case backhouse against well a devise to a for life without impeachment of  waste and after to the issue male of his body with remainder to the heir male  of the body of that issue convey to modern report er p a a estate for life  with remainder to the issue in tail say qure S c Eq ab S c stram S c fort S c  pale yellow S c cite Mod S c cite ld ray vent this be a ejectment and the  question arise upon the construction of a will whether the word of it make the  devisee only tenant for life or tenant in tail the devisor be seize in fee of  the land in question make his will thus to the intent that all my land shall  remain in my name and blood I devise to I S my near kinsman such and such land  c to have and to bold for the term of his natural life only without  impeachment of waste then to the issue male of his body lawful to be beget if  God shall bless he with such issue remainder to the heir male of the body of  that issue Lutwyche for the plaintiff argue that the devisee be by this will  only a tenant for life and so consequent have no power to levy a fine or  suffer a common recovery under which the defendant claim modern report that  this be the intention of the testator appear first from the preamble which  signify it to be his intention that his land shall remain in his name and  blood from whence it be not probable that he will by make the first devisee  tenant in tail put it in his power by suffer a common recovery to bar c second  this appear to have be his intention from the word of the will which be to  have and to bold for the term of his natural life only the clause likewise  without impeachment of waste have be needless if the testator have design to  make he tenant in tail and from the word to the heir male of the body of that  issue it be infer that the testator plain design to vest the entail in the  issue and not the first devisee if in a will such proper word be make use of  as will in a deed pass such a estate nothing but the plain intention of the  testator to the contrary shall ever put another construction upon the word a  wild case   a a devise to a man and his child where the man have no child must  pass a estatetail because it must be the intention of the testator to have it  so and otherwise the word child will be of no signification the case of king v  mell b report in lev and vent b be very different from the case at bar there  be not in that case the restrictive word only and the clause without  impeachment of waste as in we beside there hale argue strong from the  intention of the testator which in a will and also in a estatetail of which  the statute say will a giver c ought to carry great weight now here the  intention of the testator be strong with we modern report from the difficulty  with which the judgement be give in the case of king v mell it appear the  judge go as far as they can go and the case of tailor v sayer c vent ray  pollexfen c have be several time deny to be law Lechmere for the defendant  argue that no such intention can be collect either from the preamble or from  the word of the will as to the preamble it must be consider as a general  preamble that extend to the whole will and consequent to all the devise in the  will as well as to the devise in question and therefore from the preamble it  can appear that it be his intention to make this devisee tenant for life any  more than some other that he have confess make tenant in tail indeed it do  appear what be his motive in the choice be make of devisees videlicet their be  of his name and family but nothing further as for the observation make from  the clause without impeachment of waste it be in other part of the will  needless insert and so it may here as to the inference make from those word if  God shall bless he with such issue that they import a design of give a  contingent remainder to that issue it be answer that the precede word  videlicet the remainder to the issue male of his body lawful to be beget be  the operative word and which conjoin with those that precede they vest a  estatetail in the devisee as to the inference from the word to the heir male  of the body of that issue that the estatetail be vest in the issue it be  answer that whether the estatetail be vest in the devisee or issue those word  must be superfluous for issue be nomen proceeding by inference without say  more import a estatetail as to the expression for the term of his natural life  only if the word only be leave out modern report er p since the case of king v  Helling it can be no objection and as to that modern report word it be plain  tautology for a estate for life be a estate for life only and then the case  remain the same with the case of the king v Helling issue be no appropriate  word of purchase in a will though perhaps in a deed it may be so and yet in  the case of lee v brace a Mod ld ray say a the word issue be use in a deed as  a word of limitation in a will it be a word that have no determine  signification but must be govern by other circumstance and most common it be  use as a word of limitation Parker chief justice in the next term deliver the  opinion of the whole court that by the devise the devisee be make tenant for  life remainder to the issue in tail the word of the will he say be so express  to this purpose that neither alley word that can have be use or any argument  can make it plain this he say be both the obvious and legal import of these  word and what they will have import in a conveyance b but see morris v Le gay  burr Goodright v pullen ld ray Blandford v aplin term Rep Robinson v Robinson  burr see also den on demise of web v Puchey that by a devise to a for life  without impeachment of waste and after his decease to the issue male of his  body and to the heir and assign of such issue male for ever and for default of  such issue male to b c a take a estatetail term Rep Cooper and other v Collins  term Rep b