the question that be make be whether the  plaintiff gracious be the only child live of grace leech at whether crew death  shall have the whole one thousand live hundred pound if not whether the  administrator of the dead child shall come in for a equal share with the  plaintiff or whether the grandchild to wit the child of the dead child shall  come in for a equal share with the plaintiff Vernon chancery case the cause be  hear before the Lord chancellor jefferies in may who declare the trust be well  declare by Simon snow letter smith v Attersoll Russ and decree that the one  thousand five hundred pound shall be divide between the plaintiff gracious the  only child live at the death of whether crew and the child child as be live at  the death of whether crew from which decree the plaintiff appeal and now upon  a rehear decree by the lord commissioner that the plaintiff gracious be the  only child live at the death of whether crew brown v Higgs Ves Ves Ves Ves  shall have the whole one thousand five hundred pound and say the only  difficulty in this case be the word child and here be but one child and yet  notwithstanding decree it for the plaintiff and be clear of opinion where the  devise be to child the grandchild can come in to take with the child and turn  it into Latin and child and grandchild be express by distinct and different  word but all admit that if there have be no child the grandchild may have take  by the devise to his child Vernon chancery case er p together with such  interest as the trustee defendant Brookeing and Pengelley or either of they  have make or receive in respect thereof to be ascertain by the say defendant  own oath they respective to make such affidavit as the master shall direct and  the other defendant the grandchild to have their cost Reg lib a fol as to the  word under which grandchild may come in it be hold that a devise or bequest to  descendant will comprehend grandchild Crosley v Clare Amb so the word issue  cook v cook post davenport v Hanbury Ves freeman v parsley ibidem but the word  issue may be qualify and restrain Horsepool v Watson ibidem and upon the  construction grandchild may come in under the description of child it appear  to be the intention of testator they shall do so roil v Hamilton Ves in which  however the decision turn upon the word issue so in the case of a settlement  the intention of the settler shall carry the word child to the extent to let  in grandchild and greatgrandchildren Wythe v Blackman ves Amb SC note it be so  in the print report but there be only the word issue in the register book vide  davenport v Hanbury ub sup but the word child shall not be take to mean  grandchild when there can be any other construction per master of the roll in  beef v Bremer Ves et vide wield case   Rep Shelley v Bremer Jacob Vernon  chancery case de term S michaelis in curian porter