case tread versus down may whatever word there may be in a will relative to  copyhold land they can have no effect if there be no surrender for nothing can  pass a legal estate but what will pass it in law Hawkins v leigh ante vol  Allen v Poulton Ves milbourn v milbourn bro Charles Rep say vide bias v bias  Ves Adam Churcher devise all his farm and land to trustee and their assign for  and during and until his kinsman Roger and bonny shall attain their several  age of in trust that they do in the mean time receive the rend and profit for  the use and benefit and towards the maintenance of Roger and bonny and after  they shall attain their respective age of then to the say Roger and bonny for  their natural life without impeachment of waste and from and after their  deceases to the use of the heir of the say Roger and bonny for ever as tenant  in common and not as jointtenants part of the premise be copyhold and the rest  freehold the testator surrender the cop holdo the use of his will bonny one of  the devisees attain his age of and by tease and release of the saint of man  and saint of June convey his moiety in the freehold land to his sister and her  heir who marry the plaintiff and after ware bonny devise his copyhold land in  like manner but make no surrender thereof bonny be dead the question make in  this cause be whether the devisees Roger and bonny shall take as jointtenants  or tenant in common Lord chancellor there be two point in respect of the  copyhold first whether the devise in the will of Adam Churcher amount to a  devise of land in jointtenancy or a tenancy in common I e a jointtenancy or  tenancy in common during the life of bonny and Roger second if a jointtenancy  whether there have be a severance of that joint tenancy before the death of  Thomas bonny I be of opinion the trustee take nothing at all in the  inheritance but a chattel interest till cestuyque trust attain the age of or  the survivor of they attain that age Cordals case cro Elizabeth Hilchins v  Hilchins vern carter v Barnardiston p W Robert v Dixwell ante vol but where  there be a express trust to sell c there the trust can be execute unless the  trustee take the whole legal fee vide bagshaw v Spencer post Ves the trust be  to apply the rend and profit towards the maintenance c and on their respective  attain be devise over therefore I be of opinion if one of they have die  survive the other who have not attain his age of all the profit must have be  apply to the maintenance of the survivor atkins this be the construction of  the first clause will throw a great deal of light upon the subsequent clause  as to the latter I be of opinion it be a devise of a remainder of a legal  estate and not of a trust for the trust as I say before be only a chattel  interest for it be to Roger and bonny there be a devise for their natural life  c this be so consider the intention of the testator his intention be plain  that Roger and bonny shall be tenant for life and therefore add the word  without impeachment of waste if that intention have not be control by a rule  of law they have be most clear tenant for life which bring it very near the  case of Tuckerman versus Jeffereys easter term Ann holt case note there a man  devise his estate to his two sister jane and Elizabeth during life equal to be  divide between they and after the decease of they to the heir jane the court  hold that jane and Elizabeth be jointtenants during life and the fee to the  heir of jane but not to take during Elizabeth life in I   Rep it be lie down  as a rule of law that when the ancestor by any gift or conveyance take a  estate of freehold and in the same gift or conveyance a estate be limit either  mediate or immediate to his heir in fee or in tail that always in such case  the heir be word of limitation of the estate and not word of purchase and the  word impeachment of waste be reject vide ante Lord glenorchy v Bosville can  tempt t Papillon v voice p W bagshaw v Spencer post atkins er p but then the  question be whether this shall overrule the plain intention of the testator  for I have show it be not his intention that they shall have the joint  inheritance where the rule of law will let the intention take place it shall  have its effect vide Barker versus Giles wms before Lord king and afterward in  the house of lord blisset versus Cromwell and other lev there by force of the  word equal to be divide it be hold a tenancy in common and the word long liver  of they reject vide haw v haw post vol Pitt v Benyon bro Charles Rep Armstrong  v Eldridge bro Charles Rep this case differ from that as I be of opinion upon  the construction of the first clause that the whole profit will go and survive  for the education and maintenance of the survivor till now it will be absurd  to think that the testator will give the whole profit to be apply for the  maintenance of the survivor of beneficiary and trust and vet that the moiety  after the survivor attain shall go to the heir of the decease beneficiary and  trust atkins but then the freehold be sever by bonny deed of conveyance and  must have its effect but as to the copyhold it be not sever for nothing can  sever a legal estate but what will pass it in law and here have be no  surrender of the copyhold and whatever word there may be in the will relative  to the copyhold can have no effect and therefore I declare that the defendant  John Roger be entitle to the copyhold estate in question by survivorship  during his life and to the inheritance of one moiety thereof and I do direct a  account to be take of the rend and profit of the freehold and copyhold estate  of Adam Churcher to the death of Thomas bonny and decree that the balance be  divide into two moieties and that one moiety thereof be pay to Martha the wife  of the plaintiff John tread and executrix of her brother Thomas bonny and the  other moiety to the defendant John Roger and I also direct a account to be  take of the rend and profit of the say freehold estate accrue since the death  of Thomas bonny and decree that one moiety of what shall be come on the  account be pay to the plaintiff and that the freehold estate be equal divide  between the plaintiff and the defendant John Roger and that a commission do  issue for that purpose Reg lib b fol