case shaw against weigh see S c Mod with note the resolution of the court on a  case by devise ante Raymond chief justice this case stand for the opinion of  the court the term make to the plaintiff in ejectment be expire and though we  can restore the party to his possession yet we may give judgement the  judgement upon this special verdict below be quod to express grief nil to take  in hand per breve and we be all of opinion that this judgement ought to be  reverse the first point before the court be what estate the trustee have by  the will as no word of inheritance be make use of in the limitation to they  and we be all of opinion that the trustee take a estate of inheritance by  implication for the intention of the testator be that they shall take such a  estate as will support the several trust in the will and they be estate of  inheritance the trustee must have a estate of inheritance to support such  trust as roll Abr but this be give up on the first argument we need not labour  it the second point be what estate the testator sister Dorothy and whether  take by the will if they take a estatetail Dorothy may levy a fine and suffer  a recovery to bar the lessor of the plaintiff and consequent the judgement  below will be good but if the sister take only a estate for life the fine and  recovery be a forfeiture of the estate and no bar to the lessor of the  plaintiff and we be all of opinion that the sister take only a estate for life  with remainder in tail to their issue for first after the death of his wife  the testator give it in trust for whether and Dorothy equal betwixt they  during their natural life here if it have rest it will be a express estate for  life to they and then he declare his intention by say they shall commit no  manner of waste now can it be say that he intend they a estate of inheritance  when he oblige they not to commit any waste but to proceed he provide that if  the five hundred pound or any part be pay by his say modern report sister that  then they may raise such money by dig of coal only so that he restrain their  power to dig of coal only the power his wife have be to sell or cut and sell  timber or dig coal c but no such power be give to the issue because it be  plain be intend the sister shall take a estate for life and the issue a estate  in tail so there be no occasion to give they a power which they have by virtue  of the estate give to they then the will go on and if either of my say sister  die leave issue or issue c then in trust for such issue or issue of the mother  share or else in trust for the survivor or survivor of they the question upon  this be whether issue or issue be word of limitation or a demarcation person  at commonlaw issue be modern report er p not a word of limitation in deed coke  second institute and in case of a use the same law for if a feoff be make to  the use of I S and his issue male this do not pass a estatetail but in will S  issue be sometime a word of limitation and sometime a word of purchase accord  as the testator intention appear in the will the case of Loddington v kime in  lev be not well report I hear it argue seriatim and the case be adjudge that  ivers armin take only a estate for life and that point remain unshake in  chancery and the house of lord so that issue there be judge a good word of  purchase though a estate for life be give to the father of the issue the case  of Blackhurt v well hill Ann be a strong case there the devise be to a for  life only and after his death to his issue and the heir of such issue and that  be adjudge a estate for life in a and the issue be a word of purchase though a  take a estate for life and what the court most rely on in that case be the  intention of the testator appear from the word only and the limitation over to  the heir of the issue now here the intention appear as plain that the sister  be to take a estate for life only as I have partly show then the word survivor  or survivor show the issue be to take by purchase for survivor can relate to  sister there be but two and the will go further and their respective issue or  issue so that the issue of the sister be to take a estate which be to descend  to their issue and when a estate for life be give to one and after to his  issue with a limitation over to his issue of such issue the first take only a  estate for life and the issue take as purchaser the case of clerk v day report  in cro Elizabeth roll Abr and more be to that purpose yet I doubt none of  these book have state it as it be on the roll yet more be the last and say it  be adjudge and he be a judicious reporter the other two be young at that time  but as in more the testator devise to his daughter modern report for life and  if she marry after my death and have issue of her body c then I will that her  heir after my daughter death shall have the land and to the heir of their body  beget and it be adjudge that the daughter take only a estate for life and her  heir a estate of inheritance by purchase the case of king v mell report in lev  and vent have be strong rely on for the defendant that case I agree be  establish but there be no occasion to carry it one jot further and we be of  opinion it do not come up to this case there be not a limitation over as in  this case to the issue of the issue and if hale opinion be true report in that  case be be clear of opinion if there have be a limitation over to the issue of  the issue the devisee have take only a estate for life and the word issue have  be a word of purchase another objection be that if the sister do not take a  estatetail by the word already mention yet they be tenant in tail by the  subsequent word videlicet and if my sister die without issue and their issue  or issue die without issue then c these word they say give they a estatetail  by implication as in the case of Sutton v Pamon and Langley v Balwin the last  of which be in I answer in those case it be limit only to the first second  three and four so that all the issue that may be be not comprehend in the word  of purchase and therefore the word if he die without issue may by implication  operate so as to give the father a estatetail for the five son can not take as  a purchaser because it be only to the first second three and four son and then  the word if be die without issue then the remainder over so that as long as he  have issue the remainder can take effect but here the word be general and take  in all the issue the case of Popham v Bainfield in salk be ill report for the  book say it be a devise to a for life remainder to his first and so to his ten  son but the material word and to all and every other son be leave out but in  dyer it be say that a implication shall never ride over a express limitation  and therefore if a estate be devise to a for life and after to his first son  and the heir of the body of such first son and if a die without issue then  over in that case a shall not have a estate by implication because there be a  express limitation in tail to his first son modern report er p another  objection be that this can be a description story verson as comprehend male  and female I answer it be a good word of purchase by the plain intention of  the testator there be another point as to the crossremainders but that be now  out of the case and we be of opinion the sister be only tenant for life so the  judgement be reverse per totan curian afterward this cause go up into the  house of lord on a writ of error bring by William sparrow and other and be a  see the argument in Fitzgib a argue by Mr attorney b sir Philip York b general  and Mr Bootle to make it a estatetail and by Mr fazakerly and Mr strange to  make it but a estate for life and all the judge be order to attend take time  to consider of it and on that April nine be of opinion that it be but a estate  for life videlicet Raymond price page Reynolds hale carter Denton probin and  comens and the Lord chief justice Eyre the Lord chief baron Pengelly and Mr  justice c see his argument in fortesc Rep c fortescue hold it a estatetail  before the lord give judgement the learned bishop of Chichester doctor hare  stand up and say he do not pretend to understand the nicety of the law but  this question seem to he very much to depend upon a grammatical construction  of the word of the will and perceive that the three judge who differ from the  rest seem to argue from the grammar of it and he be of opinion that accord to  grammatical construction he shall rather think survivor or survivor shall be  most proper refer to the sister rather than to the issue and thereupon the  house of lord no one d many lord who be of opinion to affirm be go away the  judgement of b r be late at night reverse upon a division of ten lord against  seven stram d to speak against give judgement accord to the opinion of the say  three judge and reverse the judgement give by the king bench modern report er  p modern report volume modern report or select case adjudge in the court of  king bench chancery common plead and exchequer volume the nine contain case  argue and decree in the high court of chancery in the eight nine ten and  eleven year of george the first to which be add some special case on appeal  and a additional series of case in the court of chancery during the time of  lord Hardwicke from Michaelmas term in the ten year of george the second to  Trinity term the twentyeighth of george the second the five edition correct by  thomas leech Esq of the middle temple barrister at law modern report easter  term the eight of George the first in the year in the court of chancery earl  of Macclesfield Lord chancellor sir Joseph Jekyll Knt master of the roll sir  Robert Raymond Knt attorneygeneral sir Philip York Knt solicitor general