case chester versus chester S c p wms mosely comment on Morgan v surman taunt  in court Lord chancellor Lord chief justice Raymond Lord chief baron Reynolds  Mr justice price Mr will for the plaintiff state the plead as a case and then  go on to this effect it be plain from the word of the clause in question and  from the intention of the testator appear out of other part of the will that  these reversion do not pass Ant Cas two rule be to be observe in the  construction of will and both of they be in our favour one that a heir be not  to be disinherit but by plain word the other that not only the particular  clause be to be consider but every part of the will together and if the word  be doubtful they must be explain by the intention these reversion do not pass  by the word elsewhere the land particular mention be not above pound ayear and  the reversion principal in question be pound ayear and it can be imagine that  the testator will particular describe land of pound ayear and leave those of  such a great value to pass by so general a word mosely report er p which be  rather a word of course like a c   a and can serve only to pass some little  quantity that belong to the land particular set out though it shall lie out of  the three place as be adjudge in sir Thomas Littleton case report in Ventr and  in vern and Chan Cas by the name of win versus Littleton win be seize of  diverse land in fee in the several county of g m d within the dominion of  Wales and have likewise diverse other land in other county within the dominion  of Wales make over to he in mortgage which be of more value than the other  land he devise all his land in the county of g m d and all his land elsewhere  within the dominion of Wales to sir John win and his heir mosely report it be  adjudge that the mortgage land do not pass by this devise for he can not be  think to mean to comprehend land of so much value under the word elsewhere  which be like a c and come in current branch so if he have stop at the word  elsewhere it can not be suppose he design to pass these reversion but the word  not former settle which follow explain his meaning and show he design these  reversion shall not pass for then he will have use the word not dispose of  which he mention after and to say that he only mean that the estate limit by  the settlement shall not pass be to say that he put in the word for no purpose  for those estate can not pass if the word be leave out and I can find no  difference between the word land not former settle and the word not former  comprise in any settlement so that this clause consider by itself will not  support the construction the defendant put upon it but our construction be  strong confirm by the other clause of the will the devise be first to trustee  for a hundred year in aid of his personal estate to pay his debt and then to  sir John and his heir but these reversion be not proper for payment of debt  and no land come to sir John but those which first vest in the trustee it be  absurd to think these reversion pass to the trustee as a fund for the payment  of his debt the fund be very sufficient without they and if it be not these  reversion will be useless for the money be to be raise out of the annual rend  and profit and sir William may have bar the reversion of the land settle on he  because he have a intermediate estate tail in he though he can not bar his old  son and if his lady have a son the reversion will be of no value the daughter  too have only pound provide for they by the settlement and the testator on the  marriage of the defendant have settle land of pound a year on he his intention  further appear from that clause of the will by which he devise some small  portion of land as bury piece and cony hill to sir William Chester in fee  which come to the plaintiff by descent and no reason can be give why he shall  devise these land to sir William but that they may go with the mansion house  cony hill lie contiguous to it and the park and a waterhouse be build on bury  piece to supply the house which lie very dry with water and if his intention  be to unite these estate it be plain he do not design to devise the reversion  from his daughter mosely report as to the word the case of Hyley and Hyley Mod  be a strong authority for we Nov Stockwood versus swan Hyley have issue  William his old son who have issue Peter Charles and John he devise pound to  his old son and several parcel of land to other then he give to Peter land in  tail male to John a mansionhouse in tail male and in like manner another house  to Charles and all the rest and remain part of his estate he devise to his  three grandson equal to be divide among they that only except which he have  give to Peter Charles and John and to the heir of their body who he make  executor then he devise if either of his say executor die without issue the  part of he so die to the survivor and survivor equal to be divide John die  without issue and the question be whether the reversion of his house shall be  divide among his survive brother or descend to the heir and it be adjudge that  the exception in the will do comprehend the reversion in fee and that it do  not pass but that without such a exception it have pass in that case the word  be very strong all the rest and remain part of his estate and several estate  be carve out of the land the reversion may be say a estate not before give the  case of Willows and Lydcot Mod Carthew Ventr be very different from we William  Shelton seize in fee of the message in question and of diverse other message  in the parish of saint Martin and other parish make his will and thereby  devise his house in the other parish to diverse charitable use mosely report  er p and then devise to Harris and mary his wife the message in question for  their life and in the follow clause the better to enable his wife to pay his  legacy he devise all his message land tenement and hereditament whatsoever  within the kingdom of England not above dispose of to have and to hold to her  and her assign for ever and make her executrix and judgement be give in b r  that the reversion do not pass but be unanimous reverse in the exchequer  Chamber because there be word in the devise to the testator wife that will  carry the reversion of this house as a hereditament not dispose of there the  word be not above dispose of though the house be settle it be not dispose of  here the word be not before settle and though the case of sir Litton stride  versus lady Russel vern seem to be against we yet when the reason of that case  be consider it make great for we sir William Litton by virtue of several  settlement be tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct of some land  remainder in fee to trustee in trust for he and his heir and as to some other  land be tenant for life remainder to his first and every other son in tail  male remainder to trustee in fee mosely report in trust for the right heir of  b who heir he be and as to the other land be tenant in tail remainder to the  right heir of his father the value of which land be about pound ayear and be  also seize of land of his own purchase both freehold and copyhold of about  pound ayear and possess of a great personal estate make his will and after a  devise of part to his wife for life and other legacy devise to his nephew all  his other land tenement and hereditament out of settlement provide he take  upon he the surname of Litton and subject to raise pound in case the testator  leave a daughter it be adjudge that by the word out of settlement the whole  family estate be well devise there all the estate tail end in sir William  Litton the testator but here there be several estate tail intermediate to  these reversion after the death of sir John Chester and it appear plain that  he intend sir Litton stride shall have the whole estate the devise to he be on  condition he take upon he the name of Litton so it can not be suppose that he  design the great part of the estate shall go from he and if he have a daughter  he charge the estate with pound for her who will have be his heir and this  charge plain show he do not design she shall have the estate there no land of  less value be before particular name and he devise in the former part of his  will to his wife part of the settle land by name which show he think he have a  power to devise they and it be say in that case if the reversion descend some  of they will go to the testator sister of the half blood who he can not be  suppose so much to favour as his nephew of the whole blood who he design to  keep up his name in our case it plain appear by other part of the will that he  intend these reversion shall descend and there be no word to show his  intention that they shall pass Mr Verney the plaintiff be the six daughter and  heir at law of the old son of the testator and have but pound apiece out of a  estate near pound a year and it be proper to consider the circumstance of the  family for the question be not whether these reversion can possible pass by  the word but whether after a view of all circumstance we can suppose that the  testator intend to give they away from the old branch of the family the devise  be not of all his land which will have be strong word against we but in three  particular parish and he will not have use these word if he have design to  pass all his land and part only of the settle land lie in these three place  mosely report then the devise of these reversion must be by the word elsewhere  but that word though it be not always reject yet it often be and if we can  show the testator mean something else by it the reversion shall not pass Mr  Vernon say the reason of the decree in win and Litletons case be because land  of great value can not pass by the word elsewhere and in the case of green  versus armstead hob the use of the word be show and that it be often put in  for fear the particular description shall not be satisfactory and full it be  plain from the next word not by he former settle that he do not design to  disturb the use of the settlement part of the settle land lie in Lickleston  one of the place particular name and these word show a recollection in the  testator and a design that they shall not pass for unless by these word he  design to exclude the land they can have no meaning put on they the estate  that be settle he can not pass so unless they exclude the reversion they be  vain and nugatory the word mosely report er p settlement have two sense strict  settlement over which the party have no power and a settlement in fee or tail  over which he have and the word settle in this case must be take in that sense  that will favour the heir so these reversion may be say to be settle though  the testator have a power over they and if he have be ask the question he will  have say the whole inheritance be settle for these reversion be not leave in  he but the whole estate be grant to trustee in the case of sir Litton stride  versus lady Russel the testator have no son and he be make a heir in his room  so the devisee be hres factus be entitle to all the privilege and advantage of  a heir at law and since his intention plain appear to give he all he can it be  reasonable to decree he the reversion if they can possible pass by the word in  the case of Willows and Lydcot the devise be not of all his land in three  particular place and elsewhere but of all his land c so there be no reason to  except one estate more than another the case of Hyley and Hyley be a authority  in point for we and the word of that devise be strong against the heir than of  this the word all the rest and remain part of my estate will certain  comprehend the reversion that only except which he have give to Peter Charles  and John and the heir of their body why he have not give they the reversion in  fee here the testator devise the furniture of his house at Chigley to the  defendant for life and after his decease to his son but the furniture of his  house at Lickleston and the waterhouse to his son William and his heir to make  the house commodious to they which plain show he have a respect to the  settlement he have make and that he design these shall mosely report go as the  reversion stand limit I own the general word of the will may carry the  reversion but the question be whether the intention of the testator do not  appear to the contrary Mr sergeant Eyre Lickleston park which be in settlement  lie in one of the three place mention and the word not former settle be put in  to distinguish the land settle from those that be not settle and the great  part of the land in settlement be not mention by the testator because he do  not design to pass they and these reversion may be say to be settle because  they go accord to the settlement and be influence by they and liable to be  defeat by the tenant in tail by a devise of all my land lease and mortgage  will not pass and if the court make this distinction where the testator have  make none how much more will it take notice of what the testator himself have  take care to distinguish in the case of Hyley and Hyley the reversion do not  pass the word not former settle be as much a exception as the word that only  except for no certain word be necessary to make a exception and no sense can  be make of these word but by way of exception Mr peer William a exception be  to exclude what will otherwise be comprehend but if the word not former settle  be leave out the estate settle will not pass therefore the word must be put in  to exclude the reversion by the word former settle the reversion will pass and  it be nonsense to say not former settle and former settle have the same  meaning and the counsel for the defendant can quote no case where by a devise  of all my land not by I former settle if a estate tail stand out in a three  person the reversion pass the testator be not suppose to be at the trouble to  devise what be of no value and what can be so soon destroy by the tenant in  tail by this devise he give the land the thing he have not settle he do not  say the estate or so much of they as he have not settle the word elsewhere may  be put in by the scrivener but the subsequent word must be insert by the  express direction of the testator and doubtful word be to have the most kind  construction put on they in favour of the heir for which reason I give all to  my mother be adjudge a devise only of the personal estate lev Mr  attorneygeneral for the defendant in sir William Chester be marry and in sir  John Chester make his will and though sir William have several mosely report  child he have no son but his brother the defendant have and we have prove the  father have a great regard for he that there have be a misunderstand between  he and his son William and that he design to leave the defendant all that be  in his power I shall first consider the meaning of the word elsewhere and  there be no weight in their objection on this head though the testator have  land in possession in the three place he have mention and part of the settle  land lie in one of they yet ho have no land in possession elsewhere the word  elsewhere be the large and most comprehensive the testator can make use of and  signify as much as if he have say mosely report er p all my land whatsoever  and wheresoever and though he first say all his land in Lickleston Marston and  Milbrook and elsewhere as he end with general word the devise be as full as if  the particular place be not mention if and elsewhere be out so much of the  reversion will pass as lie in the three parish by the word all my message land  tenement and hereditament and by the word and elsewhere all his reversion  whatsoever be devise the foundation of the decree in sir Thomas Littleton case  be that the land out of a b and c will not pass by the word elsewhere because  they be mortgage which will not have pass though they have lie even in a b and  c for a mortgage be a estate of a different nature but sir John have no other  land to answer this word elsewhere but these reversion and therefore they must  pass by it the next word to be consider be not former settle which it be say  exclude all land comprise in any deed of settlement make by sir John Chester  these reversion be not proper settle the same land may be consider as settle  and as not settle if one convey to a for life remainder to b in tail remainder  to himself in fee the estate for life and in tail may be say to be settle but  the remainder in fee be a estate not settle for it be not a new estate create  by the settlement but part of the ancient estate leave in he these word be  idle and nugatory if they be not put in to exclude what be in his power for  what be settle out of his power will not pass if they have be leave out this  be no objection in the explanation of a will they show the testator intention  not to break in upon any former settlement he have make and be like those  clause in a will where the testator confirm a jointure or a former settlement  which show his intention to do justice and that everything shall remain as it  be settle so it be usual in a will to devise express the personal estate for  payment of debt and mosely report yet such a clause be idle for the estate be  answerable though it be leave out and this objection be make in the case of  sir Litton stride and lady Russel and have the same answer give to it that  case be a authority in point for we and if there be any difference between the  two case it be in our favour there the word be out of settlement here not  former settle in that case they say the word be part of the devise clause but  here they come in by way of exception but there be not express word of  exception in either case but of qualification and restriction there settlement  may be say to mean the deed which in common speech be call the settlement so  the word may be say to be the same as land not comprise in any deed of  settlement here the word must be apply to the estate settle and though the  reversion in that case may be say to be comprise in the deed they can in this  case be say to be estate settle it be say that the word be general in that  case but that in this there be first particular word and then come sweep word  but in that case all the word may have be satisfy with the land in possession  but in we elsewhere have nothing to answer it but the reversion and though  there the testator have no son but here sir William Chester have several child  and his wife be a breed woman yet there be a possibility that sir William  Litton may have a son and sir William Chester have no son though he have be  marry nine year so it be natural for the father to take care that these  reversion shall go to the heir male here sir John Chester dispose of the  reversion not to a heir he be institute but to his second son who be his heir  male and be to support the name and honour of the family in the case of Hyley  and Hyley the testator devise all the rest and remain part of his estate which  comprehend his whole interest and the exception extend only to part of his  interest to the estate give to Peter Charles and John and to the heir of their  body so the judgement in that case seem to be very particular and in the next  case of Willows and Lydcot the same judge be of the same opinion but their  judgement be reverse in the exchequer Chamber by eight judge and in Alleyn  Wheeler versus Waldron a have a manor and other land in somersetshire devise  the manor to b for six year and part of the other land to c in fee and the  rest of his land in somersetshire or elsewhere he give to his brother it be  adjudge that the reversion of the manor pass as well as the land not before  devise as in Willows and Lydcots case the word not above dispose of be  tantamount to not by I former settle so the same word be afterward make use of  in this will and the mosely report plaintiff must admit that they be vain for  the general word will not have defeat any devise in the former part of the  will though those word have be omit mosely report er p their next argument be  draw from the purpose for which these land be give to apply the annual rend  and profit in aid of his personal estate for payment of his debt the testator  design this as a general comprehensive clause and the land in possession as a  immediate fund the other as they drop in and though such reversion be not  asset to charge the heir on a false plea they be asset cum to fall upon but  the payment of his debt be not the only motive of the devise he have two  inducement to pay his debt and to pass they with that charge to the defendant  and his heir who be to keep up the honour and name of his family and the one  be as prevail upon he as the other so both his design ought to be take into  consideration and the nature of the trust will not alter the legal estate that  passes by the word in the case of Willows and Lydcot the devise be introduce  with these word the better to enable my wife to pay my legacy and the verdict  find that the land without the reversion be sufficient for that purpose yet it  be adjudge that this will not alter the construction of the devise but that  the word shall be take in their full sense the testator have it not in his  view to devise bury close as a easement and convenience to the estate for he  have not devise it in the same manner the land be settle but to sir William  and his heir so that he may have dispose of it as he please the daughter  complain they have but pound among they the mother portion be but pound which  in marriage settlement be the usual provision for daughter and they have a  estate in fee of pound a year by descent which be the reason perhaps why the  testator do not increase their portion but whether they be large or small the  word must be consider accord to their legal construction and since they have  take notice of the circumstance of the family we must remind they that by the  settlement make on the defendant he have no power to make a jointure on a  second wife or to provide for the child of the marriage so that if these  reversion do not pass by the will if sir John shall die without issue by his  first wife though he leave a son by a second wife to who the honour will  descend both the estate will go to the daughter which we can hardly suppose  the testator intend there be no difference whether the reversion depend on a  estate tail in the testator or in a three person in the case mosely report of  sir William Litton if he have a son the estate tail will have be in he and if  he have afterward die that will not have alter the construction of the devise  Mr solicitorgeneral if the testator have rest at all my message land tenement  and hereditament those word will have carry the reversion but in Lickleston  Marston and Milbrook be add they say to restrain they and elsewhere can extend  only to any little parcel of land that lie out of those place the testator can  not have use more comprehensive word and elsewhere will take in all his land  out of those three place and they can show a authority where the court have  restrain the sense of that word in sir William Littleton case the other land  be mortgage and redeemable too at the time of the devise and the testator have  other land that lie out of the three county to satisfy the word so that by the  devise of all his land the testator can not be suppose to design to pass these  mortgage which indeed be the land of the mortgagor and only the personal  estate of the mortgagee and the land be charge with a annuity of pound ayear  which be not a proper charge on a mortgage which may be redeem the next day  and he have express devise the residue of his personal estate so the mortgage  be decree to belong to the residuary legatee that case therefore be no  authority to restrain the sense of the word elsewhere but to show that the  court either reject or restrain the sense of it they have quote the case of  green and Armsteed though the word be general they restrain they indeed from  take in what the testator have before devise but can they produce any case  where the court be of opinion that what the party have not before dispose of  will not pass by those word so accord to the rule they have lie down the heir  at law be disinherit by express word and by a different construction another  rule relate to will will be break that no word be to be reject that can have a  reasonable meaning put on it not former settle the testator can not use plain  word to express his intention to dispose of everything in his power but they  say every thing comprise in the settlement be settle where a estate for life  or in tail of land be limit they be settle land but the reversion in fee be  not settle so since the word all my message c take in these reversion in  consider how these word be qualify it be necessary mosely report er p to see  if these reversion be former settle and in common understanding they be not  for when people speak of settlement they do not mean what they have settle on  themselves but what they have settle out of their power on mosely report their  wife or child or other and this further appear by the word that follow or  hereby otherwise dispose of settle and dispose of be synonimous term and show  his intention not to disturb former disposition but to give to his son by this  general devise what he have not before dispose of by settlement or will they  say in our sense the word be nugatory in they restrictive but will be not to  be consider in that strict manner many word be insert not out of necessity but  caution they show his care to confirm whatever he have before settle though  there shall be any defect in the conveyance and to give away whatever he can  consistent with his former settlement or disposition by that will but in the  case of sir Litton stride versus lady Russel the same objection be make to the  word out of settlement and overrule and they have endeavour to distinguish  that case from we because the decree be affirm in the house of lord in that  case Lord Trevor say the word out of settlement be the same as not before  settle and when sir William Litton make his will he have a prospect of a son  for he make a provision for her in case he shall have a daughter but they say  the charge on the estate for her show he design the reversion for his nephew  in that case land of pound a year pass without question which will have answer  the charge though the reversion be not devise but the daughter in this case  have pound provide for they by the settlement which show the party to it at  that time do not design they shall have the estate and the same disposition  may continue in sir John Chester when he make his will and induce he to devise  the reversion in the case of cook versus Garrard lev sand Kebl keep seize of  Spain hall settle part thereof on his daughter for life and after be devise  the house to his wife for a year after his death and then devise all his land  not settle or devise to Thomas keep habendum to he and his heir it be adjudge  that although the devise be of the land not settle or devise and not of the  estate not settle or devise that the reversion will pass although the land  itself be settle and devise before and that the word be to be understand of  the residue of the estate there the objection may be make shall the word not  devise or settle and devise or settle which be direct contrary mean the same  thing but the same land be both settle and unsettle it be object that these  reversion shall not pass because they be a improper fund for the payment of  debt Leon cro Elizabeth more Cas townsend and wale be a authority to the  contrary a man seize of land mosely report in possession and of other land in  reversion upon a estate for life devise that his executor shall have all his  land free and customary in d for ten year to perform his will and the will of  his father with the profit thereof and that after the ten year his executor or  any of they shall sell they for the payment of his debt he die the ten year  expire the tenant for life die and the executor sell the land and it be object  that the reversion of the estate for life pass not because he have other land  there to satisfy the word and it be not his intent to pass it because there be  not any profit to be take thereby but the court resolve to the contrary and it  be in our case especial a proper fund where the reversion be devise over h  Anders Owen more Cas cro Elizabeth their argument fail as to the waterhouse  and Conyhills unless they can make out that sir John Chester design to unite  they to the land he have settle on sir William Chester but if he have he will  have follow the limitation in the settlement and not leave they in the power  of sir William to dispose of and if he have the same intention as to the good  he will have devise they in the nature of heir loom but by this devise they  absolute vest in sir William Mr Lutwyche it be a odd objection that elsewhere  be too general a word especial in a will where it be not usual to name the  particular place that land lie in as in a conveyance which first describe the  particular place and then make use of general word beside and many estate of  much great value than these in question have pass by such a word in will they  have talk that it take in a few straggle parcel only but they have not tell we  what they be and if there be any colour for it they shall have set out such a  case by their bill and if the reversion in the place that be name pass why  shall not those that lie out of they pass too he name the three place  particular because all his land in possession lie in they which at that time  be of most mosely report er p value because the reversion may never fall in  which he therefore leaves to pass by the general word so that though the  reversion that be now fall in be pound a year yet it be to come into  possession after a estate tail which answer their objection to the different  value of the land and all the other objection they have make be raise in the  case of sir Litton stride and lady Russel and answer by the judge Mr Vernon  say there as Mr William do here it be odd that the word settle and not settle  shall have the same meaning and Mr justice Tracy answer that in some sense the  same land may be say to be in and out of settlement they may be name in the  settlement they may be settle to some purpose and yet the reversion may remain  in the person who make the settlement mosely report for it be the same estate  and if it descend to the heir of the mother before the settlement it will have  remain to they after so in this sense they be out of settlement it be object  too in that case what can the testator mean by put in the word out of  settlement but to show that he will not have the land that be settle pass Mr  justice Tracy say be mention the word out of settlement to explain his meaning  to give away all he can dispose of and to show a honest intention not to  devise what he have settle and what he have not a power over though the  testator create the term of one hundred year for the payment of his debt it be  also in his view to give the land to the defendant subject to his debt and the  word yearly rend and profit be of little use for he in reversion may compel  the trustee to mortgage the term to pay the debt off at once as to his  intention we may argue as the testator have express devise some land to sir  William and his heir so if he have design he these reversion he will have  devise they also to he so here these reversion pass to the defendant by the  word of the will and it do not appear to be the intention of the testator to  defeat he of they Mr fazakerly the word be comprehensive enough to take in  these reversion all my message c in Lickleston c and elsewhere and they must  show how the follow word restrain they not former settle do not confine they  for these reversion be hereditament not former settle and though part of a man  interest in land be settle it do not follow from thence that what be not  settle shall not pass vern a seize in fee devise Blackacre to b for life and  to c all his land not before devise to be sell by this devise the judge of the  common plea certify that the reversion of Blackacre be well devise and the  same sense here must be put on not settle as be in that case on not devise  vern a devise a farm to b for life and after some legacy devise all his other  personal estate land tenement and hereditament not before devise to g the  reversion of the farm pass by the general devise to c these word they say must  operate by way of exception they be put in by way of caution when a man make a  will he do not look into deed as a purchaser do suppose then in a deed of  settlement there be a power of revocation a express devise by will of what be  settle will be a revocation so these word may be insert to show that he do not  design to disturb former settlement and for fear of undo any thing he have do  before by not look into the settlement elsewhere must be retain mosely report  it be a plain Intelligible word and extend to all place and why shall it be  reject they have not show how it can operate which be in effect to reject it  but we have show the meaning of it and the devise of bury close be a argument  against the plaintiff that sir John Chester design nothing shall pass to sir  William as heir for that will have descend on he if he have not dispose of it  by his will Mr justice price I shall examine the import and signification of  the word of this will the devise of all his message land c plain carry all the  land the testator have in possession and reversion for in a will a devise of  land be a devise of the estate the testator have in they so by these word  reversion pass but then the question be to what reversion the clause extend in  Lickleston c and elsewhere will be often make in time of sickness people be  force to use general word and elsewhere be a necessary word in will and  signify every where so all the land pass he have not settle then the question  be what land be settle most part of the land be in strict settlement and the  reversion in himself and it be no repugnancy to say the same land be settle  and be not settle the particular estate be settle but not the reversion and  the testator intention be plain to raise his son John though William mosely  report er p have child he have not son but John have and if sir William shall  have a boy he be provide for by the settlement he trust John with the bulk of  the estate charge with annuity to his sister and therefore we be to take the  word in the large sense they will bear when a man devise a estate in  possession and reversion for the payment of his debt by the annual profit  those word may be understand by the rend of the land in possession the word  all the rest and residue c not before devise not before settle have always be  adjudge to take in the reversion and the case of Wheeler and Waldron in Alleyn  be a lead case where the word elsewhere carry the land the testator have every  where I be guide by the intention of the testator to think these reversion  pass to the defendant sir John Lord chief baron Reynolds I be of the same  opinion the case be this sir John the grandfather be seize in fee of several  land in on the marriage of his son William he settle the land principal in  question in strict settlement the reversion to himself in fee in on the  marriage of his other son the defendant he settle other land on he in strict  settlement the reversion also to himself in fee in he make his will mosely  report and after devise some land not comprise in the settlement he devise in  the word in question the plaintiff be heir at law of sir William and old sir  John Chester and consequent what be not dispose of by this will descend to  they they say they be entitle to the reversion on both settlement because the  word of the will do not extend to they it be a reasonable maxim that a heir  shall not be disinherit but by plain word for all come to he as representative  of his ancestor and then if the word of the will be ambiguous it be justice he  shall have it because there be nothing to divest it out of he the question  then be whether these word be ambiguous the plaintiff say they extend only to  the land out of settlement and that it appear to be the intention of the  testator not to devise these reversion from two consideration first because  these land be give as a fund for payment of debt these reversion which be  distant and defeasible interest can be within the intention of the testator  but it be most reasonable to suppose that he design all the land in his power  for a fund and they may fall in as one have and be applicable to those purpose  and since they may be serviceable to his intention there be no reason to  exclude they second they say it appear to be his intention not to give these  reversion to the defendant from the devise of the two convenient piece of land  to William and his heir but no inference can be draw from thence he have not  devise they in the same channel the land be settle but have put it in the  power of William to defeat his own son of they but they say the very word have  a restraint put on they for the land former settle be not to pass I beg leave  to consider the word settlement where the owner of the fee carve several  estate out of the inheritance and reserve the reversion to himself the land in  law be no further settle than the particular estate and the reversion be look  on as part of his old dominion and have all the same incident whether they be  land ex part of a mother or of the nature of gavelkind or borough English and  in point of law there be no alteration these reversion then be hereditament  not settle and so answer the very word because they be part of his ancient  inheritance and remain in he and the case cite be in point that in Alleyn be  the foundation of they all and the doctrine of that case be carry further in  cook and Garrard Hyley and Hyley be a interruption to these authority and in  Lydcot and Willows the same judgement be give by the same judge but reverse in  the exchequer Chamber and the reversal allow for law in the case of Hopewell  and ackland salk so we may venture to say that case be not law mosely report  be contradict by late authority so reversion will pass but the plaintiff say  if they do pass it can only be of the land that lie in the three place  particular name elsewhere be a very general word and very proper to be make  use of in will because the testator have not time to look over his write and  be of a most extensive signification and proper to carry the different  interest of the testator though it can indeed defeat or destroy what the  testator evident intend to devise before as be adjudge in the case of green  and Armsteed but it be ask why then do the testator mention these particular  place it be hard to say why he do but it be not to be expect that he shall  mention all the several place his land lie in and it be not material what be  his reason because there be nothing to limit the extent of the other word and  Mr Lutwyches be a good conjecture and the case of sir Litton stride and lady  Russel which be mosely report er p great debate in the court of chancery and  the decree affirm in the house of lord be a additional weight to the other  case for though particular interest in these land be settle the reversion be  never settle and so be land not former settle and there be no reasonable  difference between that case and we though the expression be different and  though the law will have imply as much as these word they be explanatory of  his intention not to innovate or break in upon former settlement and devise  and this objection be make in the case of sir Litton stride and lady Russel  and overrule and I shall be of this opinion if I be not confirm by the  authority of that case Lord chief justice Raymond I agree in opinion with Mr  justice price and my Lord chief baron that the reversion of the land in  Lickleston Marston and Milbrook and out of they pass because the word be very  full to carry all his land in possession and reversion and a imagination only  to the contrary can defeat the sense of they the word all his message land c  will certain pass all his reversion then the question must be whether the  testator afterward confine they to those three place elsewhere be a general  Intelligible word and it be very usual in will to enumerate some few place  where the land be situate and then to make use of general word by way of  precaution because the testator often have not time to look over his write as  when he make a settlement and therefore since it be a comprehensive word and  of a know plain sense why shall not it have its full operation sir William  Littleton case be only that the mortgage do not pass but the land the testator  have a absolute property in and be not a authority for the plaintiff and they  have cite no other and why shall elsewhere extend only to little parcel of  land mosely report for it be not take in its full sense it can carry even  little thing lie out of the particular place though they be ever so contiguous  and commodious and there be no reason why pound a year shall not pass by and  elsewhere if the word will legal pass they not former settle it be say exclude  these reversion because all the land in the settlement be former settle these  reversion be not proper settle it be the old use and in common parlance those  land only be say to be settle that be not in the power of he who make the  settlement and this meaning be put on the word in the case of sir Litton  stride and lady Russel in the case of Wheeler and Waldron the rest of my land  be adjudge the same as the rest of my estate in my land and this be further  explain in the case of cook and Garrard where the reversion pass though the  land be settle and devise because that be a interest remain in the testator  undisposed of and this be the foundation of the decree in the case of sir  Litton stride and lady Russel as to the objection that the term be give for  payment of debt it may be say that the testator not only design to pay his  debt but to give the estate to his son John and his heir and the reversion may  fall into possession though the testator give two small parcel of land to his  son William and his heir which lie commodious to the capital message yet he  have not unite the estate but devise they so that they may go in a different  manner these word be very plain and the intention of the testator must appear  very strong to the contrary to induce a court to go against the authority of  the case of cook and Garrard and sir Litton stride and lady Russel Lord  chancellor I be of the same opinion with my lord the judge and every objection  have be so full state and answer that if it be not for the sake of custom I  shall not say any thing I think these reversion plain pass by the word of the  will all my land will pass all the interest the testator have in freehold land  whether in possession or reversion and where a particular estate be devise by  will all the rest of my land will carry the reversion in Lickleston Marston  and Milbrook mosely report and elsewhere that be in all place and in make  their will man have not time to look over their deed but make use of general  word to supply that defect it be adjudge in sir William Littleton case that  the word elsewhere will not comprehend the land in mortgage but it will  freehold land if the testator have any then the question be if these general  word be restrain by the follow not by I former settle for it be object that  these reversion be former settle by the deed of and but the meaning of the  word be not out of my power and in a legal sense they be not settle because  the reversion in the testator be his old estate if the land come by the mother  they will descend to the heir a part of a mother and be subject to the debt of  the ancestor and all my land signify all my estate in the land mosely report  er p so not the land contain in the settlement but the estate not in his power  be exclude accord to the authority of the case of cook and Garrard the word  not hereby otherwise dispose of be as nugatory as not before settle but they  show the testator intention that every thing shall remain fix and settle as it  stand before the make his will and be like those clause in will which confirm  jointure and former settlement though they add no weight or authority to they  and the testator design this devise a beneficial interest for his son as well  as for payment of his debt the case of sir Litton stride and lady Russel be  the same with this there be no difference between out of settlement and not  before settle and there be no get over so solemn and settle a decree Thursday  June the that motion