case red vers royston in b r if a man devise land to one of several coheir he  shall take by the devise and not by descent salk SC Eq Abr pl S c ld raym SC  pre Ch SC hark   Litt b n pow on Dev p wms the case be a man seize of land in  fee have issue two daughter one of which have issue a son and die the  grandfather make his will and thereby devise the land to the son of that  daughter and his heir then the devisee die leave his aunt and grandmother the  grandmother enter and enjoy a three part of the land as for her dower and pay  one moiety of the residue of the profit to the issue of the devisee and the  other moiety to the issue of the other daughter and die the son of the devisee  enter and claim the whole by the devise and therefore bring his ejectment  against the son of the other daughter who claim the moiety by descent and  whether by this devise the land shall go to the heir of the devisee or descend  to he as to one moiety with his cousin the issue of the two daughter as  copartner be the question and it be insist that when a estate be devise to the  heir it descend and do not pass to he by the devise Com dig ld raym ld raym  lev above p Str Mod SC cro Elizabeth Bac Abr a but it be resolve by the court  that the estate pass by the devise and not by descent for the reason why a  heir to who land be devise by his ancestor take by descent and not by devise  be because the devise be not necessary forasmuch as the same estate be give by  the will that will have descend but when the estate devise be alter in  quantity or quality the heir take by devise now by this devise there be a  alteration of the estate for if the comens land descend both the daughter will  be but one heir and will take as copartner but when a devise be make of all to  one or the son of one of the daughter then the devisee take by purchase in a  different manner from what will have be in case the land have descend then it  be argue that the plaintiff be bar by that James c a statute of limitation for  the profit of part of the comens er p estate be enjoy by the son of the other  daughter about twenty year say non allocatur for here be no ouster and the  statute of limitation do not extend to this case