case Framlingham versus brand November will SC S by her will say I devise my  house c to my son Robert and I his heir and assign for ever and in case he  shall happen to die in his minority and unmarried or without issue I give it  to my son harry and his heir the estate be to go over only upon one  contingency of Robert die during his minority and the estate vest in he upon  his come of age and be subject to his debt on specialty see the case cite in  the note to Welsh v Peterson ante atk the testatrix who be the mother of the  plaintiff husband and the defendant by two v enter by her will say I devise my  house c to my son Robert the plaintiff husband and his heir and assign for  ever and in case he shall happen to die in his minority and unmarried or  without issue I give it to my son harry the defendant and his heir the mother  die soon after she make the will Robert come of age and marry but die without  issue have leave debt by specialty the case cite for the defendant be soul  versus Gerrard cro Elizabeth Uvoodward versus Glassbrooke vern Hanbury versus  Cockrill h t see viner Abridg title devise pl Lord vaux case cro Elizabeth  Lord chancellor the question be if this be a devise of a estatetail in the  plaintiff husband with remainder over to Henry or if a fee with a executory  devise to Henry on these contingency I be clear of opinion this be a fee with  a executory devise and agreeable to all the case the first word give a fee but  it have be say it may be by explanatory word control to a entail the question  be if that have be do the defendant counsel say that to make it a entail the  testatrix need have do no more than have say if Robert die without issue I  give it to my son harry and all the rest be immaterial and that this will have  turn the general heir into heir of the body but insist still that what follow  be three distinct contingency if Robert die in his minority if he die  unmarried or if he die without issue atkins er p shall this construction  prevail have Robert marry and bad atkins issue and have die under age if there  be three several contingency the child will have be disinherit and the estate  go over to another this will be contrary to the meaning of the will and all  the rule which endeavour to make a construction agreeable to the intention of  a testator which be in this case confine to Robert die unmarried or without  issue during his minority this be not like the case of soul versus Gerrard cro  Elizabeth and beside at that time the doctrine of executory devise be not well  settle here it be one contingency of Robert die under age attend with two  qualification of his be unmarried or die without issue the word or have a  reference to the different qualification that may happen during the minority  which be all tie up to Robert die under age and though the expression  unmarried be unnecessary yet the mother intend to express her desire that if  he marry under age the estate shall vest so as to entitle the wife to dower  therefore be different from Lord vaux case in cro Elizabeth because there it  appear by what the testator clear express that he design by the word to make  the several sentence so many contingency but it be not a general rule that a  disjunctive at the end of a period shall make all the precede sentence  disjunctives if the intention appear against it upon the whole I think the  estate be to go over only upon one contingency of Robert die during his  minority subject to the qualification of his be unmarried and without issue at  his death and consequent the estate vest in the plaintiff husband upon his  come of age and be subject to his debt on specialty