case Lord bindon versus earl of suffolk follow in re smith trust Ch d Lord  chancellor Cowper Eq can Abr pl devise of a debt to two share and share alike  equal to be divide between they and if any of they die then to the survivor  they be tenant in common and not jointtenants queen the late earl of Suffolk  do by his will give and bequeathe the sum of pound due to he from the crown to  his five grandchild share and share alike equal to be divide between they and  if any of they die then his share to go to the survivor and survivor of they  peer William er p upon this the only question be whether the five grandchild  be tenant in common or jointtenants and on debate Lord chancellor hold and  decree that the grandchild be tenant in common and not jointtenants so that if  one die his share shall go to his executor and not to the survivor the reason  on which he ground his opinion be that by the first word share and share alike  it be very plain the legatee be tenant in common and peer William by the  subsequent word that if any of they die his share shall go to the survivor 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  for be it not for this clause if any of the child have die in the life of the  testator that grandchilds five part will have be a lapse legacy see post  Bagwell v dry and have go to the executor as undisposed of by the will but by  this devise over if it shall so happen that any of the grandchild shall die in  the lifetime of the testator such share will go to the survivor and though it  be object that the will of the testator can not speak nor take any effect  until the testator be dead yet the Lord chancellor observe that the will be  inchoate though not consummate from the execution of it and that to many  purpose in law it do relate to the time of the make and the word if any of my  grandchild die must not be take indefinite for it be most certain that they v  and all I other must die and to understand it in the sense that have be  contend for by some videlicet if any of my grandchild shall die before the  receipt of the money that be entire Delores there be nothing in the will tend  to justify such construction so that it must be understand if any of the  grandchild shall die in the life of the say testator from which construction  ever word of the will will take effect the decree be reverse on appeal to the  lord though qure whether in the case of stringer and Philips which be decree  at the roll in mich Lord cowpers opinion be not adhere to the bequest upon  which this question arise be in the follow word I do hereby give and devise  the say pound unto my brother George Howard and Henry Howard and unto Henry  Howard Edward Howard Charles Howard and Diana Howard son and daughter of my  say brother Henry Howard equal to be divide between they share and share alike  and if either of they die to the survivor or survivor of they George Howard  survive the testator but die before any part of the money be pay and upon his  share the question be make I bro parliament can vide Barker v Giles Vol h haw  v haw atk and ves S c stone v Heurtley ves rise v hill burr earl of Salisbury  v lamb Amb Eden S c and see anon hill ms rous v rous hill ms loft S c salk and  post gore v gore Vol two wind v Albone post Abr of case in equity the word of  the decree in stringer v Philips be these his honour declare that the devise  of the say pound after the death of the say testator sister Lucy and Katherine  unto the say Margaret Wiskey mary Harris Elizabeth Tucker mary Parker and  Alice stringer to be equal divide between they and the survivor and survivor  of they be a tenancy in common and not a joint tenancy and that the word  survivor and survivor of they be to be understand of such of they as shall be  live at the testator death Reg lib b fol the reversal be say to have proceed  on the particular circumstance of the case Brograve v window Ves jun the  authority of Lord cowpers determination as a general rule have be frequent  recognize see roebuck v dean bro c c Ves jun very v wood Ves maberly v stride  ib Russell v long Ves shergold v boon Ves garland v Thomas I n r Cripps v  Wolcott mad et vide Douglas v chalmer Ves jun Hinckley v simmons Ves Cambridge  v rous Ves Edward v Symonds taunt gallant v Leonard swan do v abey m S Harvey  v Mclaughlin price Hoghton v Whitgreave throw W peer William er p peer William  de term S michaelis