c BAMFIELD v Popham S c p wms vern salk holt Eq can ab Eq can ab Lord keeper  two chief justice and I Powell devise estate tail or for life post case upon a  motion for a injunction to stay waste a question arise whether Mr Popham be  tenant for life or in tail upon this case the estate in question be devise to  trustee in trust for Mr Popham for life with remainder to his first and other  son in tail male successive provide that if Mr Popham shall freeman die  without heir male of his body before twentyone then to go to Mr Bamfield c  afterward he make a codicil whereby he declare his mind to make some  alteration in his will and thereby declare that if the estate tail give to Mr  Popham by his will shall determine before twentyone that then sir f Popham the  father of Mr Popham shall have it for his life the testator be dead and Mr  Popham have no issue male fall timber and bampfield be the remainder man  prefer his bill to have a injunction to stay waste saint it be argue pro quer  that Mr Popham have but a estate for life for it be so express devise to he  with remainder to his first and other son c and that the word in the proviso  and codicil shall not carry it far to make he tenant in tail and that it will  be to no purpose to make such a exposition because the devise to his first and  other son in tail male will continue as long as he have any issue male and  dyer Storch v Frensham be rely upon as to this point that a express estate  devise shall not be enlarge by the implication of subsequent word and cite  likewise cro clerk v day more owe on the other side it be say that a express  estate devise may be enlarge by the implication of subsequent word as where a  estate be devise to a for life provide chat if he die without issue it shall  go to b though by the first word it be but freeman er p a estate for life the  latter make it a estate tail beside it be say that there be a very material  difference between the estate to Mr Popham for life with remainder to his  first and other son in tail male and a devise to he and the heir male of his  body as to the person who be to take for in the first case if Mr Popham have  die his wife be enseint of a son who be afterward bear this posthumous son can  never take but see now stat W c because it be a contingent remainder and  defeat by the determination of the particular estate before the son be in be  but in the latter case where the devise be to he and the heir male of his body  the posthumous son shall take and although a will in write ought not to be  expound by matter dehors yet one part of it ought to be explain by another and  the intent of the testator ought to be collect out of the whole will and  codicil and since the testator himself freeman have call it a estate tail in  the codicil he have by that declare his intention that it shall be so the  authority cite for the defendant be cro follow   Sandays case the court take  time to the next term to consider of it see post c p