case Tollett against Tollett that Nov Reg lib b foe a S c ante p hill ms hark  ms p this cause come on to be argue again by direction of Lord chancellor have  be adjourn to be more full consider and to search for precedent after argument  Lord Hardwicke chancellor I have some doubt on the hear of this cause with  regard to the question in debate and therefore desire it may stand over ambler  the general question be whether the contingency for all make but one  contingency on which the pound give to the daughter be to take place have  happen depend on two question saint what be the true intent of the testator in  this proviso d if any rule of law stand in the way of such intent have effect  the question do not arise from any legal devise or limitation but on a  executory trust and though I do not lie weight on a distinction between trust  execute and executory for all trust be executory to a certain degree that be  material consider the fact testator have a considerable real and personal  estate two son and one daughter he intend a provision for all three he give  the bulk of his real estate to his old son and take up the consideration of  the provision for his young son and daughter together it be plain he intend a  increase of portion ambler er p to the daughter on the event of the two part  of his real estate come together it be a natural intention and be such as give  rise to the question in king v wither can tempt Talb objection the contingency  have not happen for the estate must go to George Tollett personal by the  proviso but I be of opinion that part of the proviso be only descriptive of  the conveyance and not part of the contingency it be true the court may supply  word to help the intention what be to be do here why after the word if George  Tollett die without issue the word male must be insert when a settlement be  make accord to the will Coryton v hellier burr cite do v Micklem east see lane  v goudge Ves Mellish v Mellish Ves jun Phillips v chamberlain ib Sugd vend in  note it have be argue that the word whereby the estate shall come to George  Tollett c must mean to he personal ambler a instance in which it need not if  George Tollett have convey away the remainder it must have go to his alienee  and not to George Tollett personal on the other side contend by the word  George Tollett be mean not George Tollett personal but his line and I think so  too the testator have use the same expression in other part of his will and  name only the stock where he intend his line and this be like a case in cro or  Lutw where one give to his son in tail and fail he which be construe fail his  line and not his person vide sad v carter bring in Ch it be argue to be a  personal obligation to pay with a charge on the estate by way of collateral  security but I think otherwise a that it be only a charge on the estate and in  case such a question be to arise between the father and his child the court  will have direct the money to be raise and the father to keep down the  interest only for his life or if he choose it to contribute onethird of the  money argue if cook Tollett have die leave a son who have survive but a day  this charge will not take place and this be urge as a argument of the general  intention this be the difficulty with I but I be now quite satisfy the  testator mean this as a exception that the charge shall not be a continual  cloud hang over the estate and it be reasonable he mean in case there be a son  whether he live a long or short time he shall not be entangle with that charge  which he can not bar at twentyone but it may prevent his marry by disable he  from make proper provision by a settlement he intend the pound charge shall  take place except there be a son objection that the estate be not come to the  other branch for part of it be in jointure and also cook Tollett may have  charge it with the young child portion ambler the jointure be no objection for  the father give the power of jointuring with his eye open George Tollett by  his will limit a certain message part of the promise in question to his wife  for life l r if the jointure have extend to the whole vet the estate may be  say to come to the other branch of the family the only question can be as to  the commencement of the interest of the pound but this be not a jointure of  the whole estate as to portion for young child there be none but if there be  the consequence be the estate will be so much the more burden if a bill have  be bring soon after the death of the testator to have a settlement make the  deed must have be accord to this construction notwithstanding the case of bale  v Coleman which be not that the very word must be use but word conformable to  the intention cro car be full as strong a case as the present decree c the  decree direct they pound to be raise and pay with interest at per cent from  the end of a year after the death of c Tollett case cite for the plaintiff  that the court will supply word by the sense Levis on v Grosvenor Fonereau v  Fonereau atk Spalding v Spalding cro car Colleton v Hillyer Jones v Westcombe  I Eq can Abr bring Ch townsend v Wyndham Ves v ware march on sir Simon urlings  will brown v cutler in raym and by the name of Luxford v cheek in lev Shelfiel  v Lord Orford salk I make my wife my and the word executor be supply ambler er  p