case Bagnell against ABNETT in the common plea if a man have land call a and b  devise all his land to trustee for payment of debt until his grandson attain  the age of twentyone year and from thenceforth give all the say land call a as  follow videlicet two part of the land call a for raise money the other three  for another purpose and then to his grandson take no notice of the land call b  yet the land call b shall pass to the grandson for there be a sufficient  description in the first part of the will all my land it shall not be control  by the subsequent imperfect explanation in a special verdict in ejectment the  case be thus John Herbert be seize in fee of the tenement in question and have  issue two daughter Margaret marry to one Lander and Elizabeth Margaret have  issue John and James c and the say John Herbert be so seize of the tenement  aforesaid call by the name of Upper and low house tenement one of which the  jury find to be of the yearly value of thirty pound and modern the other of  forty pound devise they in these word I devise all my message in Milwich  Corton and Frasdale to trustee c name they upon special trust for payment of  debt until my grandson John Lander attain the age of twentyone year and from  thenceforth I give all my say message land and tenement in Milwich Corton and  Frasdale as follow videlicet two part of the Nether house tenement the whole  in three to be divide for the raise of two hundred pound c the remainder to  John Lander and the heir of his body remainder to James and the heir of his  body remainder to the right heir of the devisor the other three part after  some trust c he devise to John and James ut above but do not mention the Upper  house tenement John Herbert die and John Lander also die without issue c and  James the second son of Margaret be lessor of the plaintiff the question be  whether the videlicet and the clause which follow shall relate only to  restrain the devise to the Nether house alone or whether the whole estate be  not by general word devise to the grandson for if not it must come to the  daughter the clause come after the videlicet do not restrain this devise to  the Nether house tenement but upon the whole construction of the will both the  tenement pass to the lessor of the plaintiff for the general word comprehend  the whole estate and the videlicet be only directive how part of it shall go  and if it be not thus expound it be repugnant e contra the Upper house  tenement do not pass for both be distinct part of the testator estate and  distinct devise therefore it be against the rule of law that one shall pass by  the devise of the other especial in this case where the testator himself  distinguish they by his will agreeable with this be a resolution in this court  Hilary term car Wilkinson v Maryland cro car roll Abr Jones a a man be seize  of a cornerhouse and another contiguous in the occupation of several tenant  and devise the cornerhouse recite it to be in the occupation of the proper  tenant and of he who be likewise tenant to the other house now they will have  that other house pass by that devise because the tenant of it be name but it  be hold that it shall not for nothing pass but what be particular express  which be the cornerhouse and that the mistake modern addition of a wrong  tenant shall not make that void which be sufficient make certain by the name  of a cornerhouse wherever any land be express devise no implication though  ever so strong shall carry it otherwise as if a man have a farm call by a  particular name part whereof be let and part use by the owner himself who  devise all his farm name it and the land thereunto belong in the tenure of his  tenant to his wife for life and that it and all the rest modern er p of his  land shall remain to r after the death of his wife Higham v baker cro  Elizabeth Leon Leon more b these word shall not carry it by implication to the  wife because there be a express devise to her before of the other part many  more proof may be bring of this nature the book be full of they both modern  and ancient dyer a videlicet as where a man have land in a will and in two  hamlet in the same will devise all his land in the will and in one hamlet by  particular name it be hold that no more pass than what be express and that the  land in the upper hamlet do not pass but the case which come near to this in  question be where the testator have a farm which extend to two will which farm  be call Heylands and the devise be of all his land in one will name it call  Heylands c nothing pass but what be in that will Wooden v Osbourne cro  Elizabeth b and the reason give be because nothing more shall be intend than  what be express by the testator there be yet a strong case than this at bar it  be and c a man have a house in Oxfordshire and house and land in Hertfordshire  and the will be I bequeathe all that my house in l in Oxfordshire with all  other my land meadow and pasture c in Watford in the county of Hertford c now  it be adjudge that the house in Watford do not pass because it be in a will  which must be construe accord to the express word and intent of the devisor if  it have be in a grant then the house will have pass as well as the land for  every man grant must be take in the strong sense against the grantor himself  and of this opinion be the court in the principal case videlicet that the  adverb videlicet be distributive here and show what the devisee shall have so  the plaintiff have judgement nisi but see Com dig devise n d