BLUNIKET and holms Oct devise Br Brant b pl Leonard pl Windham deliver his  opinion against the plaintiff make the single point on the construction of the  word of the will what estate be give to Thomas wedgwood who suffer the  recovery the devise be to t for life and if he die without issue of his body  then live then to Leonard and his heir which he conceive be but a estate for  life with remainder in tail and not a feesimple by reason the write be deposit  that Thomas shall not alien which yet he conceive will not help nor the  contingent which be find on the estate for life however confound with it  because the estate come several way and so be not present though afterward  they may be confound and this be the express word of the will to make a fee  there must be a transmutation of the will place the latter word first which be  a strange metamorphase for all the contingent be to the remainder not to the  estate for life accord to the natural place of the word this construction  avoid more inconvenience and be more suitable to the rule of the commonlaw for  otherwise a Keble executory devise which by pell and Browns case can be cut  off will be make whereas it be rather a contingent remainder against which the  rule of law fight with and will by no mean support it Colshirst against  Bajushan though it will rather create that than a executory estate which can  be create by feoff but only in favour of devise and therefore executory devise  which clog a estate against the rule of law shall not be let in by a  construction by transposition and wrest when the natural construction will  make a contingent suitable to the rule of law when Thomas have a estate for  life with such a contingent suffer recovery his estate for life and the  contingent be confound and so the remainder light sect l   destroy in the mean  time before the contingent there be a feesimple in Thomas which Seamors case  be create by the same conveyance do not confound the estate for life archer  case be a strong case than this be and if the estate for life have be confound  by a ordinary surrender to a estranger that have have the fee the estate for  life have be utter go and shall not be say in be to maintain any contingent  and thus Thomas by the record be seize in fee and may well devise to his wife  and the heir of Leonard be bar Twisden of the same opinion for the defendant  suppose Thomas have be a mere stranger and not heir in this case then he have  a bare estate for life the remainder in contingent if he have say only to  Thomas for life and if he die without issue then to Leonard Lonys case this be  a contingent in remainder Barastons case and he say further that be that if  Thomas have issue then he shall have in fee this be a contingent and yet can  depend on another contingent as in Chedingtons case but this be the same  contingent operate several way as to a if he pay c and if he fail of payment  to b this have be a good contingent Thomas not be a stranger but heir he have  the feesimple in the mean time though light   it may be argue that the fee be  in abeyance yet Berks case car c b and nappers case hut and cony case be of  another opinion and this be by operation of law and not by the construction of  the will I Cr or car Braughton against player in the chancery devise to two  son equal Keble to be divide share and share like which be but a estate for  life in the young son because the old son have no more by the will but only by  operation of law and Keble er p archer case be the same in boundary with this  and though the reporter take no notice of this it be because they look only  upon the will not but that they do see the operation of law admit pell and  Browns case which have be always controvert to be law yet it reach not this  case be a devise to W and his heir and if he die without issue then to another  and hut angel and the city of London case the court will not meddle with the  fee upon a fee as it seem by that case to be but here be a express devise for  life mallet and foster to the same intent most settlement of marriage be upon  contingent and therefore great care must he have of shake they m James per  coke Ch justice there be more perplex construction in will than the estate of  the will be worth to unfold and therefore the near must be to the intent of  the devisor so as it consist with the rule of law he agree the case and  authority above cite because as contingent be not light to be shake so shall  they be suffer they will introduce great inconvenience of perpetuity this case  differ not from archer or Nichols case pl Com and whereas in Lampets case it  be in varying state whether it fall or not then it be in contingent till one  die without issue and no act of the tenant for life can destroy or hinder it  judgement for the defendant