case VACHELL versus Jeffereys S c sub nom Vachell v Breton bro p c refer to  Ramsey v Shelmerdine l r Eq in re Holmes lt both case sub nom Vachell v Breton  ante and reference Eq Abr c S c wms S c cite brown Rep S c cite and comment  upon by Lord Loughborough in the decision of Bowker v hunter this case be much  more ample and accurate state in brown parliament case bro p c and ed there be  a appeal to the house of lord from this decree and that part of it respect the  second point be reverse ibidem a devise to b and c his wife child as he call  they not own they to be his S apiece and no more and give the child that he  own considerable legacy b and c shall come in for a share of the undisposed  surplus for the word of exclusion must be take strict Mr Bretton have two  child by his wife and afterward he grow into a dislike of her and part with  her and she have two child more which he precedent in chancery never will own  to be his he marry his old daughter and give her a considerable portion and  afterward make his will and give to the two child which he own considerable  legacy and then devise in this manner item I will that my executor shall pay  to a and b the child of my wife S apiece and no more then he devise legacy to  his executor but do not mention they to be for their care and pain or any  thing to that purpose the saint question be whether the executor shall have  the surplus of the estate and it be decree that they shall not but that it  must be distribute accord to the former resolution dly whether these two child  which the testator do not own shall come in for a share and it be decree that  they shall for the word of exclusion be not plain express and shall be take  strict in this case dly whether the marry daughter portion shall be bring into  hotchpotch and it be decree that it shall not but she to have her share with  the rest and the difference as to bring into hotchpotch be say to be between  person die whole intestate and die intestate quoad a surplus de boundary S  mich in curian porter