case Ridout versus pain may SC Ves I oh b p in the devise at the end of his  will say all the rest residue and remainder of my good chattel and personal  estate together with my real estate not herein before devise I give to my wife  who I appoint sole executrix the word together with my real estate the word  estate in a will general speak not only passes the land but the testator  interest in those land thus a devise of a estate in or at b or a general  devise of all the testator real estate will carry the feesimple if he have so  great a interest therein coal v Rawlinson salk Bridgwater v Bolton ibidem  murry v wise vern Prec Charles Barry v Edgeworth p W tanner v Morse can tempt  Talb Tuffnal v page atk Ridout v pain above Goodwin v Goodwin Ves Bailis v  gale Ves Macaree v tail Amb hold fast v marten term Rep though the  introductory word of a will as to all my worldly estate c be a strong  circumstance connect with other word to explain a testator intention of  enlarge a particular estate or pass the fee in case where he have not use word  of limitation or the word estate as apply direct to that particular devise yet  such introductory word will not alone be sufficient den v gaskin Cowp  Loveacres v blight ibidem right v Russell dougl cite roe v boulton ibidem cite  right v Sidebotham ibidem Frogmorton v wright will Goodright v Stocker term  Rep but where the introductory word be evident connect with the subsequent  devise or where circumstance show the testator intention that the word estate  in the introduction of the will shall apply to the subsequent particular or  general devise there the introductory clause shall enlarge the particular  estate ibbetson v Beckwith can tempt Talb hogan v Jackson Cowp Loveacres v  blight ibidem hope v brown burr Grayson v Atkinson will Frogmorton v holiday  burr so though the word estate include both real and personal property  beachcroft v beachcroft vern Grayson v Atkinson l will roe v Hervey burr  Fletcher v Smiton term Rep Tilley v Simpson in note roe v air term Rep yet if  that word be join to or connect with other word which show the testator  intention that he mean it mere applicable to personal property then the court  notwithstanding the introductory word will decree a intestacy in favour of the  heir at law Wilkinson v Merryland cro car Timewell v Perkins atk Grayson v  Atkinson will Bailis v gale Ves will carry the land and inheritance  notwithstanding they be accompany with the word good chattel and personal  estate Richard pain the plaintiff Elizabeth first husband make his will on the  four day of August and after therein recite that he have already settle the  moiety of his farm and land in Ovingdeane in jointure on the complainant his  then wife and that in case he shall die he think that not sufficient for her  to live hospitable upon do by his will give to the plaintiff Elizabeth one  moiety of the other half part not settle on jointure to her for life and also  give to her all his mansionhouse with the out house c wherein he then dwell in  lews and also a small parcel of Brookland in lews for her life and do by his  will give to his sister mary pain now mary Jones the other moiety of the  unsettle moiety of Ovingdeane and after the death of the survivor of Elizabeth  and mary to trustee to the use of his brother Robert pain for life with  remainder to the heir male of the body of Robert remainder to Thomas pain  remainder to the heir male of his body remainder to the testator own right  heir he likewise give the manor of grave farm and wildgoose land parcel of the  same to Robert and his heir charge with legacy he further give to Robert pain  the repute manor of redhall redhall farm and new farm parcel of redhall and  the heir male of his body and a farm call Burstall in Surrey to his sister  mary and her heir and two farm in Hanney and Laughton in Sussex to his brother  Thomas pain and his heir male and for want of heir male of either Robert or  Thomas then he give the last mention premise in trust for his own right heir  and all the rest residue and remainder of his good chattel and personal estate  together with his real estate not herein before devise he give to the  plaintiff Elizabeth who he appoint sole executrix the testator die on the that  of January without make any other devise or disposition of his real estate and  at the time of his death be seize of the advowson of Ovingdean and the four  part of a wharf call SabsKey in London which estate be not mention in the will  nor devise specifical to any person the testator not leave personal asset  behind he sufficient for payment of his debt and several dispute arise between  the plaintiff Elizabeth and Robert Thomas and mary pain atkins touch the will  and the real and personal estate of the testator the plaintiff Elizabeth and  the defendant agree to refer all matter in difference to the determination of  Mr Newdigate and Mr staple and the plaintiff and the defendant do by several  bind date the that of June b bind themselves in the sum of one thousand pound  each to abide the award of Mr Newdigate and Mr staple in pursuance of the  submission the arbitrator make their award on the that of October and recite  that the personal estate of the testator fall short five hundred and ten pound  six shilling and sixpence to pay his debt award the deficient sum to be pay by  the plaintiff and the defendant in proportion to the value of their several  freehold estate which come respective to they on the testator death either by  descent or devise and do further award with the like consent of all party that  one or more fine or fine recovery or recovery shall be levy and suffer of the  whole estate of Richard pain the testator as soon as convenient may be and  that all or any of the party shall join in the same as counsel shall direct  and that a deed to lead the use thereof shall be execute by such party to  confirm the say estate in the same manner as the same be give by the will of  Richard pain at the proportionable expense of the party by lease and release  of the that and that of may recite the will the difference between the party  the arbitration bind and the award it be by the say indenture witness that for  the better perform the award and effect the purpose submit thereto by the say  party and in consideration of five shilling apiece pay by Nathaniel traitor to  the plaintiff Elizabeth and Robert Thomas and mary pain they do grant and  release to traitor and his heir all the estate before mention of which Richard  pain Esq die seize or possess of to hold to the say traitor and atkins er p  his heir to the intent that he may become tenant of the freehold of the  premise so that three or more recovery may he have against he for bar all  estate tail and remainder in the say premise that the same may be convey  accord to the intent and will of the testator and declare the use thereof as  follow videlict as to the manor of Ovingdean advowson of the same parish  church of Ovingdean and as to the dwellinghouse wherein the plaintiff  Elizabeth then live and the parcel of Brookland and the undivided four of  SabsKey to the use of Elizabeth for her life and after her decease to a  trustee in trust for Robert pain during his life with limitation to his issue  male and several remainder over remainder to the testator right heir the  plaintiff execute these deed upon a apprehension that the use therein be  agreeable to the will be so inform by Robert Thomas and mary pain and their  atorneys and in atkins pursuance of these deed in Michaelmas term Geo recovery  be suffer of the say premise on the that of may the plaintiff intermarry with  Mr Ridout and they insist that Elizabeth be well entitle to the feesimple of  the manor of Ovingdean and also to the rectory of the parish of Ovingdean  which be not mention in the will and also of the dwellinghouse in lews and to  Brookland and to the undivided four of SabsKey and have bring their bill to  have the benefit of the will and award and that the estate claim by they may  be convey to they and the heir of Elizabeth for ever the defendant insist that  the use in the release declare be agreeable to the express word of the will  and that the plaintiff by the will of her late husband be entitle to a moiety  of the other half part of Ovingdean not settle in jointure to the mansionhouse  in lews and to the Brookland for her life only by the express word of the will  and as to all the residue of his real estate not particular mention therein  they apprehend that he only intend her a estate for life because he declare  the reason of his make such far provision for her be that he think such  jointure not sufficient for her to live hospitable upon and that be his only  intention of devise her any part of his real estate Mr attorney general for  the plaintiff insist the residuary word pass the estate in reversion as well  as possession and that the whole interest of the testator in his several  estate n t before dispose of pass to the wife suppose a man give a estate to a  for life and afterward say I give all my real estate to a that this will pass  the reversion because at the time of the devise for life the testator have the  reversion in he and therefore something still remain must pass by the latter  word all my real estate which be the reversion he cite the case of sir Letton  stroude versus Russel vern to show that the word land tenement and  hereditament have be hold sufficient to pass the fee in a devise and to the  same purpose beachcroft versus beachcroft vern and cook versus Gerrard lev Mr  brown of the same side cite no case upon the general doctrine because so well  establish but only those that bear a resemblance to the particular word of the  will videlicet Hopewell versus ackland in salk and in Lord Ch b comens and  Scott versus Alberry Lord Ch b comens and Hyley versus Hyley Mod atkins Mr  solicitor general for the defendant say whether Elizabeth be entitle to a  estate for life only depend on two question first on the general construction  of the will and whether the word together with my real estate be to be  construe to extend to the whole species of real property he have or to that he  have not before mention in his will there be a difference between a general  substitution of real and personal estate for if a man give a personal thing to  a he give it he for ever without any necessity for a limitation or  qualification of what estate but in real the word estate either signify the  interest a man have in the estate or only the thing the land and insist that  in the present case it mean only the thing and the testator do not intend to  give his interest in it likewise he cite wright versus horn in the common plea  in the time of Lord chief justice eyres hill Mod Cas in law and Eq where it be  hold the residuary word do not pass the estate but it descend to the heir he  cite likewise Markeaul and Twisdin Eq Cas Abr he argue that the testator will  not have give the plaintiff a express estate for life for a increase of  maintenance if he intend to have add the fee afterward atkins er p in Hopewell  versus ackland and Scott versus Alberry the court he say go upon the intention  and not upon the word estate nor in either of they be there any limitation of  what estate so that probable the person who determine they think real estate  will pass as well as personal without limit for what estate in the present  case be only the word real estate but not the word as in those case of  whatsoever and wheresoever the second question be if the plaintiff be entitle  to any relief after the award the testator die in the difference be refer to  arbitrator in June all the party be apprise of the will and of the doubt in  the will and agree that the arbitrator shall determine this dispute among the  rest and they have award it to be only a estate for life in the wife and if  person do not choose to go into a court of justice but to refer it to private  person they be equal bind by their decision as if determine in law or equity  the person who draw the deed to lead the use be Elizabeth counsel so that  there be no pretence of fraud and imposition and therefore the court will not  set the whole at sea again upon no other suggestion but the mistake of the  arbitrator as to the construction in the law of the will atkins he cite for  this purpose the case of anglesea versus Annesley in Ireland and which by  appeal come afore the house of lord here upon this point whether as Lord  anglesea have submit to arbitration mere on a misapprehension as imagine  Charles Annesley have no interest under several will and codicil shall be bind  by the submission and the house of lord determine the agreement to be bind on  Lord anglesea bro p c Mr attorney general in reply say the devise to Elizabeth  in the first part of the will be intend for a maintenance and the latter as a  gift and why be she not entitle to a bounty from the testator as well as any  other devisee the counsel for the defendant argue that where a testator have  give a express estate for life it shall not be construe the testator mean by  other word to give a great estate but this argument must be confine to those  case where it have be determine that a express devise for life shall not by  implication be enlarge into a great estate but this do not prevent a testator  notwithstanding he have in the former part of a will give only a estate for  life from give afterward a large estate by express word as to Mr solicitor  general be second point that the party be bind by the award it will be destroy  one principal rule in equity that the court ought to relieve against mistake  today the cause be in the paper as stand for judgement Lord chancellor I do  not direct it to stand over from any doubt in my mind as to the point make in  the cause but that I may have time only to settle what the decree shall be he  then state the will and the several devise and limitation of the testator real  estate and say I mention these particular because I think the distribution of  the several part of the estate be material upon the construction of this will  the testator die soon after the make of it and controversy arise between the  plaintiff Elizabeth the widow of the testator and his heir at law and the rest  of the defendant they agree to refer all matter in difference to arbitrator  who award that recovery shall be suffer of the whole estate of Richard pain  and a deed to lead the use thereof shall be execute by all the party to  confirm the estate in the same manner as they be give by the will atkins there  be nothing particular that bind down the party in the award because the use it  direct be relative to the will the party sign their consent to this award and  by deed to lead the use bear date the that of may the plaintiff Elizabeth and  the defendant release to Nathaniel traitor all the estate comprise in the will  to make he tenant to the prcipe for suffer recovery to bar the estatetail in  the premise that the same may be convey and assure accord to the intent of the  will of the testator it be to be relieve against this settlement that the bill  be bring and the particular complaint be that there be four parcel limit by  the deed to lead the use to Elizabeth for her life only contrary to the will  of the testator and intention of the party the first two parcel be not mention  in the will SabsKey and the advowson of Oving atkins er p dean the second two  parcel be devise to Elizabeth under the will videlicet the house in lews and  Brookland in all which she claim the feesimple the question be whether she be  entitle to the inheritance this depend in the first place on what be the true  construction of the will and what estate she take under it and in the second  place if the construction be with her then whether the agreement and the award  and the subsequent deed have alter the case and create a bar to the equity  that be set up by the bill the first question divide itself into two  subordinate question saint as to the parcel not take notice of by the will and  dly as to those who devise by the will whether the inheritance of these four  parcel pass by the word in the residuary clause as to the first it be very  plain that the inheritance pass and will not admit of a doubt Lord Hardwicke  then read the word of the residuary clause there can be no question but the  word together with the real estate will carry the land and inheritance  notwithstanding they be accompany with the other word good chattel c for  though there be case where it have be doubt whether the word estate join to  good c will carry the real estate yet when a testator say together with my  real estate it put it out of all doubt atkins the case of Markant versus  Twisden cite by Mr solicitor general be very different from this for there the  word be chattel real and personal what be chattel real Leaseholds and term for  year I not call so as be real estate but because they be extraction out of the  real as Lord chief justice holt call they then if the residuary clause include  the real estate do it contain the interest as well as the thing there be no  doubt but it do especial since the case of the countess of Bridgewater and the  duke of Bolton in Mod which be a book of no authority but the case be well  report Lord chief justice holt in deliver the opinion of the court say that by  consequence of law it carry the fee for the word estate imply a feesimple for  that be the general estate which every man be suppose to be seize of and come  from to stand because it be fix and permanent and import the absolute property  that a man can have he argue too it import a foe from the manner of plead a  and estate as in a formedon the tenant plead I S be feoff with warranty pron   interrog  position the tenant have and that shall beunderstood of a fee this  case have never be doubt since vide a report entitle holt case from to p the  consequence of this be that as to the two parcel not mention in the will there  can be no doubt but they pass by the residuary clause to the plaintiff  Elizabeth the next question be as to the other two parcel devise by name to  Elizabeth for life whether the reversion in fee of these estate be include in  the residuary clause I think it have be clear settle since the case of Wheeler  versus Walroon in Allen that the reversion will pass by the word rest of my  land and follow by all that suit of case of Willows versus Lidcot Ventr Litton  versus Faulkland c vern and in several other in Mod and Carthew then the  question be whether there be any thing particular to take this case out of the  general rule one objection have be raise from the recital in the will which be  as follow that he have already settle the moiety of his farm and land in  Ovingdean in jointure on his then wife and that in case he shall die he think  that not sufficient for her to live hospitable upon and therefore do by his  will atkins give to Elizabeth one moiety of the other half part not settle on  jointure to her for life c from whence it be argue that by this will he intend  to give Elizabeth but a estate for life to increase her maintenance it be most  manifest the testator do not intend to confine his bounty in all his estate to  his wife for life for he have not bare give her the usufructuary interest in  good and chattel but the whole property and therefore as clear that the  inheritance pass in those part of the real estate of which the will take no  notice and it be infer a great deal too much to say that he intend to give her  nothing but for life and do not furnish any argument to overturn the general  rule another objection have be start that the residuary devise be to the same  person atkins er p who be before make tenant for life and therefore  inconsistent to give her the same thing in fee which he have give her for life  only in the former part of the will this objection deserve to be consider but  I think be not sufficient it be a great deal too much to say that when a man  make a will and give a person a particular limit estate in one part of that  will and afterward devise to the same person in more general word that the  devisee shall not take benefit by such general residuary devise here be no  restrictive word if there be will have make a material alteration in the case  the law presume that a testator even in make his will may vary his intention  as suppose a man give a farm in dam Le to a and his heir in one part of the  will and in another to b and his heir it have be hold by the old book to be a  revocation but latterly construe either a jointtenancy or tenancy in common  accord to the limitation vide Ulrich v Litchfield atk as to the case upon this  head the only one that carry a opinion in point be ayley versus Hyley in Mod  and Comberb where it be adjudge that if it have not be foe a exception in the  will the word rest and remain part of his estate will have pass the reversion  in fee I do allow that be only a judicial opinion and not a judgement in point  but then consider that the case of hopwell versus ackland and Scott versus  Alberry determine since agree with this in the latter the testator say as  touch the worldly estate it have please God to bestow upon I I give the same  in manner follow item I give to t S all that my parcel of land lie in Waltham  abbey be the land in question item atkins I give to the say I S my wear  apparel linen book with all other my estate whatsoever and wheresoever not  herein before give and bequeathe it be true the word for life be not in it and  it may be say the latter word be explanatory of the intention in the former  but the court do not put it at all upon this but hold that from the force of  the word themselves that when testator give all his estate whatsoever it  comprehend all that he have real or personal estate n it be very plain  therefore that the reversion in these two parcel likewise passes to the  plaintiff Elizabeth by the residuary word and whatever may be the general  argument a particular one arise here from the will itself in favour of this  construction for as to part of what he give to Elizabeth for life he dispose  of the inheritance to his brother and his issue remainder to his own heir and  then give the rest residue c to Elizabeth this be show how much he mean shall  go in reversion to his heir and may very natural give the inheritance in the  residue to Elizabeth after he have take out by way of exception what he intend  to give to other person this be the true construction of the will then the  next question be whether the award and the agreement of the party sign the  award and the subsequent recovery and declaration of the use will be a bar to  the plaintiff it have be object by the defendant counsel that the award will  stand in the plaintiff way and that whether rightful or wrongful determine as  the arbitrator be judge of their own choose the party be bind by it especial  as no circumstance of fraud be pretend and there will be no end of controversy  if party be allow to come into this court afterward I agree this to be the  general rule not to open such agreement and the case of can versus can  determine by Lord Macclesfield be very strong to this purpose p wms but these  authority be not at all similar to the present case for suppose this have  depend on the award and that have direct different use than be in the will if  the arbitrator be mistake in a plain point of law it be a ground to set it  aside see Medcalf v Ives atk the case of comfort versus green in vern will  determine this point where Lord Cowper lie it down that if arbitrator go upon  a plain mistake either as to law or fact equity will relieve against the award  and in the case of Medcalf versus Ives the that of June I be of the same  opinion vide t atk atkins if indeed it have be a doubtful point of law the  arbitrator award may have stand notwithstanding the court upon great  deliberation shall be of a different opinion but I be deliver from this  because the award do not specify any particular use but direct that a deed to  lead the use of the fine and recovery shall be execute by all the party to  confirm the estate in the same manner as the same atkins er p be give by the  will of Richard pain there be indeed a recital in the award which afford a  conjecture but I be not to determine by arbitrary implication then the only  question be whether I be to relieve against the deed of the that of may if  this vary from the use of the will and the plain legal construction it differ  equal from the award and therefore there be no occasion to enter into the  debate how far the court have power over award or will confirm or set aside  the agreement and that bring it to what be the true construction of the will  which I have mention before I therefore declare that the plaintiff in the  original cause be entitle to have the use of the deed of the that of may so  far as they relate to the particular part of the real estate of the testator  herein after mention rectify and vary accord to the true construction of his  will and do order and decree that the testator house and the piece of  Brookland in lews and also the advowson of the parish church in Ovingdean and  the four part of the estate call SabsKey in London with their respective  appurtenance be convey to the plaintiff Elizabeth the wife of the plaintiff  Richard Ridout and her heir and the plaintiff Mr Ridout present in court  consent to pay the testator debt that remain unsatisfy and likewise to  reimburse the defendant any of the testator debt they may have pay off I do  further order that he do pay off so much of the testator debt as remain  unsatisfy and any of the defendant who have pay any of the testator debt be to  stand in the place of the creditor to receive a satisfaction from the  plaintiff Mr Ridout for what they have so pay Reg lib b fol