BRONKER versus coke pasch Ann special verdict I do hereby give to my wife all  such sum or sum of money as shall be due to I for wage at the time of my death  and also all such land and tenement and all my estate whatsoever whereof holt  KB shall be possess or invest with or shall in any wise belong to I at the  time of my death c ut above Broderick for the plaintiff say that here the wife  by devise of all my estate have a feesimple for a devise of all my estate  carry a fee if the devisor have a fee land be devisable as a chattel by the  statute of will for land be devisable by custom tanquam catalla Fitzherbert  devise   light a and land devisable by custom may be devise by parole cro if  one be seize at the time of the devisor S death it be sufficient and it be not  necessary he shall be seize at the time of the will make ass f prescription  for this reason a man may devise to his wife sect and a jointtenant S devise  be not good sect because will death complete be if a feme covert devise and  after become sole this be not good without a new publication there be a  incapacity at the time of the make if I devise to the child of a this will not  only extend to the child that a have at that time but such as he shall  afterward have if I devise the manor of dale and afterward purchase it this be  good per loveless Plowd this be good by the custom because my intent appear so  in our case as to the statute of will the word have will not affect we if it  will sure as have be say by Mr Raymond it will have the same effect in the  negative as in the affirmative clause since that statute a use suspend may be  devise I Leon Leon dyer if I devise all the good which I now have in such a  room and after I put in other good they shall pass holt KB er p holt CJ  suppose the devisee put in other good Broderick I will say nothing to that it  may be a fraud sir Edward Northey for the defendant I think the word have in  the statute of will have be settle and that be ever restrain to a present  right it have be think and hold that a man can not by any word convey any land  which he have not Ro and authority cite by sergeant Parker for the foundation  of a man S power be the have of the land and I think people shall be cautious  of large construction in such case since man inheritance depend upon it I  think it be agree on all hand that a devise of all my estate will not carry  away land which I have not and coke and dyer give the true reason of the  judgement in Brett and Rigden S case to be on the word have and not the holt  KB intent of the party so be   a b where he say a man shall have a estate at  the time of write or publish I Ro Cr a devisee can devise because he have but  a right so a man can devise a reversion which be discontinue Cr Charles and  though the statute of will bring in a new way yet it be to be construe by the  rule of law and he that can not grant can by this new law devise as infant and  feme covert though they be person have because they be incapacitate by the  commonlaw   a Cr the form of plead in all the entry be that a be seize in fee  c and be so seize devise and the law be best know by plead Cr the case put by  sergeant loveless be only for his client and the case of Yelverton and  Yelverton Cr be direct contrary in the case of a covenant to stand seize which  be always as favourable construe as a devise though a parole devise may be  good by custom yet it can be good only for what he have at the time of the  devise and it be a receive opinion say coke that the will take its effect from  the make as to what be say that by custom land be devisable tanquam catalla it  be very true that a man have a power to dispose of his land as of his chattel  but that do not make out that his land be devisable as chattel be and even in  the case put by Broderick where I devise ray good in such a room only those  good which be in the room at the time of make pass Swinburn of will and though  it be say that a devise to a infant in ventre sa mere be good which I agree  yet that be nothing to this case it do not appear that he do intend to convey  this real estate for the will be make in and he die in he make it when he go  to sea and have no think nor intent to purchase beside the word or nature of  the thing be against you for it be the common form of a seaman S will which  can never carry land be couple with his wage and other chattel I Cr Welkinson  and Maryland the will of the Lord chief justice sander be to this effect and  Jeoffryes be so clear in it that he will not suffer it to be find special holt  CJ I be in that case of sander S will and can agree with you sir Edward for I  will be very glad to have have it find special if a devise a house and after  purchase it will it not pass holt KB sir Edward Northey No accord to butler  and baker S case holt CJ when a man S intention be plain why shall it not pass  for the word have in the statute of will be no more than the law imply there S  not a word of seize in the will and I think the word in it be very lose Powell  I I take the case put by loveless in Brett and Rigden S case to be law for  when he particular mention a thing which he have not and afterward purchase it  it be I think the same thing as if he have it at the time of make the will for  his intent be plain holt CJ the word shall be very plain but there I think  they uncertain