case Willis against lucas follow Bolton v Bolton l r ex explain in re Willatts  Ch if a testator devise his land to his young son be or his heir pay l ayear  to his other child during his life and after the death of the young son and  his wife then to the child of such young son the wife on the death of her  husband shall take a estate for life by implication for the testator by give a  annuity to his other child mean to exclude the heir at law S c Peer wms S c Eq  ab I S have three son a b c and daughter and be seize in fee of land part  whereof be gavelkind devise it by his will to c his young son he or his heir  pay ten pound ayear to a ten pound ayear to b so much a year to the daughter c  for the term of his life and after the death of c and his wife then it be to  go to the son and daughter of c accord as he shall have one or other equal to  be divide between they c die live his wife his wife enter as conceive it a  devise by impllication to her for her life the heir at law suppose the land  not at all dispose of by the will during the intervene time between the death  of c and the death of his wife modern report er p and that it ought therefore  in the interim to descend to he bring his ejectment at commonlaw but the wife  protect her estate by mortgage nonsuit he he therefore now bring his bill to  discover these encumbrance and whether they be not satisfy the wife in her  answer insist in the first place that this be a devise to her by implication  for life and second that though by the rigorous rule of law this shall not be  so yet that this estate be her chief dependence and her fatherinlaw have often  tell her before the make of his will that he will give it her for life and  have likewise after the make the will declare that he have do so she hope the  plaintiff shall not have the aid of a court of equity to get that from her  which her fatherinlaw so plain design to give her for the plaintiff modern  report the difference take in the yearbook Henry and cro as to estate by  implication videlicet that where the estate be devise after the death of the  wife to the heir at law there the wife shall take by implication but not where  the devise be over to a stranger be insist strong upon in favour of the  plaintiff as also the rule lie down in the case of gardener v Sheldon a Eq Abr  Vaugh keb Freem a that a estate shall never be raise by implication unless  where it be a necessary and unavoidable one it be urge in favour of the wife  that by a necessary implication in the meaning of the law be not to be  understand a natural necessity that the estate can go no where else but a  necessity arise from the plain intention of the testator in his will it be  also urge that the heir at law by have ten pound ayear give he when by law he  be entitle to the whole be evident by the intention of the testator as much  exclude from have the land descend to he in the mean time as if the devise  have be to he after the death of c and his wife that if the land shall descend  to the heir at law it will not in he be subject to the payment of the annuity  which will be plain contrary to the intention of the testator it be also  insist upon that part of these land be in ken must be take to be in the nature  of gavelkind and then all the son and their representative make but one heir  in which case the descent must be entire but this can be because as to a three  of the land the representative of c be heir at law and the person to who the  devise be make it will be a devise of that by implication to the wife accord  even to the rule insist upon by the other side modern report then there remain  twothirds to descend which will be a descent neither by custom nor by the  commonlaw not by the custom for that be already break in upon by the estate by  implication raise by the will not by the commonlaw for these twothirds must go  to the two son or their representative and the representative of c and here  again the wife must have by virtue of their own rule a estate by implication  in the three part of the twothirds because the devise be to the representative  of c heir at law accord to this way of take it of a three part of the  twothirds Parker Lord chancellor be of opinion that the wife ought to have a  estate for life by implication the heir at law be exclude by the annuity but  this be matter triable at law be direct a issue accord where the wife be order  to waive her encumbrance and insist only on her title at law parole evidence  be offer to prove the intention of the testator to give it his wife but the  chancellor refuse to receive it modern report michaelmas term the five of  George the first in the court of chancery Thomas Lord Parker Lord chancellor  sir Joseph Jekyll Knt master of the roll