case clare versus clare may W Clare declare his term of one thousand year in  trust for his son t c for so many year of the term as he shall live and after  his death in trust for the issue male of t c lawful beget for so many year c  as such issue male shall live and when the issue male of t c shall happen to  be extinct then in trust for his second son W for life remainder in trust for  the issue male of W for so many year as they shall happen to live the old to  be prefer before the young and after the death of W and from the time his  issue male shall happen to be extinct then the premise to descend and continue  in the issue male of the name and family of the beetle infesting beehives  which shall be next of kin for all the residue of the term and make his son t  c sole executor and residuary legatee the testator die and t c die without  issue male the residue of the term shall go to the representative of T C  contrary to the will in which there be a plain affectation of a perpetuity  William Clare possess of a term of one thousand year by will date April devise  it to trustee in trust for his son Thomas Clare for so many year of the term  as he shall live and after his death in trust for the issue male of his son  Thomas lawful beget for so many year of the say unexpired term as such issue  male shall live and when the issue male of his say son Thomas shall happen to  be extinct then in trust for his second son William for life remainder in  trust for the issue male of his say son William for so many year as they shall  happen to live the old of such issue male to be prefer before the young and  after the death of the say William Clare and from the case tempt Talbot time  his issue male shall happen to be extinct then that the premise shall come  descend and continue in the issue male of the name and family of the beetle  infesting beehives which shall be next of kin for all the residue of the term  and make his son Thomas sole executor and residuary legatee the testator die  and in the year Thomas die without have have any issue male the question be  whether the whole term do not vest absolute in Thomas and whether the  limitation over to William the second son after failure of issue male of  Thomas be not void Mr attorneygeneral and Mr fazakerley argue that the  limitation be good for that the whole be vest in the trustee Thomas the first  son have but a contingent interest in so many year only as shall happen to be  expire at his death and no absolute estate tail in the whole as it must have  be to prevent the limitation over to William take place then it must be the  remainder in the trust for the issue male of Thomas which must avoid the  limitation over indeed the word issue be in a will sometime take to be a word  of limitation though in a deed it can carry but a estate for life in order to  fulfil the testator intent but that intent must be plain and manifest and the  word not control by any other this appear from Wilds case   where the word  after their decease make the other word to be word not of limitation but of  purchase and from the case of Papillon versus voice and Lord glenorchy and  Bosville ante and the reason why in many case these word be determine to carry  a estate tail be because otherwise the testator intent can never take place  which be the reason of the resolution in king and Mellings case vent but no  inference can be draw from the case of freehold to that of leasehold estate  which have be often differenced in this court in the case case tempt Talbot er  p of peacock and Spooner vent the word be strong than they be case tempt  Talbot here and yet the generality of they be restrain and they be construe to  be word of purchase if then Thomas take but a estate for life the remainder to  his issue never take place must be look upon as out of the question which win  let in the limitation to William and this be a eligible construction in order  to let in a provision for his family and to follow his intent which be that  his son William shall take nor be this intent control by any rule of law the  contingency happen within the compass of a life v iz that of Thomas the elder  son and that such construction way well be make appear from the case of  Higgins versus Dowler a demise land for a long term in trust for b for life  then to his son for the remainder of the term and in default of issue of such  son to the second and other son of b and for want of issue male to the  daughter of b for the remainder of the term there have never be a son the  limitation to the daughter be hold good vern and from that of brook and tailor  Trin Geo in b r where there be a bequest of a personal estate to his wife upon  condition to give his three sister pound yearly for their life and after his  wife death he give the same to his daughter mary tailor upon the same  obligation to his sister and after his daughter death to the fruit of her body  and for want of such fruit to his brother and sister and their child then live  the opinion of the court be that the limitation to the brother and sister be  good and yet have there be any fruit of the body they must have take a estate  tail but they never come in be the second limitation be allow to take place so  in the case of Stanley and leigh or mead p will to at the roll about three  term ago where there be a bequest to one for life and to his first and every  other son and there never be any son upon the word if he die without issue it  be insist that the limitation over shall take place and that these word shall  be understand to be issue at the time of his death and so allow by the court  for that the limitation to the son and the heir of their body never take place  the second limitation be good there be no danger of a perpetuity so in our  case have Thomas have any issue they will have take a estate tail but there be  no issue of he the limitation over to William the second son be good case  tempt Talbot Mr solicitor general and Mr Lutwytch argue for the plaintiff who  be executor to Thomas the residuary legatee that the limitation to William be  void for that it be plain the testator meaning that the issue male and the  issue of that issue shall take in infinitum and then he say that when the  issue shall be extinct it shall go to William the extinguishment here mean be  not of any one issue but of the whole the word lawful beget be likewise  considerable be hold by the Lord hate in king and Mellings case to be word  natural belong to the creation of a estate tail only suppose he have make as  many limitation for life as there have be possibility of people take will not  this in a court of equity be look upon to be the same as if he have limit it  to he and the issue of his body and have he not do it here he have limit it to  as many as shall be of the name and family of the beetle infesting beehives  accord to judge Ritchells invention in Inst b but such practice have always be  discountenance nothing be so contrary to our law as the admission of a  perpetuity nor will the other method which have be attempt to support this  limitation do better which be that of construe Thomas to take a estate for  life and then strike out the remainder to his issue male as if it have never  be because there never be any issue male of he for it be admit that if Thomas  have have any issue male this limitation over have be void and the make it  good by failure of issue male will be make the validity of the limitation to  depend upon a subsequent accident whereas it must stand upon its own bottom  and can be decree to be good or have upon any unforeseen accident say with  Lord mansfield argument in do v Fonereau Douglas Rep Hopkins v Hopkins post  Brownsword v Edward Ves the result of which case seem to be that a devise may  operate either way accord to the event the opinion of the master of the roll  in the case of Stanley versus leigh be find upon the case of Higgins versus  Dowler ante and there be now think of appeal from that decree at the roll if  the case of brook versus tailor ante have depend single on the word to her and  after her decease to the fruit of her body it have clear be a estate tail but  the case tempt Talbot reason be that there be those other word to my brother  and sister then live which bring it within the compass of a life and these  word then live make the case to be the same as the duke of Norfolk Chan case  in the case of the lady Lanesborough versus fox post the session before last  in the house of peer the judgement be by the advice of all the judge present  that there be no imply estate and consequent the recovery void which show that  the court have never lie any stress on the accident of the death happen or not  happen and in the case of scattergood versus hedge the Lord Treby and the  other judge hold that the accident of no son be bear be not to influence the  case one way or other which be another strong authority that subsequent  accident be not to be regard case tempt Talbot er p Lord chancellor two  question have be make in this case the first be what estate Thomas the old son  take by this will whether a estatetail or a estate for life only and second  whether if he take but a estate for life the subsequent accident of his die  without issue male or rather never have have any issue male will lot in the  limitation to William the second son as to the first I be of opinion that  Thomas take but a estate for life nor will the subsequent word that from and  immediate after his death the trustee shall suffer c enlarge his estate for  life the word issue in what case use as a word of purchase vide fearne  contingent remainder that edit and when as a word of limitation in a deed can  never be a word of limitation but be make so in will to serve the testator  intent which be the reason of the resolution in the case of king and mell and  if the present case be like that I shall think myself bind to observe that  resolution but that be of a freehold which may and must descend to the issue  and this be of a leasehold which without a particular provision can never  descend but must go in course of administration and therefore as here be a  express estate for life limit to Thomas it shall not be enlarge by any of the  subsequent word especial when in the limitation to William the second son he  have explain case tempt Talbot what he mean by the gift to the issue in the  first part for there he give it to the first and every other son and the heir  male of their body so it be plain he intend every issue that be bear of Thomas  shall take and then the limitation to William be at so great a distance be too  remote and can take effect the next question be whether the subsequent  accident of Thomas die without issue will better the case for William and as  to that I think all deed and will be to stand as they do at the time of the  make they and can be make good by any afteract especial where such act be  collateral and be upon its happen such a contingency upon which no estate can  commence by law be it ever say in case of a limitation to one and if he die  without issue live at the time of his death that you must wait till his death  to determine whether the limitation be good or not if so that limitation will  be no better than a general limitation upon a general failure of issue the  case of Higgins versus Dowler be very imperfect report and be upon a demurrer  ante where thing be not argue with that nicety which they be upon argue the  merit of a cause that of Stanley and lee ante have not be particular mention  so that what we have of it be only upon memory and I think it much better to  stick to the know general rule than to follow any one particular precedent  which may be find on reason unknown to we such a proceed will confound all  property that of brook and tailor ante whatever reason the judge may go upon  be certain very different by reason of the word then live but there be a plain  affection of a perpetuity as strong declare by the testator himself as can be  and a succession of estate for life to person not in be be as much a  perpetuity and as little to be endure as will be that of a estate tail of  which no recovery can be suffer the case of lady Lanesborough versus fox post  be the strong authority that can be and even have it not be in the house case  tempt Talbot of lord I shall have think myself bind to go accord to the  general and know rule of law and so decree Reg lib a fol it shall seem that  the authority of this case have be shake in no inconsiderable degree by  Sheffield v Lord orrery atk do v fonnereau Doug marsh v marsh bro Ch Rep which  case go the length of establish the doctrine lie down in Higgins v Dowler p  will Stanley v leigh p will and also Lloyd v Carew shower Cas in parliament  Gower v Grosvenor Barnard Maddox v hains p will Stephens v Stephens post  Sabberton v Sabberton post fearne contingent Rem the note to do v fonnereau  dougl black Com the result of which case as applicable to the present seem to  be this that the principle of prevent perpetuity do not render it necessary to  hold the limitation over to William to be void in its creation for if Thomas  have die leave issue male the entire interest and dominion in the term devise  will have vest in he and nothing leave upon which the subsequent limitation  can attach but as the other alternative happen videlicet that Thomas have no  son the limitation over to William operate as a executory devise the  contingency happen within the time establish by law to prevent perpetuity  videlicet within the compass of a life that of Thomas the elder son say with  with v Blackman Ves knight v Ellis bro Charles Rep the term to Thomas as be  the residuary legatee of his father and from he to the plaintiff who be the  executor of Thomas N B as to this last point burgess and burgess Mod Chan can  and d of Norfolk case Chan can case tempt Talbot er p