case leigh against brace Hilary term will roll discuss Tapner d Peckham v  merlott will if a feoff in fee be make to trustee for the use of the feoff for  life with remainder to his son in fee and for default of issue of the body of  the son to the use of the right heir of the feoff for ever the son shall take  a estate tail only under this deed S c Carth S c ld ray S c salk S c holt S c  Mod upon a special verdict in ejectment the case upon the plead be thus Walter  brace be seize of the land in question do on the twentyfifth day of July in  the year make a feoff thereof in fee to Thomas Wilkes and Thomas Flavell and  their heir to the use of himself for life and after his decease to the use of  his son Thomas brace and his heir for ever and for default of issue of the  body of the say Thomas brace then to the use and behoof of the right heir of  the feoff for ever Walter brace afterward die so seize and Thomas his son  enter upon the land who on the sixteenth day of April make his will and among  other thing devise the same to his soninlaw John coke and his heir on the body  of Rebecca his then wife beget or to be beget pay his debt and legacy the say  Thomas brace die seize of the say land and after his death John coke enter by  virtue of the say devise Samuel brace the defendant be son and heir of the say  Thomas brace and the say Samuel after the death of his father do likewise  enter upon modern these land John coke afterward enter and make a lease to the  plaintiff for seven year by virtue whereof he enter and be possess until  Samuel brace eject he and the jury make a general conclusion the single  question be what estate Thomas brace take by this feoff it be argue that he  have a feesimple for such a estate be express limit to he and if the deed have  go no far it must be a estate in fee and not otherwise but that which make the  doubt be the word which immediate follow and for default of issue of the body  of the say Thomas brace then to the grantor and his heir it be true these word  may create a estatetail in a will and alter a express limitation make of the  estate before and the reason be because a man in limit be weak council but it  be otherwise in a feoff which be suppose to be make upon deliberation and with  advice of counsel and therefore modern er p it be resolve in the case of  Dutton v engram cro car roll Abr a that where the testator devise land to his  wife for life and after her decease to John his old son and his heir upon  condition that he grant a yearly rend to Stephen and his heir and if John die  without heir of his body then to Stephen and the heir of his body that this be  a estatetail in John though it be object that he must have a estate in fee  otherwise he can not grant the rend in fee now this be in the case of a will  but there be a wide difference between construction of will and deed for the  latter be always take very strict against the grantor and therein the first  intention shall always take place for the law will not allow any implication  which can or may be make upon a subsequent clause in a deed to alter any  express estate therein limit before as for instance it have be rule cro car  roll Abr Jones b that where a copyholder in fee surrender to the use of  Frances and John reeve and the survivor and for want of issue of the body of  John lawful to be beget then to remain over with a memorandum that the  surrender be not to be in force till after the death of the surrender now if  this memorandum shall be allow to be good it will have make the whole  surrender void because it have be to commence at a day to come therefore it be  hold that the surrender be perfect in the beginning shall not be avoid by this  subsequent clause but that John shall have a estate for life only which shall  not be enlarge by implication by a subsequent clause either in a modern  surrender or conveyance where the party may have counsel to direct he it be  true my Lord coke in his comment upon LittletonCo light a hob a tell we that  if land be give to b and his heir habendum to he and his heir if he have heir  of his body and if he die without heir of his body that the land shall revert  to the donor this be a estatetail for the habendum shall be construe upon the  whole deed to be a declaration what heir be mean in the premise but this be  all in one sentence see Mr Fonblanques Edit of barlows equity b and for that  reason the estate in fee be never make perfect and absolute it be all but one  limitation neither do it stand with any implication as in the case at bar and  therefore it can be no authority to prove that to be a estatetail neither be  the yearbook of Henry the six yearbook Henry pl Plowd c ail authority to this  putpose where it be hold that if a feoff be make to a man and his heir and if  it shall happen that he die without heir of his body the remainder over that  the law will intend it to be a estatetail it be true the book be so but it do  not appear that it be the judgement of the court but only assert by counsel  arguendo but in the principal case the estate be once make absolute which be  do the grantor have execute his power and can never make any far limitation  especial it be in the case of a deed but on the other side it be say that this  be not a entire sentence but it be complicate with the whole clause that there  be many form of word to create a estate tail and though it be general true  that the word heir of the body be requisite in a gift in tail yet general word  which be equivalent will create the like estate as for instance land be give  to a man et heir de same svan   light b d for the maker of the statute de gift  Edward c e do not intend to enumerate all the form of estatestail it be very  true such estate must be limit by express word and it be sufficient if by word  which be of the same import and signification therefore Littleton Litt sect f  tell we what a estatetail be but do not show what word be necessary to create  such a estate now the subsequent word in this case do certain make ail  estatetail in the feoff for they show what issue be intend to inherit  videlicet issue of the body of the feoff and modern this will be sufficient to  abridge the precedent estate in fee and if these word shall not be take in  this sense then they be vain and to no purpose thus my Lord roll tell use  abridge the case in the yearbook ass pl roll Abr a if land be give to a man  and his heir habendum to he and his heir if he shall have modern er p any heir  de meat shall and if not that it shall revert to the donor though the first  word import a fee yet the whole make a estatetail agreeable to the case at bar  be that of walts v Wastfeild roll Abr b where land be give to a man and his  heir and if it happen that he die without heir of his body remainder over this  be a estatetail for the limitation or the remainder over show what heir be  intend but beak case Litt Rep c be in point that be in a conveyance by way of  feoff as this be to the first son who shall have issue and to his heir and for  default of such issue the remainder over this be hold a estatetail curian the  intention of the feoff be plain that ail estate in fee shall not pass to his  son for the subsequent word show that he intend no absolute estate shall vest  in he it be no more than if a gift have be make to a man and his heir  videlicet to the heir of his body so judgement be give for the defendant