case haw versus haw June Ves S c will SC a h devise all his manor to his four  child W c a and t their heir and assign equal to be divide between they share  and share alike as tenant in common and not as jointtenants with the benefit  of survivorship the court be of opinion the testator mean if any of his four  child die before twentyone it shall go to the survivor have use the same word  in the precedent clause relate to his personal estate and give the benefit of  survivorship there if either die before twentyone vide Lord bindon v earl of  Suffolk p W Barker v Giles p W stringer v Philips Eq ab pl p W tread v down  atk mend v mend atk stone v Heurtly Ves rise v hill burr earl of Salisbury v  lamb Amb Ettricke v Ettricke ibidem Perkins v bayntun bro Charles Rep  Armstrong v Eldridge bro Charles Rep Andrew haw the testator grandfather be  seize in fee of a moiety of the manor of DownBarns in Middlesex devise this  moiety and all other his manor in Middlesex unto his four child William  Carlton Andrew and Thomas haw their heir and assign equal to be divide between  they share and share alike as tenant in common and not as jointtenants with  the benefit of survivorship the principal question be whether by the devise to  his four child they take atkins er p as jointtenants or a tenancy in common  general or with any and what contingent limitation over as to their respective  share Lord chancellor the general rule insist on be true for certain  jointtenants be not favour here because they introduce inconvenient estate and  do not so well provide for family therefore atkins this court lean against  they and so I believe do the court of law now though they favour they former  and the ground upon which the that go be the multiplication of service under  the old tenor but the statute of car c sect have reduce the several sort to  socage tenure only another general rule be that where a man have make a devise  in his will with a great number of word that may seem to clash with one  another the court will put such a construction as may make they consistent but  if they be so inconsistent as that they can stand or be reconcile together the  court must reject those word that be least consistent with the intention of  the testator here his lordship recite the word in the clause this be a devise  in fee to all of they equal to be divide import a tenancy in common in a will  if there be no more word so Rigden v vallier atk but here be other expression  which make it still strong as tenant in common which be not as jointtenants  the last word be with benefit of survivorship and this create the difficulty I  be of opinion that these word be not so strong as to control the precedent  word for to construe it otherwise will be from doubtful and ambiguous word to  set aside clear and certain expression on the other hand to construe the word  with benefit of survivorship accord to the construction of the plaintiff  counsel as if he have say without bene/it of survivorship or not with  survivorship though I will not say but it have be do will be contrary to the  meaning of the testator upon the whole tenor of the will the next construction  put upon it by the plaintiff counsel be that this refer to a benefit of  survivorship to the survivor of the child if one or more die in the lifetime  of the testator but this be too nice a construction for it be more natural to  suppose that a man intend the child of his child shall be provide for than not  and the court suppose a parent be take care of the posterity of his child it  be not probable to think he mean that the benefit of survivorship shall mean  survivorship of himself for a testator very seldom provide for a contingency  in his lifetime for when any happen he may alter his will if he please atkins  not but if no other reasonable construction can be put upon these word the  court ought to resort to it as in the case of Lord bindon versus earl of  Suffolk p wms devise of a debt to five grandchild share and share alike equal  to be divide between they and if any of they die then to the survivor hold to  be tenant in common for by the word if any of they die his share shall go to  the survivor Lord Cowper say it must be intend if any of they shall die in the  lifetime of the testator for by that construction every word of the will will  have its effect and operation there be in another part of the will a plain  inference that he mean a survivorship arise among one another and not a  survivorship in the life of the testator it be in the precedent clause relate  to the personal estate where the same word be use and the benefit of  survivorship give in case any of they die before note these word in italic be  not in the register book though they be probable in the will this exclude the  put the unnatural construction before mention and word relata to be in to see  and be just as if he have say that if any of they die under it shall go to the  survivor then consider what effect it will have upon the construction on the  real estate the four child who be to take the personal take too the real  estate and the same word in the same will ought to have the same sense he be  here make provision for the young child to take indeed as tenant in common but  with the benefit of survivorship what benefit of survivorship can he intend  but the same as he intend in the survivorship of the testamentary part of his  personal estate I do no doubt but this be his real intention as he be make a  provision for young child and if one of they shall die do not intend any part  of it shall go away to his old son which will lessen the provision that be  clear intend for the young child and therefore his lordship decree accord that  the share atkins er p of Carleton haw one of the young child of the say Andrew  haw the elder in the real estate devise by lie will to his young child do upon  his the say carleton death under the age of year without issue descend to the  survive young child Reg lib a fol