case wield versus bradbury all cite in Godfrey v Davis Ves Lord chancellor Dec  Eq can ab pl S c one devise the surplus of his personal estate to the child of  a and b neither of they have a child at the make of the will or the death of  testator the devise be executory and shall extend to any child that a and b  shall afterward have and the child of each shall take per heading a and not  per stirpes Wickstead wield the plaintiff father devise his stock without door  to be sell by his executor and after debt and legacy pay the surplus arise by  sale to be put out at interest and one moiety to be pay to the young child of  the plaintiff live at his death and the other moiety to the child of I S and I  n neither I S nor I n have any child at the make of the will or at the death  of the testator per cur it must be intend a executory devise and to be to such  child as they or either of they shall at any time after have and the child to  take per capita and not per stirpes they claim in their own right and not as  represent their parent it appear to have be contend at the bar that the devise  of the lastmentioned moiety be void for uncertainty as to which the decree be  his lordship consider that this devise ought not to be consider as void for  uncertainty for that it be the plain and manifest intention of the testator at  the time of make his will that such lastmentioned moiety shall go and be  divide equal among all the child that the say I S and I n shall leave at their  death Reg lib b fol on the point of the child take per capita vide Bretton v  Lethulier ante p Blackler v web p wms Thomas v hold Forr No certain rule can  be lie down in case of this kind they must be various as very few word will  vary the evidence of the testator intention and consequent Vernon chancery  case er p the meaning of the will per Hardwicke Lord chancellor ellison v airy  ves but he then proceed to lie down this general principle the court general  take it that there ought to be a legatee in be and therefore will not construe  a will to extend to person not in be unless the testator show his intention to  be such by word in the will and the rule by which the gift be confine to the  death of the testator or extend to child bear after his death be lie down and  the case cite by Mr sander in not to Heathe v Heathe atk as follow the general  rule in case of this nature seem to be that where the devise or gift to the  child be general and not limit to any particular period then it be confine to  the death of the testator Northey v Burbage pre Ch Heathe v Heathe above  Horsley v Chaloner ves Isaac v Isaac Amb I bro Ch Rep SC cite viner v Francis  bro Ch Rep Hugh v Hugh bro Ch Rep hill v chapman ibidem but where such devise  or gift be to one for life or where the distribution be postpone to a future  time then child bear during the life or before that time be let in Harding v  Glynn ante Vol grave v boil ante Vol Haughton v Harrison post ellison v airy  ves attorneygeneral v Crispin bro Ch Rep Congreve v Congreve bro Ch Rep  devisme v Mello ibidem Baldwin v Karver Cowp Andrews v Partington bro Ch Rep  Pulsford v hunter ibidem although this appear on the whole to be correct yet  it will be find that the case be not quite uniform on the subject and  particular that in the case of a general gift it may possible be construe to  relate to the time of the will and not of the death of the testator in order  therefore to arrive at a more distinct and particular view of the subject and  as it be a subject of some embarrassment to the student it may not be useless  to examine the case that have occur rather more minutely in the case of real  estate the rule seem to have be consider former to vary from the case of  personalty though late case have not notice it for in cook v cook ante p where  there be a devise to the issue of I S who at the death of testator have a  daughter live and afterward have a son bear Lord keeper decree that all the  child shall take and that the word beget make no difference but in SC per Lord  keeper where a devise to a man and his child of a personal estate a child bear  after the death of the testator shall not take for it vest upon the death of  testator and shall not be divest but if this devise mean to a man for life and  then to his child Goodwin v Goodwin cite in Bartlett v Hollister Amb be clear  contrary so in respect of real estate the case of Singleton v Singleton that  Feb cite in not to devisme v Mello bro Ch Rep seem contrary there the  testatrix give her real estate to trustee for year and year for secure her  debt to a certain amount to raise annuity and for other purpose and subject to  the term she give the estate to all and every the child and child of her  brother Thomas Gilbert and the heir of their body and body c and in case of  failure of issue c to every the remain child or child of the say t g in tail  and in failure of issue c then over and then the testatrix direct the  remainder of her personal estate to be place at interest and subject to  annuity she give it to all and every the child and child of her brother t g  who shall attain twentyone equal and if none or none attain twentyone then  over Lord chancellor be of opinion there be no point of time in this case to  which the word all and every the child or child of t g can be confine except  the death of the testatrix and therefore that child bear after the death of  the testatrix can have no share if there be no distinction in the application  of the doctrine on this subject to real and personal property then the devise  in cook v cook be general and not limit to a particular period ought accord to  some of the decision to have be confine to the daughter live at the death of  the testator or if the decision in cook v cook be right it seem difficult to  reconcile it with the above case of Singleton v Singleton unless the  subjection to the term of year and year make the difference but then if so and  if there be no distinction as abovementioned between real and personal then  the devise in this lastmentioned case be not general but be a gift where the  distribution be postpone during the existence of the term both as to real and  personal and then accord to some of the case the child bear after the death of  the testatrix and during the existence of the term ought to have be let in  which they be not in Northey v Burbage the term of the devise be not state but  though the word devise be use the subject be evident personalty it be however  there state Vernon chancery case er p in this case it be say by the counsel  and agree to by the court that a devise to all his child and grandchild extend  only to those who be in be not at the time of the testator death accord to the  above dictum of the Lord keeper in cook v cook ante but at the time when the  will be make and so be Northey v strange p wms S c with that report in pre Ch  Heathe v Heathe be a charge of pound by testator George madgwick by his will  on premise thereby devise to Averilla his wife for life to be pay within six  month after the death of Averilla among all the child of his sister Catherine  Heathe share and share alike Averilla then make a will and bequeathe the  residue of her property among all the child respective male or female of her  brother and sister Heathe some year after the death of the testator and  testatrix Catherine Heathe have another daughter bear and the question be  whether the afterborn child shall have any share under either of the will it  be clear that as to the first will the gift be to one for life and the  distribution postpone to a future time the characteristic of the second class  of case above cite by Mr sander and that the second will be a gift to the  child in general and not limit to a particular period the characteristic of  the first class of case yet the decree take no notice of this distinction but  be as report a general sweep opinion in the follow word for my part I have no  notion that this devise can have any relation to a child not in be till some  year after the testator and testatrixs death it may as well be intend twenty  year afterward if a woman be capable of bear so long and will make great  confusion by unravel account that have be settle so long before so Congreve v  Congreve bro Ch Rep be a devise of real estate to trustee the rend to t c for  life and after his death to sell and divide the money among all and every the  child and child of t c at the age of twentyone and then a gift of personal  estate to same trustee in trust to divide the same among all her child at  twentyone with liberty to apply any part of the interest for maintenance and  child bear after the death of testatrix here a life estate give in the real  but the personal general no notice take of this distinction but appear to be  decide as to the whole on the authority of Bartlett v Hollister Amb in  Maddison v Andrew ves the bequest be of pound to the child of his sister Sarah  to be pay with interest at twentyone or marriage with survivorship and fail  all then over here the bequest seem general and not limit to a particular  period Sarah at the time of the will have only one child other be bear  afterward but do not state whether any bear after testator death and the  question be whether those afterborn shall take Lord chancellor I doubt at  first but now think it be mean for the benefit of all the child Sarah shall  have for the testator know she have but one then have yet give it to child  have point out survivor and give it over to another branch of his family which  he can not mean till all fail ellison v airy ves be a devise of pound to the  young child of a if b die before twentyone or marriage some of the young child  be bear before the make of the wall other after the will other after the death  of the testatrix and it must be necessary presume though it be not state other  also after the death of b before twentyone or marriage and it be contend that  all the young child of a whatsoever be entitle but the decree confine it to  such as be the young child at the death of b before twentyone or marriage  Haughton v Harrison atk like bequest child bear after testator death hold  entitle so attorneygeneral v Crispin bro Ch Rep Coleman v Seymour ves be a  devise of pound to a the wife of Coleman for the use of her young child  subject to her appointment with survivorship if death of any child under age  or unmarried Lord chancellor this legacy both in the intent and word be  present to they and not to be extend to those bear after death of testator and  it can only mean child live at the make of the will or at far at the death of  the testator in grave v boil atk the profit of personal estate to wife for  life and then to trustee to pay pound to two young child as she shall appoint  and if no appointment equal at twentyone and there a child bear after the  death of the testator be let in testator have give a bind to leave among his  daughter young child Horsley v Chaloner ves the bequest be of pound to the  young child or child of a to be pay at twentyone with survivorship and if no  young child or child or none attain twentyone then over and per m r principal  to avoid the inconvenience of keep child Vernon chancery case er p out of this  provision express appoint to be pay at twentyone it be construe vest in those  live at the death of testator and can go further so Robert v Higman July cite  in Congreve v Congreve bro Ch Rep where the devise be all his good and chattel  to be sell and debt pay and overplus if any to be employ for the best use of  their child beget Bartlett v Hollister Amb be a devise of real estate to  trustee to the use of h his daughter for life and after her death without  issue in trust to sell and divide the money equal among all and every the  child of b the wife of c at their respective age of twentyone b have a child  bear after the death of testator but in the lifetime of h who afterward die  without issue the master of the roll sir Thomas clarke clear of opinion that  the afterborn child shall be entitle saint this be the case of a trust in  which the court expound more liberal than in the case of a legal estate dly he  speak of b as a wife dly the word be as general as possible thly this be a  disposition of a remote interest after the death of h without issue so Goodwin  v Goodwin mark there cite atk ves SC devise to a for life then to her child  child bear after death of testator be entitle Hodges v Isaac Amb I S give the  residue of his estate to the child of his niece a I to be pay into the bank  the interest apply for their learning and to be equal divide between they at  twenty a have a child bear after death of testator no decision but money  direct to be lie out with liberty for any of the child to apply on attain  their age of twenty devisme v Mello consider by the master of the roll in  Godfrey v Davis Ves as settle the law on this subject be a bequest of pound to  purchase stock and the interest to be pay to my mother do not say for life but  at her death the interest to be pay to my brother W d and at his demise to my  godson Stephen and at his decease if before he be of age to be divide among  his brother equal also to my brother d pound to buy stock to enjoy the income  during life and in case he do not marry and leave child to revert to my  brother William child in equal parts the godson Stephen die in the lifetime of  testator leave two brother and two sister who be all live at the time of the  testator decease Andrew devisme be bear after the death of the testator Lord  chancellor declare that the word brother make no difference and that consider  the term of the bequest the testator can not otherwise have describe the child  of his brother W d and therefore declare Andrew entitle in Ayton v Ayton Feb  cite in not to devisme v Mello ub sup the bequest be of the residue of real  and personal estate to his wife for life and after her death he give the same  to the child of a to be equal divide among they the say I a s child and not  any child of any other marriage by either party the wife survive testator a  few month three child be bear of that marriage after the death of testator and  his wife and his honour Kenyon declare that the interest in the residue not  mention any distinction between the real and personal vest absolute in the  child who be in be during the life of the wife and that those bear after be  not entitle this however seem evident to imply that all the child of that  marriage who have happen to be bear during the life of the wife though after  the death of the testator will have be entitle in Hugh v Hugh bro Ch Rep and  by the report of which Thurlow Lord chancellor appear to have give two  different determination the bequest be of the residue to trustee to pay two of  his daughter S a and d a each the yearly sum of pound during their life and  subject thereto to pay all the rest and residue of the rend c for the  maintenance c of all the child of his three daughter share and share alike  until the young of his say grandchild shall attain twentyone with benefit to  the child of any of they die before twentyone as therein mention and when such  young grandchild shall attain twentyone then to be divide all the say daughter  have child live at the death of testator and child bear after his death during  the argument his lordship lie down as many word with Mr Sanderss statement  above and then be say to have final determine in favour of the child live at  the decease of the testator p but afterward p his lordship be report to say  where a testator give all his property to be divide among his child when they  shall attain twentyone in so general a manner the principle of the case seem  to have be that such general devise shall embrace all the child and the  distribution must be accord among all but where the court have ascertain the  time as perfect mark out by the intention of the testator it be consider  Vernon chancery case er p as the period of vest the property in possession and  consequent when it come to be distribute it must be among those only who be in  be at that time this be a general gift not narrow or control by any word the  testator have use consequent the young child must take at twentyone with the  rest in hill v chapman bro Ch Rep the testator give the residue to trustee in  trust for the benefit of all his grandchild by his daughter Sarah equal to be  divide between they and lie out for their respective benefit the testator  afterward by a codicil order pound per cent bank annuity to be set apart to  pay a annuity of pound to his servant Sarah have a child bear after the death  of testator and the question be whether such afterborn child shall take a  share of the pound and the Lord chancellor be of opinion that that child can  not because the pound must fall into the residue and that the residue must be  divide at the testator death yet the word of the bequest in this case seem to  be as general as possible and note the Lord chancellor be also report in this  case to say it be Intelligible that by the child of a the testator mean child  then bear if you go further it must extend to all possible child to tie it up  to the death of the testator be rather a force conic struction the question  here natural arise whether by the above word then his lordship must not be  take to mean at the time of execute the will because in Northey v strange p  wms it be say by the court a devise to one child and grandchild shall prim a  fancy refer only to such child and it grandchild as be live at the time of  make the will and yet the decree in hill v chapman ub sup be make with  reference to the death of the testator in Andrews v Partington bro Ch Rep the  bequest be after pay pound a year to his wife for life and subject thereto of  pound to his daughter Diana and pound to his daughter Catharine and after his  wife decease pound to Diana and pound to Catharine on their respective  marriage and in case his say daughter or either of they shall die unmarried  then to pay her share to all and every the child and child of his son Robert  Andrews to be pay at twentyone or marriage or to be soon advance if the  trustee shall think fit and in case all the child shall die before their share  become Payable then the whole to his son Lord chancellor say where a time of  payment be point out as where a legacy be give to all the it child of a when  they shall attain twentyone it be too late to say that the time so point out  shall regulate among what child the distribution shall be make it must be  among the child in be at the time the old attain such age Pulsford v hunter  bro Ch Rep be a devise of freehold estate to trustee as to a moiety to pay the  rend and profit to his daughter a for her separate use remainder to the use of  all and every the child of a as to the other moiety to his daughter b and her  child in the same manner then a bequest of the residue of his personal  property as to a moiety to his say daughter a as to the interest c for her  separate use and then to transfer and assign such moiety unto and among all  and every the child or child beget or to be beget who shall be live at the  time of her decease and the other moiety to his say daughter b for life and  then to her child in like manner then by a codicil the testator after give two  annuity of ten guinea each set apart certain money in his and his banker hand  for payment of the say annuity and then order the remainder of the interest of  those money to be apply for the use and education of his grandchild till they  arrive at twentyone and then the principal to be equal divide among they a  child be bear after testator death the question accord to the report be  confine to the property in the hand of the banker whether the afterborn child  shall have a share and as to this the Lord chancellor hold that she shall that  all the child bear before the division be actual to take place that be until  some one of they shall it attain twentyone shall take a share and this  principle be clear recognize in Prescott v long Ves jun where the bequest be  of pound in trust for five of the child of his son Thomas Prescott name they  and to all and every other the child and child of his say son t p to be divide  and pay at twentyone or marriage the first attain twentyone decree entitle to  his share so host v Pratt Ves where a trust for all and every the child of a  as they shall attain sixteen and admit by the counsel for the child bear since  the old obtain sixteen that upon the authority decide he can not support their  interest so Godfrey v Davis Ves where bequest of a annuity over on the death  of the annuitant to the old child of a and no child at death of annuitant but  one bear Vernon chancery case er p after hold not entitle so whitbread v Lord  saint John Ves but in mill v Norris Ves where after charge his real and  personal estate with debt c and annuity testator give certain freehold estate  to trustee to apply rend and profit till a m attain twentyone and then to  convey but if a m die before twentyone then to sell and pay the money arise by  the sale to and among the child of his daughter e m and m n to be pay at  twentyone or marriage and as to the rest and residue of his real and personal  estate he give the same to trustee to sell and to place out the money and to  apply the interest and produce thereof to and among the child and child of his  say two daughter in like manner as the money to arise by sale of his real  estate be direct to be pay in case a m shall die before twentyone the issue of  such child to stand in the place of their parent marry and die in the lifetime  of either of their mother or in case his say daughter shall die without issue  or have have issue such issue shall die without issue in the lifetime of his  say daughter then in trust to transfer all his real and personal estate to his  brother his heir c and decree upon the clause in the will limit over in the  event of the failure of issue of the two daughter and that all the child of  the two daughter be entitle to the capital without reference to the age of  twentyone and though each child will have a vest interest at the age yet it  will be liable to be divest by the birth of other but not so as to the bygone  interest to a share of which the afterborn child be hold not entitle note the  above decree appear in the report only by the argument of Mr Stanley the  matter come on upon exception of the master report who have include the  afterborn child the exception be allow as to the bygone interest and that a  bequest will be confine to child bear before a particular time from the plain  intent of the will though the word be general Paul v Compton Ves where the  bequest be of the rest and residue of testator estate and effect to pay the  interest to wife during her life and then to transfer the capital to such of  his daughter and their child as the wife by her will shall appoint and if no  appointment then in trust to divide the same residue among the child of his  say daughter and in trust during the minority of his say grandchild to employ  the interest in maintenance c the wife make a appointment and hold that as to  a child of one of the daughter of testator bear after the death of the wife  she be exclude and as to the other child those bear after one of they have  attain twentyone also exclude though no time in particular mention and in  Gilbert v Boorman Ves where bequest be to a and all other the child of b  hereafter to be bear at their respective age of twentyone year admit that the  word hereafter to be bear the time be mark out will make no difference and a  child bear after one have attain twentyone exclude the late case on this  subject be Hugh v Hugh Ves Defflis v Goldschmidt mere leak v Robinson mere as  to the effect of the word live at the death vide case cite in not to palmer v  Cracroft ante p but as to illegitimate child it be decide that by a bequest to  all the natural child of I S afterborn bastard can take nor a child en ventre  S a mere Metham v duke of Devon p wms nor can a bastard take by a devise to  child general though strong implication upon the will as well as evidence  dehors in favour of that child Cartwright v Vawdry Ves nor where the testator  have bequeathe to the old child male or female of a certain family and well  know that all the child of that family be illegitimate Godfrey v Davis Ves and  legal speak there can be no child without a marriage dict per master of the  roll bell v phyn Ves the subject of bequest to natural child as a class be  much discuss in Wilkinson v Adam v b see also swain v Kennerlei v b  Woodhouselee v Dalrymple mere beachcroft v beachcroft mad Bayley v Snelham S S  note in a case of guardianship where testator commit the care tuition and  guardianship of all his son hereafter to be bear to his wife the court  construe the guardianship to extend to all the child by that or a future  marriage ex part the earl of Ilchester Ves Vernon chancery case er p