case gower against Grosvenor and piggot a this case be take from the  manuscript of Mr short a Trinity term Geo in chancery S c barn Ch where the  report be incomplete mad more full report from a ms note distinguish  Bridgwater v Egerton Ves sen discuss Lincoln v Newcastle Ves Browncker v Bagot  Ves not follow Roland v Morgan Ph discuss Scarsdale v Curzon I h Shelley v  Shelley l r Eq Harrington v Harrington l r h l a devise his real estate to b  his brother for life then to trustee to preserve contingent remainder  remainder for his first and other son in tail with power to make jointure and  if his say brother have no son or if he have and such son die without issue  male then to c and his first and other son in like manner and will that his  plate jewel c shall go to the heir male of the family successive as his real  estate be settle as much as they can by law b die have no son and the  limitation to c hold to be good by way of executory devise b see the case of  Hodsell v bussell ante b S c bar c r S c Eq Abr sir Thomas Grosvenor give by  will to his niece the plaintiff several legacy who modern report er p bring  this bill to have they secure and sir Thomas not have leave sufficient asset  exclusive modern report the question be whether certain jewel and plate c  which sir Thomas be entitle to under the will of sir Richard Grosvenor shall  be take to be part of his personal estate Hardwicke Lord chancellor limitation  of personal estate whereby they be to descend in the same manner as real one  be very common and be with great reason allow when they be not contrary to law  but disposition of this nature as well as other must be subject to the rule of  law and if inconsistent with they can be valid I shall consider the clause in  the will of sir Richard Grosvenor upon which this question arise in two light  the one as it relate to the precedent limitation of the real estate the other  as a directory clause to the executor sir Richard have a intention to settle  his real estate and to limit part of his personal estate together with it as  far as the law will permit make his will and devise his real estate to sir  Thomas Grosvenor his brother for life remainder to Robert piggot and his heir  to support contingent remainder and after his say brother decease for his  first and other son in tail with liberty to make a jointure and if his say  brother have no son or if he have and such son die without issue male then to  sir Robert Grosvenor and his first and other son in the same manner item his  will be that his plate jewel library of book and furniture of his mansionhouse  at c and also of his dwellinghouse at Westminster shall go to the heir male of  the family successive as his real estate be settle as much as they can by law  this last clause must be consider as include every part of the limitation of  the real estate except that to trustee and the same construction must be make  as will have be if it have be in so many word my will be that my plate c shall  go to sir Thomas for life and then to his first and other son in tail male  remainder to sir Robert for life and then to his first and other son in tail  male it be urge that although sir Thomas never have a son yet the limitation  of the personal estate to sir Robert be void for the not happen of the  contingency will not alter the case and the remainder of a personal thing  after such a limitation of it as will make a estatetail in the case of a real  estate be void since man case a   a and Lampets case b   b the court have  carry executory devise much further and have hold they good even after a  contingent estatetail that never vest and I can but think there be a great  difference in the reason of the thing between all executory devise after a  estatetail contingent and a vest estatetail in the latter case no event that  happen can make it good as a devise to a in tail remainder over for there be  no contingency but the limitation over be upon fact that be certain in the  former case the limitation over depend upon the happen of the contingency  modern report as where there be a devise to a for life remainder to a s first  son in tail in which case before the statute of will c a posthumous son of a  can not have take so if a tenant in fee devise to a and his heir and if he die  without issue in the life of b then to b and his heir if a die without issue  in the life of b the remainder be good if not it be void the happen or not  happen of the contingency in these case make the limitation good or have and  great violence will be do to the intention of the testator if it shall be  otherwise the word upon which the present question depend take in two  contingency the one be if sir Thomas have no son the other if sir Thomas have  a son and such son die without issue male and the word take in these two  contingency the determination as I have before say must be the same as if they  have be express for what be necessary imply be as express and then the first  limitation over will undoubted be good so be the case of Lodington v kime a  salk a where there be a devise to a for life and in case he have any issue  male then to such issue male and his heir for ever and if he die without issue  male then to b and his heir for ever and this be but make the devise good by a  event clear within the intent of the testator the old case go a great way in  deny this doctrine and it be true my Lord modern report er p Talbot think  otherwise in a case that come before he b Qure if this be not the case of  Clare v Clare may b the case of backhous v well c Eq Abr ld ray stram Mod Mod  fort pale yellow Rep Ch c and burgess v burgess d Mod Pollexf finch c r Chan  case d be the two old the first be a limitation of a term to a man for life  remainder to his first and other son in tail and for default of such issue  remainder over the other be a term limit in just the same manner and the  remainder be hold void though there be a default of issue Lord Nottingham give  the same reason for both these resolution in different word the first he say  look like a perpetuity and the second have the prospect of a perpetuity which  I must say as Lord Vaughan do in a particular case I think be a very spunge  reason and such a one as I can by no mean come into for be it enough to set  aside a disposition that it look like a perpetuity though it be not real one  Lord Nottingham do not consider the double contingency necessary employ for in  both case though the limitation over upon contingency will have be void yet  upon the other it be good Lord Cowper upon the demurrer in the case of Higgins  v Dowler e salk vern Peer wms e give his opinion that the contingency not  happen the devise over be good but this be not to be take as a judicial  determination the case of Vachel v Vachel f Eq Abr Chan Rep Chan case f be  very material in the present question it be a modern report devise of the use  of several paint book c to testator wife for life and my will be that if she  be with child of a son that then after her decease the same paint c shall be  leave and come to the same son but if my wife be not with child of a son or if  the same son shall die without issue male of his body then my will be that all  ray say paint c after the decease of my say wife and death of such son as my  wife be now with child of shall come and remain to the use of Thomas Vachell  and upon advice with the judge and be assist by two of they the Lord keeper  with the judge be of opinion that the devise to Thomas Vachell be good in law  the contingency upon which it be make never happen the not happen of the  contingency be likewise give as the only reason for the determination in wood  v sander a Pollexf Chan case Chan Rep a and the duke of Norfolk case b Eq Abr  Chan case Pollexf b which resolution strong support the extrajudicial opinion  if you will of my Lord Cowper I do not think the word and if neither of they  leave issue c be much rely on in the case of Saberton v Saberton c Annally Rep  case t t Eq Abr c though I can certain say so for the judge upon a reference  to they do not certify their reason and I have not have a opportunity to  inquire into they in the case of forth v chapman d Eq Abr Peer wms fitzg d  indeed these word be much rely on but there be no limitation to the heir male  I have mention the general reason which weigh with I but there be no occasion  at present for I to determine this so litigate a point for there be other word  in this will that exempt I from that necessity videlicet as much as by law  they can by which word the testator have clear himself of all suspicion of  have design a perpetuity the true construction of which be as far as by the  commonlaw of this kingdom and the rule of this court they can now he may have  limit this personalty to sir Thomas for life then to his first son in tail and  if he have no such remainder over or until such son come of age and then to he  and his heir and if be die before he come of age remainder over which the  common course of conveyance prove and so be the case of tailor v Biddal e Mod  e and Massenburg v ash f vern f second this general clause in the will of sir  Richard Grosvenor be to be consider as directory for here be no express gift  but a general declaration only indeed if he have say my will be that such a  one shall have my picture c this have be a absolute devise but these thing  vest in the executor and I think modern report er p the legal property must be  construe to be in they so that sir Thomas Grosvenor have only the use of they  such clause as these be often insert in marriagearticle and be common in will  S where the testator have leasehold estate to dispose of and I modern report  think the most reasonable construction and that which always ought to be put  upon they be that which I have make in the present case videlicet that they be  directory and executory in sergeant maynard case a Freem a trustee be insert  though there be none in the will but that defect be supply here by the word as  far as by law they can therefore I declare that the plate c limit by will of  sir Richard to sir Thomas for life then to his first and other son in tail  remainder to sir Robert be not part of the personal estate of sir Thomas and  that sir Robert be entitle to the same