case harris versus bishop OF lincoln Lord Macclesfield Talbot Barker be seize  in fee of a real estate as heir on the part of his mother mother and be also  seize in fee of a very small estate of peer William pound per annum as heir to  his own father devise all these land to trustee and their heir in trust to pay  several annuity and charity after payment of which he devise the residue of  the rend and profit of the premise to his own right heir of his mother side  for ever and the question be who shall be entitle to the residue of the rend  and profit whether the heir of the mother father or the heir of the mother  mother saint it be insist that parole proof shall be read as explanatory of  the testator intention to which it be answer that though parole proof may be  in some case allow as to personal estate as be do in the case of fane versus  fan vern yet in the case of land where the statute require that the will shall  e in write there ought not to be any parole proof and therefore in the case of  stride versus lady Russel all vern report in Chan part fol folio edition where  the devise be of land out of settlement the house of peer will not allow any  parole proof for that the title of the devisee must depend upon the word of  the will otherwise no counsel that shall see the will will be able to give  advice thereon but Lord chancellor say that the reason of this be because the  settlement shall be produce without the produce of which the land be to be  presume free from a settlement and though fane case be only of a personal  estate yet the same be above the value of what one may by parole dispose of  for it be a great personal estate it seem within the reason of a devise of  land however that in this case parole evidence of what the testator peer  William say or direct when he order the will to be make may be admit as where  one have two peer William er p son   both name John devise land for his son  John there parole proof be admit t show which son John the testator go and yet  act of adding let minoritatem so if there be two person both male d I S of  dale and I shall devise my land to J S of dale par of evidence will be admit  in such ease to prove which I S of dale be intend by I and for in the rain  season in the principal case there be two heir of the mother side videlicet  one who be heir of the mother father and the other heir of the mother mother  the court may well admit parole evidence to show which heir of the mother side  be intend for case in which parole evidence have be adrift and upon the  construction of write instrument vide Rachfield v careless post upon which two  witness be read prove that at the time of make the will the testator declare  the heir of his mother mother shall have his estate because it come from  thence then it be object that if the will shall be construe in such manner as  to entitle the heir of the mother mother to the estate such will will be void  and nugatory and the testator all this while will be do of nothing because  without any will the premise will go to the heir of the mother mother who be  the heir at law to this estate the heir of the mother father have none of the  blood of the first purchaser Inst to which the court say that the testator  give by his will several annuity and charity and then say that the residue of  the profit shall go to the right heir of the mother side it be the same thing  as if he have say so far I dispose of my estate and let so much of it go from  my heir peer William who otherwise will have have it but I will not dispose of  it any further from the heir at law of the mother side whence it come and  where it will go in case I shall not give it away also there may be reason to  use these word and they be not nugatory because otherwise the trustee may be  entitle it be true if I devise land to trustee to pay debt or devise a term  for year to pay debt here be a devise for a particular purpose when such  purpose be answer the devisee shall be but a trustee for the heir at law and  the term shall be attendant on the heir at law who have the inheritance but  the present case differ as the devise be only of annuity and charity without  any particular word express the devisees to be trustee only so that the  devisees have it not be for these latter word may themselves and in their own  right have be entitle to the premise Obj the express devise gift or  declaration that the premise shall go to the heir of the mother side be a  special declaration of a use and like the case in Hobart where a man seize of  land as heir of the mother side make a feoff without a consideration and  declare express the use to be to himself and his heir and there it be say that  the express declaration of the use carry it to the heir of the father side  whereas have the feoff be silent and leave the use to result by implication it  have be the old use and will have go to the heir of the mother side peer  William but Lord chancellor deny this case in hob to be law say that the  contrary have be determine in lev Godbolt versus freestone and in salk abbot  versus Burton in both which case it be solemnly adjudge that the use whether  express declare by the feoff or permit to arise by implication be the same  thing and will go to the mother side hark   Litt b note but as his lordship  observe here be very little to be say for the heir of the mother father who in  this case be neither the heir general for the heir general must be heir of the  father side and not of the mother father nor the heir quoad hoc videlicet as  to these land for the heir as to these land be the heir of the mother mother  from who they descend so that the heir of the mother father be neither heir  simpliciter nor quoad hoc to the party that last die seize videlicet to this  Talbot Barker from all which it seem to be a clear case without lie any great  stress upon parole proof and though it be a matter of law his lordship say he  will not deny send it to the judge if insist upon yet he himself have no doubt  about it but it be insist upon that this be a bare trust and therefore not  proper determinable by the judge with regard to the question in who the legal  estate be vest I the court take upon themselves to determine it and decree in  favour of the heir of the mother side from which the estate come peer William  in the last place it be make a question to who the land of the value of pound  par annum which come by the father side shall go peer William er p with regard  to which it be say that the will direct that the residue of the rend and  profit shall go to the right heir of the testator mother side it be thereby  intend they shall all go together and not to different person that the same  word can not operate several way and entitle different person to different  part of the estate yet Lord chancellor be of opinion that the same word may be  take distributive see the case of forth versus Champman vol videlicet that the  land which come by the mother shall return to the heir of the mother mother  and on the other hand that the land which descend from the father shall return  to the heir of the father in the same manner as if there have be no  disposition make thereof and they have be leave to descend at least so far be  clear that this small estate of pound per annum which come to the testator as  heir be to his father must contribute in proportion to the charity and annuity  but this last mention estate be of so small value the counsel do not insist  upon have the opinion of the court about it nor be the heir general of the  testator a party to the suit the land be devise to trustee express in trustee  express in trust to pay some particular annuity but the remainder of the  annuity and the charity be mere charge on the land