case university of oxford against CLIFTON that Dec devise of land to c and the  issue of his body live at his death and for want of such issue to the  plaintiff hold c take a estate tail lib Reg a foe Charles viner by his will  date that December devise Meanham meadow of which he be seize in fee to the  defendant and the issue of his body lawful to be beget live at his death and  for want of such issue t to the university of Oxford to be dispose of in such  manner as in the will be direct bill to have title deed secure Q whether the  defendant be entitle to a estate tail or for life only York solicitorgeneral  and Mr Wilbraham argue that he be entitle to a estate for life only with  contingent remainder to his issue if he shall have any such at his death for  the life or live of such issue remainder to the university the word issue in  this case be a special demarcation personce ambler that the testator have give  the meadow in a quite different way from what he will have do if he have think  the word will have give a estate tail very extraordinary that he shall give a  estate with remainder over which he know may be bar that every word in a will  ought to have a sense put upon it that the word live at his death be capable  of a construction for want of such issue mean issue live at his death the  period when the child estate be to begin be the death of the defendant and if  there shall be several they will take a jointtenancy for life that there be  nothing absurd in this or if there be the court can make it better Mr  solicitorgeneral cite Burchett v Durdant Ventr long v Beaumont wms Mr  Wilbraham cite Lovelace v Lovelace cro Bl devise to f d and his old issue male  he have no son at that time it be adjudge no estate tail but for life only  that the word old will not permit such a construction as to give a estate tail  also Wedgeboroughs case cite by hale Ventr Lord keeper henly without hear any  Council for the defendant this be the plain case I ever see in my life the  issue can take by present devise as jointtenants with the defendant the issue  be not to take by remainder ambler er p but by descent as all the posterity be  intend to take it can be a contingent remainder but a clear estate tail bill  dismiss vide a u gentleman v hall in chancery that July and the case of  Richard v lady Abergavenny there cite S c vern pale yellow see crook v de  Vandes Ves Dansey v Griffith m S Tenny v agar east Walter v draw Com Rep wile  v Lewis atk Robinson v Robinson atk Bennet v Tankerville Ves and see what be  say in Chandless v price Ves Elson v eason Ves king v burchell ante Boden v  Watson post