case simpson versus Hornsby Vid ante S c with note if a man by will empower  his wife to dispose of his personal estate with the consent of the trustee the  wife without such consent can by her will devise it and therefore the husband  as to that part be dead intestate my Lord chancellor have take time to  consider of this case do now deliver his opinion by which it appear that the  testator by his codicil have give his personal estate to such use as his wife  with the consent of his trustee shall direct and the wife have take upon her  to dispose of it by her will without any such consent which my Lord chancellor  say be a void disposition and the testator as to that must be say to die  intestate ab beginning and order a distribution accord as to the other point  he be of opinion that the wife take no estate for life by implication for he  have in the forgo part of his will devise several land to her for life for her  jointure and in full of all claim and demand whatsoever both in law and equity  and when he after devise after the death of his wife all his land tenement  rend reversion profit and hereditament whatsoever not before dispose of to his  daughter c this shall be take distributive that be to say all the land which  he have before give his wife to go to his daughter after her death and all  other his land not before devise to his daughter immediate and to make any  other construction on these general word will be absurd when he have before in  such full and express word provide for his wife beside that in no case a heir  at law be to be disinherit by implication unless it be necessary which in this  case it be not ante precedent in chancery and as to the other point he say he  look into the book and find it already settle that Bridget die in the lifetime  of the testator the heir male of her body can not take by purchase for these  word be insert to express the quantity of the estate but if this be perfect  res integral he think it plain the intention of the testator that jane shall  not take till there be a failure of issue male of Bridget for so he think the  word and for want of such issue full import but since it have be so often  resolve otherwise he be now bind by these resolution as it be mere a point of  law but since it be so and a heir at law disinherit as to a moiety he will  decree no account of the rend and profit there be no infant in the case but  leave they to their remedy at law by entry and ejectment and say it will be  very unequitable to assist they in this case Vid Douglas Hodgson ux Ambrose  all it be afterward move for some further direction touch the disposition of  the surplus of the personal estate and the counsel mention the case of Britton  and Vachell ante where Mr Britton have several child give to his old son who  have disoblige he S and no more and give his executor a legacy and make go  disposition of the surplus and it be decree at the roll that the old son shall  precedent in chancery er p be let into his distributary part with the rest of  the child but this decree be reverse in the house of lord upon the express  word of the will which exclude the old son from any more than his os but the  court say this be nothing like the present case which depend on other  circumstance and accord the decree be settle precedent in chancery de boundary  S HILLARII in curian porter