case Lampley versus blower November a h by her will say I give to my niece f l  and a f each one half of the produce of tai king stock and to their issue and  if either shall happen to die before the legacy become due to her and leave no  issue the share of her so do shall go to the survivor f l die before the  testatrix leave a son who have bring his bill for a moiety of the produce of  the bank stock the word leave no issue confine it to f l s leave no issue at  the time of her death and be relative to any child the legatee may have at her  death and therefore a moiety of the produce of the bank stock be decree to the  son of f l the reader be refer to Hodgeson v Bussey ante atk vol n Ann hough  by her will say I give to my niece Frances Lampley the wife ofLampley and and  blower both in barbados each one half of the produce of bank stock and to  their issue and if either of they shall happen to die before the legacy become  due to her and leave no issue the share of her so die shall go to the survivor  Frances Lampley have a son at the time of devise and die before the testatrix  leave a son the now plaintiff who bring his bill for the moiety of the produce  of the bankstock atkins Mr Browning for the plaintiff cite wild case   b and  insist a devise to the mother and her issue make it a jointtenancy and that as  he have survive his mother he be become entitle to her whole share Mr  solicitor general for the defendant who be the residuary legatee insist that  the construction must be the same as if mrs Lampley have survive the testatrix  there be no bequest to the ancestor for life and therefore the child can take  by way of remainder and consequent it will be contrary to the meaning of the  testator that the issue shall take as it be to both the niece and their issue  the word issue can be a word of limitation only in case she die and leave no  issue must mean to go to issue general that the rule lie down by the plaintiff  counsel be wrong and insist that a devise to a and his issue though a have  issue at the time be a estatetail Lord chancellor such a construction must be  make as that the plain intention may take place so as it be consistent with  the rule of law and such a construction may be make as be not at all repugnant  to the rule of law the word issue be capable of three sense in one sense as a  word of description to take in jointtenancy in another as a word of limitation  and in a three as a description of the person in remainder I be of opinion it  be not the first to take in jointtenancy because the devise be to they and  their issue it be true in wild case the word child be construe to give he a  jointtenancy with the parent so bussar v Bradford ante vol but that  determination be before it have be full settle that the word issue be as  proper a word of limitation as heir of the body as in the case of king versus  mell Ventr the ground of the judgement in wild case be that there be no word  to show they shall take by limitation atkins but in the present case here be  word to show the issue shall take after though death of the mother the word  leave no issue be relative to any child the legatee may have at the time of  her death atkins er p if it stand bare the word to a and her issue or t a and  her heir of the body the first taker will have the whole but it be not mean in  that sense and if either of they shall happen to die before the legacy become  due to her and leaves no issue the share of her so die shall go to the  survivor what be the meaning of this contingency the will be make in England  and the legatee live in barbados and the testatrix can not know at that  distance but both may have issue the legacy vest immediate and therefore it be  intend to secure they to the issue if the parent die in the testatrix if etime  suppose mrs Lampley have die without leave issue will not this have be a good  devise ever to the survivor of the niece therefore I be of opinion this be a  contingent limitation to the other niece and blower if mrs Lampley die without  issue and the whole do not vest in the first taker and accord to the  resolution in forth v chapman wms ought to be construe leave no issue at the  time of the death in that case it be a mix fund of both real and personal  estate the present be strong as it be mere a personal chattel the word leave  explain the word issue in the first part of the devise to mean such as be  leave at the time of the death there be nothing more common than that  subsequent word descriptive of the contingency explain the former as a devise  to a man and his heir and afterward testator say and if he shall die without  heir I his body control it to a estatetail so here the subsequent word if she  shall happen to die c and leave no issue confine it to leave no issue at her  death and not general his lordship decree a moiety of the produce of the bank  stock to the plaintiff the son of mrs Lampley Reg lib b fol