Butterfield v Butterfield Oct appeal from the bolls where it be hear as a  cause by consent remote limitationDevise of pound to be put out on good  security for t b that he may have the interest for his life and for the heir  of his body if he die without issue then over the whole property vest in the  first taker and the limitation too remote judgement in a cause hear by consent  reverse on appeal see the supplement p the court however refuse it in another  case see Harrison v Ramsay Ves sen and supplement p see the judgement Ves sen  the bill be to have a question determine which arise on the will of t  Butterfield videlicet I desire that pound shall be put out on good security  for my son t Butterfield vesey senior er p that Ves sen he may have the  interest of it for his life and for the lawful heir of his body and if it  shall so happen that he shall die without heir it shall go to my young son  John Butterfield and the lawful heir of his body vesey senior the question be  whether t Butterfield shall have it as his own property absolute or only the  interest for life and afterward for the benefit of his child if any with a  limitation over to his brother but the brother give up his interest and it be  argue to be a establish rule that where mask estate be give for life and then  to the indefinite heir of the body there be no recovery by which the entail of  personal estate can be bar the first taker may dispose of it as he please and  though a personal can descend as a real estate yet if it be intend to go in  that course of descent which will be a entail of land the first taker have the  absolute property and remainder over can take effect then here it plain be  mean to the heir of the body as heir which can be confine to any particular  child or child by purchase for then the instant they be bear it will vest in  they and their representative will take which can not be so here nor can he  mean child live at the time of the death for if such child die leave issue he  mean the grandchild shall take in Lord George beauclerk v miss dorm June atk a  distinction be contend for that where a real estate be limit after a death  without issue it shall be construe indefinite but if a personal the court will  suppose it to mean at the time of his death but his lordship hold that in case  of a personalty it be after a indefinite die without issue and too remote be  this question upon a limitation of real estate it will not bear a argument  since the late determination of colson v colson in b r bagshaw v Spencer post  so that if this be a real estate it clear will be a estate tail Lord  chancellor that apprehension be that if this be of land it will be a entail  and that therefore it vest the whole property in the first taker but there be  one circumstance to differ this from the common case videlicet that here be no  gift of the pound to I Butterfield for then I shall clear have think he  entitle to the absolute interest and property thereof and the devise over void  as a devise of a personalty after such a limitation as will be a clear entail  of land and too remote a contingency because heir of body import ad infinitum  if nothing to restrain be superadd and in those case where something be  superadd both court of law and equity have with much difficulty come into a  construction to restrain it to issue live at time of the death as the first  word import ad infinitum in the devise over to t Butterfield where it  undoubted must vest the absolute property the testator have use the same word  except for life leave no reversionary interest or chance to his executor or  residuary legatee then why shall it not be so in the other in miss dorm case I  hold a devise of a personalty to vesey senior one and the heir of the body  general vest the absolute property in he and no devise over can be if nothing  more the only thing create a doubt be that here the interest only and not the  thing be devise to he unless the word for import a trust for he which be the  same as a bequest to he it be give he the interest for life which in the civil  law be call the usufructuary benefit and whether express word of gift or the  law construe it so make no difference note the case of peacock v Spooner have  be cite which Lord chancellor say he know not what to make of nor of the  opinion of the judge who be extreme divide as appear from the minute and that  Lord Harcourt disallow it let it stand over see Ves sen and in the mean time I  will look into the case of miss dorm I be always more jealous where cause be  argue on one side only and though I Butterfield give it up yet if a right be  in the child of the first taker the court be bind to take care of it as much  as if the other have insist on it Reg lib a fol where there be a express  limitation of a chattel by word which if apply to a freehold will create a  express estate tail the whole interest vest absolute in the first taker and  the limitation over be too remote but where there be no express legal  limitation the court will consider the intention of the testator per Ashhurst  Jus durnford and east vesey senior er p