Allanson v clitherow July devise to a for life with power for trustee to  settle a jointure on his wife and subject thereto in strict settlement on the  issue of such marriage but if a shall die without any issue of his body then  over the latter word give he a estate tail by implication as to estate pur  auter vie see the supplement p W Allanson devise his real and personal estate  subject to the payment of annuity and legacy to trustee their heir executor c  to raise such annual sum for the maintenance of his son as they c so as to  afford he a liberal education till he attain twentythree and then on this  further trust that when he attain twentythree they shall grant convey and  assign all his real estate to he his heir executor and assign subject  nevertheless to such settlement as aftermentioned and if he marry a  gentlewoman with a good fortune note the word be not good but suitable which  the court declare to mean a portion bear a reasonable proportion to a jointure  of pound a year rentcharge r r and supplement p the trustee to settle a  rentcharge on her not exceed pound per Ann for her life as a jointure and in  bar of dower and subject thereto on the issue of that marriage in strict  settlement as counsel shall advice but if he die without issue of his body  lawful beget he give additional annuity to the same person as before which in  some event be to be diminish and the say real estate to his nephew c Cowper  for life then to the trustee to support contingent remainder then to the first  and every other son in tail they change their name to Allanson and in default  of such issue to the testator right heir for ever his personal estate to be  assign to his son at twentyfive but if he die before without issue then over  in a particular manner the testator afterward add two codicil by one of they  recite that have give his land to his son for life remainder over he give he  power to dispose of any part thereof but the money thereby raise to be pay to  the trustee to lie it out in a purchase and settle it in the same manner c and  with such alteration he confirm his will he also confirm it by the two codicil  except in the point there specify vesey senior this bill be bring by the son  to have a execution of the trust accord to the will and codicil he have attain  the age of twentyfive unmarried and insist that he thereby be become entitle  to the possession of both the real and personal estate see further supplement  p Lord chancellor this cause arise upon a will of which it be difficult to  make a consistent construction the estate be odd situate in respect of its  increase or diminish in point of value two point be insist on for the  plaintiff but have go upon the first they have not full consider the latter  where lie the Ridgeway tempt Hardwicke er p great doubt the first be that the  strict settlement direct to be make upon the son marriage with the remainder  over to Cowper c be all only contingent limitation videlicet if the son marry  before twentythree then to take effect but if he attain that age unmarried the  fee to be convey to he the second be that suppose this against he yet he be  entitle by the subsequent word introductory of the devise to Cowper to have a  intermediate remainder in tail general after the particular limitation  precedent to cowpers estate the defendant insist that the estate in all event  be subject to the strict settlement and that the plaintiff be only to be  tenant for life with remainder to his son remainder over the first point be  clear against the plaintiff that notwithstanding his attain twentythree  unmarried all the subsequent limitation be to take place within the intention  of the testator who meaning can not be to make they depend on that contingency  with which they have no connection and which must be confine to the increase  of the annuity only videlicet that his son shall not be so charge but that a  more remote relation shall if it come to his hand the disposition of the  personal estate can affect the construction of the real estate if it have stop  at the first clause it will certain have give a fee but the subsequent word  subject to such settlement c restrain it the word heir in a will be always  understand such heir as the testator mean and he have show here afterward that  he mean heir of his son body under some description or other and not heir  general so as to give he a fee and this construction be frequent even in legal  limitation but the codicil put it out of doubt where he say express he have  give to his son for life and then in strict settlement and it plain show that  he do not intend it shall depend on this contingency for the codicil be make  but a few month before his attain twentythree and if the testator have intend  he a fee what occasion be there iloigr the great care and provision for the  money arise from the sale when probable the settlement will never take place  it be so short a time between that and the son vesey senior attain twenty  three at which time he will have the absolute disposal as to the second point  I be of opinion upon great consideration that there must be such a  intermediate remainder in tail after the strict settlement for it will not  otherwise be preserve in the channel intend by the testator and to this it  shall be take for grant that by the former point he be tenant for life express  and then the question be whether the subsequent word if he die without issue  be sufficient to enlarge or give a estatetail by implication there be two case  to be consider wms vern unless the manifest intention of the testator appear  burr burr salk the general rule be that a express estate for life be not to be  enlarge by implication for which Bamfield v Popham wm be a great authority but  what be there rely on be the testator provision for all the issuemale of  Popham for it be wrong state in sal where it be only to the ten son so that it  can be of no use there to construe it a estatetail since it will be preserve  in the intend channel without that construction vide S p in attorneygeneral v  Sutton p W which I mention to introduce the case of Langley v Baldwin which be  a devise for life remainder to the first and so to the six son only and if he  die without issuemale then over Lord Cowper send it to the court of common  plea and the opinion of the judge be that the subsequent word if he die  without issue shall carry a estatetail in order to let in any subsequent son  who otherwise can not take but it will go over to a remote relation so that  the ground of the difference between this and the other case be plain and in  the present case the issue on the marriage only be provide for so that if the  first wife die any issue by a aftertaken wife will be exclude contrary to the  intent of the testator unless some benefit arise to they under the last clause  and there be the same inconvenience as in Langley v Baldwin which be wrong  report in equity ab in the very point it be object for the defendant that this  inconvenience will not happen here for that the trustee may execute this power  so often how often and that gentlewoman be nomen proceeding by inference but  that can be accord to the construction of power which can be execute but once  unless the word import otherwise as it evident be not here although it may be  execute on a second wife if not do before and this decree answer all the word  in the will it be object that this will give the son a power to suffer a  recovery and bar the limitation to Cowper but there be no help for that for if  the will be so frame as that the court can restrain such common recovery which  be a consequence of law without contradict vesey senior er p the testator  intention in the channel of descent the law must take its course let the  settlement therefore be make accord N B Lord chancellor observe that Lord  Trevor wm begin his argument in Bamfleld v Popham with say that it be vesey  senior resolve that beneficiary and trust with remainder to the first and  every other son c can not destroy the contingent remainder in Penhay v Hurrel  for although that point be not there take notice of because it be only a  report of the argument and that this show it be not entire a new point or  first determine by Lord Talbot in chapman v blisset and afterward by he in the  case on Mr Hopkins will as be apprehend at the bar Reg lib a fol