case forester against doctor cotton and other rule in Noah v mordant not take  place where the devise be not specific but in general word Ought to be confine  to simple devise not to limitation lib Reg a foe S c Eden in chancery that  that and that Dec sir Thomas Terrel have two son harry and Charles in upon the  marriage of harry with Hester Blount sir Thomas and harry settle several  estate to the use of harry for life remainder as to part to harry wife for  life remainder to trustee for year to raise portion for young child remainder  as to the whole to the first and other son of harry in tail male remainder to  sir Thomas in tail male remainder to the right heir of sir Thomas sir harry  leave five child v videlicet Thomas harry Frances Penelope and Charles ambler  in sir Thomas the son suffer a recovery of all the estate in the lifetime of  his mother to the use of himself in fee but the mother do not join in make a  tenant to the prcipe and sir Thomas afterward die intestate on the that  December upon his death harry his brother become entitle and afterward make  his will and devise all his manor message land tenement and hereditament  whatsoever whereof he be seize or whereto he be entitle and of which he have  any manner of power to dispose to the use of his brother Charles for life  remainder to his first and other son in tail male remainder to his uncle  Charles for life remainder to his old son Thomas for life remainder to the  first and other son of Thomas in tail male with remainder over with the last  remainder to his own right heir sir harry and his brother Charles die without  issue male leave the defendant m cotton the daughter of Charles their heir at  law Charles the uncle leave issue male Thomas who upon the death of the  jointress in enter upon the jointure part of the estate and claim to be  entitle thereto under the settlement of the prior limitation be spend and the  recovery suffer by sir Thomas not affect that part of the estate suffer a  recovery thereof and declare the use to himself in fee and afterward die  without issue on the that February leave the plaintiff Frances and Penelope  his sister and heir at law the limitation under the will of sir harry be spend  defendant cotton in right of his wife become entitle to that part of the  estate which be not in jointure at the time the recovery be suffer by sir  Thomas as heir at law to sir harry and have get into possession of the other  part of the estate which be in jointure the plaintiff bring a ejectment for  the jointure land but the settlement be in the hand of cotton and the portion  to be raise by the term of year in the settlement of not beingpaid bill be  bring for a account of rend and profit of the ambler premise whereof sir  Thomas the plaintiff brother suffer the recovery be the premise which be in  jointure when the first recovery be suffer and upon payment of the portion  remain due under the term of year to have a assignment of the trust term and  to have deed deliver up the defendant cotton and his wife make two point saint  that the recovery suffer by sir Thomas in comprise the land in jointure and  the mother be to be presume to have join in make a tenant to a prcipe d  suppose it do not that sir harry devise the land in jointure as well as the  other land and as the devisees under his will enjoy the land which be not in  jointure they be bind by and do acquiesce in the devise of the land ambler er  p which be in jointure upon the principle of the case of Noah v mordant in  vern Jenkins v Jenkins belt supplement to Ves before Lord Talbot Henley Lord  keeper refuse to go into the first question and say if it be necessary to be  determine he shall send it to law to d the defence to the title in equity be  find on principle which prevail in the law of all country note ft will appear  that this doctrine be not sanction by subsequent authority see Swanst in note  but they ought to be confine within reasonable bind and to simple plain devise  of the inheritance and not where there be limitation the intention of the  testator ought to be clear and manifest it do not appear what be the judgement  in Noah v mordant in that case as well as in Jenkins v Jenkins before Lord  Talbot the land be specify it shall appear that the testator know that he have  no right to dispose of the land yet take upon himself to do it the word in  this case be general No instance where general word have be hold to be within  that rule I have great doubt whether such a condition can be couple with a  partial estate it will make great confusion the devise will be sometime good  at other time not as the devisee in remainder submit to the will or not it be  a unknown species of estate ad will cur cancel Pulteney v Lord Darlington  contra Ves bro c c ambler the defendant find the court against they on the  equitable question decline a trial at law decree accord to the prayer of the  bill it appear from the registrar book that sir Henry die November without  issue and Charles die in and not as be state in Mr Eden report without issue  leave mrs cotton wife of dr cotton the daughter of Charles then heir at law  see Mr Swanstons elaborate note on the doctrine of election I swan butcher v  Kemp mad Tibbits v Tibbits mere S c Jacob Dillon v Parker Jacob Mr serj hill  refer in his copy of ambler to the case of win v Ellis Trin ms p in that case  all be file to have a rule establish and for a account of rend and profit c  several point be make in the case one upon the ground of election be that as  the plaintiff have elect to take under the will he shall not in equity be  permit to disturb the disposition of it but baron Eyre think that as the  disposition of the land in the win be mere under general word all my estate  which may indeed comprehend they if so intend yet there be no specific  disposition of they it be not decide clear that he mean to include these  particular land and unless that appear clear the point of election can not  arise the merit of this case be not state in the ms report of this case see  cull v Showell post