case leonard versus Com sussex see davenport v davenport h m Stanley v  Coulthurst l r Eq Eq can ab pl as to the account pl S c a devise land to  trustee to pay debt and legacy and then to settle the remainder on her son b  and the heir of his body with remainder over and direct that special care  shall be take in the settlement that it shall never be in the power of her son  to dock the entail decree the son shall be only tenant for life without  impeachment of waste and shall not have a estatetail convey to he the countess  of sheppey inter alian devise her real and personal estate to sir Charles  cotterell all and their heir to be sell for payment of debt and legacy so far  as her personal estate shall fall short r l and afterward to settle the  remainder and what shall remain unsold a moiety to her son Henry and the heir  of his body by second wife and in default of such issue to her son Francis and  the heir of his body the other moiety to Francis and the heir of his body with  remainder over take special care in such settlement that it never be in the  power of either of my say son Francis or Henry to dock the entail of either of  the say moieties give they as aforesaid during their or either of their life  or life and whether Francis and Henry be entitle to have a estatetail convey  to they or only a estate for life be the question the defendant the Lord  Sussex have purchase from Henry and his young brother who be the plaintiff  father the son must be make only tenant for life and shall not have a  estatetail convey to they but their estate for life shall be without  impeachment of waste remainder to their respective son entail general  remainder to their respective daughter entail general with other remainder  over accord to the will of the say lady sheppey Reg lib b fol and first  because here a estate be not execute but only executory vide Papillon v voice  p wms where per king Lord chancellor the diversity be where the will passes a  legal estate and where it be only executory and the party must come to this  court in order to have the benefit of the will that in the latter case the  intention shall take place and not the rule of law Lincoln v Newcastle Ves  Stratford v Powell ba be green v Stephens Ves Blackburn v stable v b sing v  hale ba be Jervoise v Northumberland I W Deerhurst v saint Alban mad et vide  in confirmation of this doctrine seal v seal p wms pre Ch SC Lord glenorchy v  Bosville Forr Robert v Dixwell atk Baskerville v Baskerville atk Heneage v  Hunloke ibidem and case cite in not there respective and therefore the intent  and meaning of the testatrix be to be pursue she have declare her mind to be  that her son shall Vernon chancery case not have it in their power to bar  their child which they will have if a estatetail be to be convey to they and  take it to be as strong in the case of a executory devise for the benefit of  the issue as if the like pro vision have be contain in marriagearticle vide  bale v Coleman post p wms SC and particular as to the distinction lie down  between the construction of marriage article and will in such case note  Papillon v voice p wms but have she by her ill devise IQ her son a estatetail  the law must have take plaice and they have bar their issue notwithstanding  any subsequent clause or declaration in the will that they shall not have  power to dock the entail as to the account that have be former take in the  cause where Henry the father be plaintiff against the trustee although he be  but tenant for life and the how plaintiff claim not under he but paramount he  by the will yet the Vernon chancery case er p plaintiff or any issue of Henry  not be in be at that time all person be party that can then be make party and  therefore decree that account to stand and not to be ravel into Vernon  chancery case de term S HILLARII in curian porter