case legate versus sew vern pale yellow Chanc Eq can Abr pl devise to a for  life and after his decease to the heir male of the body of a and the heir male  of the body of every such heir male several and successive as they shall be in  priority of birth c remainder over whether this be a tenancy in tail or for  life only this case be by the Lord keeper send to the judge of c b for their  opinion and be as follow George legate seize of land in fee bad a wife name  Elizabeth he have no issue of his body but have a nephew name William legate  be his decease elder brother son he have likewise a brother name Henry in  September this George legate by his will after many legacy therein give devise  his land in default of issue of his own body unto his say nephew William  legate for and during the term of his life and after his decease to the heir  male of the body of his say nephew lawful to be beget and the heir male of the  body of every such heir male several peer William and successive as they shall  be in priority of birth c and for want of such issue to his brother Henry  legate for mrs life and after his decease to the heir male of the body of his  brother Henry lawful beget queen whether William legate the nephew have a  estatetail vest in he or a estate for life only in the land to he devise  William peer William pro quer William Melmoth pro def sew ux may it please  your lordship in pursuance of your lordship order the party concern have  attend we with their counsel and after hear what be allege by the counsel on  both side and on consideration of the will of George legate we be humble of  opinion that William legate the nephew by virtue of the say will of his uncle  have a estatetail vest in he this be submit to your lordship great wisdom t  Trevor Jo Blencow rob dorm I be humble of opinion that William legate have  only a estate for life by this devise and that the word heir male of his body  as this case be be word of purchase for so the intent of the devisor seem  apparent be by limit the estate express to William legate for his life and by  the limitation over to the heir male of the body of every such heir male  several and successive c which word must be whole reject as idle and void if  we make the former word heir peer William male of the body of the say William  legate to be word of limitation and this construction be I think warrant by  the case of clark v day cro Elizabeth see this case cite and state at large  ante p and by archer case in   b for the reason of archer case be not that the  devise be to the heir male of the tenant for life in the singular number for  if it have go no far it have be a estate tail execute the word heir be nomen  proceeding by inference and the same with the word heir and so it be resolve  in the case of Pawsey v Lowdell roll Abr and the case of clark v day cite  before but the reason why the heir male there take by purchase be because the  estate be limit over to the heir male of the body of such heir male and so be  the opinion of the court in the case of Pawsey v Lowdell and of the Lord c I  hale in the case of the king v mell vent and if that be all the reason of  archer case and those be great opinion I have cite for it then there be a  direct authority for I in this case in the case of Lisle v grey Jones lev  where the limitation be to the same effect as here it be hold not to be a  estatetail execute in the father who have a estate for life limit to he and  the court go upon the same reason among other which I have rely upon in this  case and yet that be upon the con peer William er p struction of a conveyance  where general the word shall be take accord to the legal sense and their  operation in law shall control the intent and meaning of the party but we be  in the case of a will where the intent of the party shall control the legal  sense and meaning of the word peer William and it appear by the record of that  case of Lisle and grey that the judgement of the court of b b be affirm in the  exchequerchamber though the report of the case differ in that matter bob  Tracey memorandum in this case the will of George Leqate be of money direct  thereby to be lie out by his executor in a purchase of land oh be settle in  manner and accord to the limitation specify in the case above refer to the  judge and therefore the Lord keeper direct the case to be make and lie before  the judge suppose it to be land for that money order to be lie out in the  purchase of land shall be as land in equity and it be insist upon by Mr Vernon  that where money be order by a will to be lie out in land and to be settle on  a in tail remainder over to b there the court have decree the money to be pay  to a because it will be in vain to decree a estatetail in the land which he  may cut off by a common recovery indeed if a be a infant the court probable  will not decree post short v wood the money to be pay to he because during his  infancy no recovery can be suffer and a may die before he come of age and to  this purpose be cite the case of sir Robert car decree by Lord Jeffreys sir  Thomas powis content why shall not the remainderman have the benefit of the  chance of the tenant in tail die before a common recovery suffer and for what  purpose be recovery keep up but as so many medium betwixt a rash and a  deliberate act beside the tenant in tail though of age peer William may yet  die in a vacation before a term and so not have it in his power to suffer a  recovery Lord keeper if this be res integral where a purchase be direct to be  make and the land to be settle on a in tail c it will be most reasonable for  equity to decree the trust to be execute and the estatetail to be settle with  the remainder over that so such remainderman may have the benefit of the  chance of tenant in tail die before his have suffer a common recovery the  least right and though of the least value yet if it be a right ought not to be  take from any man but this matter seem not now open and I will not break in  upon former resolution I agree the case of Champernowne v north Chanc can vern  videlicet that a common recovery by beneficiary and trust in tail shall bar  the remainder as much as a recovery by tenant in tail of a legal estate but  whether only a deed execute by beneficiary and trust in tail shall bar the  remainderman or even the issue that be with I a doubt in regard a deed may be  make at a tavern or by surprise but a recovery be a solemn and a deliberate  act it seem in this case there have be a decree long since obtain by William  legate the first devisee against the executor of the testator by which it be  direct that the executor instead of lie out the money in a purchase shall pay  it to William legate the first devisee but Henry legate the devisee in  remainder not be party to this decree it be hold to be void as to he and in no  sort bind peer William the court appear afterward not to be satisfy with the  certificate of the three judge direct that a ejectment shall be bring in b b  in order to have the matter settle but it be say the party agree and so the  question be not determine Reg lib b fol the principal case in which second  word of limitation have be superadd on the first be archer case Rep Lisle v  grey lev t raym and Jones S c backhouse v well Eq can ab Luddington v kime ld  ray lev salk S c law v Davis ld ray Goodright v Pullyn ld ray pound stram S c  Minshull v Minshull atk Allgood v wither cite burr wright v Pearson Amb Fearne  count Rem Edward I Eden S c king v burchell Amb and t r note S c Eden S c roe  grow will do v lame burr do v Collis t r den v Puckey t r Goodtitle v herring  I east do v ironmonger east frank v stovin ib crump v Norwood marsh taunt S c  peer William er p see further as to the application of the rule in Shelleys  case in bale v Coleman post attorneygeneral v Sutton post Papillon v voice  post Vol two Coulson v Coulson atk bagshaw v Spencer ves atk hill ms S c Garth  v Baldwin ves Hodgson v Ambrose Doug Jones v Morgan bro c c et vide white v  Collins Com Rep miller v Seagrave Robinson on gavelkind dubber v Trollop Amb  do v lame burr but the practice seem to have be since otherwise vide short v  wood post Edward v countess of Warwick Vol two Cunningham v moody ves Trafford  v boehm atk Benson v Benson post bridge v bridge Ves ld Greenville v blithe  Ves uvykham v uvykham Ves Ireson v pearman b c it have be now long settle that  the issue in tail be not bar without a recovery actual suffer weal v low cite  vern Kirkham v smith Amb Salvin v Thornton bro c c Radford v Wilson atk  Fletcher v to lift Ves yet in ves Lord Hardwicke say that in this case Lord  Cowper hold himself bind to agree with the three judge and so decree but this  court be not bind by the certificate of a court of law Prebble v Boghurst swan  and see Trent v Hanning Ves in the register book there appear a order for set  down this cause on the judge certificate but the editor have not be able to  find any far proceed