ambler case Hodges against isaac bequest of residue to child of a the interest  to be pay for their learning and at the age of twenty to be equal divide  between they but if a have no child the interest to be pay to a for seven year  and then the whole to be pay to her whether afterborn child shall take Qure  lib Reg a foe a at the roll by consent that July John Stanton be in the east  India company be service at Bombay and have a niece whether the wife of Isaac  who be a chairmaker by trade and reside in England and be inform that she have  child but it do not a pear that he be acquaint with their name or number make  his will on that October and after several legacy give to the child of his  niece whether Isaac the remainder and residue of his estate which he direct to  be pay into a bank or stock and the interest to be pay yearly for such  learning as that sum will defray and at the age of twenty year to be divide  equal between they and if she have only one child it shall have the whole but  if his niece have no child the interest be to be pay to her or her husband  during the term of seven year and then the whole sum be to be deliver to her  or her husband whether Isaac have four child live at the death of the testator  and after his death have a five child bear she and her husband be both live Q  whether the afterborn child shall be entitle to a share of the residue the  counsel for the four infant that be bear in the lifetime of the testator argue  that where there be a immediate devise to person by a general description the  general rule be that only such person shall be entitle who answer the  description at the time of the death of the testator at which time the will  take effect that several opinion have be declare and case adjudge on this  principle and it be so lie down with respect to personal estate by the Lord  keeper in cook v cook vern if personal estate be give to one and his child a  child bear after the death of the testator shall not take ambler in Coleman v  Seymour Ves that February sir Edward Seymour give pound to the young child of  his daughter jane Burnett one of the young son become a elder after the death  of the testator and hold that as he be a young child at the time of the  testator death he be entitle to a share that in all case where this rule have  be depart from the intention of the testator be manifest from the word of the  will and not from conjecture out of it as in Madison v Andrews Ves in chancery  Michaelmas devise of pound to the child of plaintiff Sarah share and share to  be pay at twentyone and if any of they die that share to go to the survivor  and if all die to the testator sister grace at the time of the death of the  testator the plaintiff have only one child but have several other afterward  Lord Hardwicke hold that the subsequentborn child be entitle from the apparent  intention for the testator know that the plaintiff have but one child and vet  give the pound to the survivor and further that grace shall not take until  failure of all the child so in oat v Jackson in king bench Michaelmas in  Bartlett v Hollister Amb at the roll on that may last the testator make use of  the word all and every the child and stress be lie on its be a devise of a  remote interest after the death of Hannah his daughter in Goodwin v Goodwin  Ves atk in chancery that march the devise be to a woman for life and then to  child which must mean all her child which she shall have at her death that in  the present case the intention to be collect from the word of the will will  exclude the afterborn child ambler er p saint the legacy vest at the death of  the testator by the ambler express word but not Payable till the child attain  twenty debt is owed in presenti to loosen in going to be dly in case there  shall be no child the testator have direct the interest to be pay to her or  her husband for seven year and then c the period of time mean must be the  death of the testator and not the niece death for the interest be afterward  give to her or her husband if so a afterborn child can take in case there be  no child bear in the lifetime of the testator and if in such case a afterborn  child can take by the express word it be absurd to say that such child shall  be entitle in case there be child bear before the testator death for no reason  can be give why he shall take in the one case and be exclude in the other I  also cite the case of bowl v Belfield sergeant at law in chancery that march  as a case in point except that it have not those latter word which make the  determination strong Ann palmer by will give a sum of money to the child of  mary the wife of Thomas Selby there be six child of mary live at the time of  make the will and also at the death of the testatrix Q whether if a seven  child be bear after the death of the testatrix such afterborn child shall be  entitle to a share and hold she shall not his honour take till Monday that  July to consider of his opinion and then decline give it as all the child be  under age and therefore give direction for lie out the interest for the  maintenance of all the child without prejudice to their right to the principal  money and reserve liberty for any of the child to apply at attain twenty  Coleman v Seymour cite in the last case sir Edward Seymour have four  grandchild live videlicet the child of jane Burnett by will of d October give  to his daughter whether the wife of William Scroggs pound for the use of his  young child to be distribute among they in such manner as she shall think fit  and for want of appointment equal to be divide ambler among her young child  and if either of her say child shall die within the age of twentyone such  share to go to the survivor and he give to his daughter jane Burnett late jane  Coleman pound for the use of her young child in the same manner for the same  purpose and under the like condition as be express with regard to his daughter  Scroggs and her young child the testator die in September leave the say four  grandchild the old son die in the month of December afterward and Edward who  be one of the young child at the death of the testator become the old son and  heir at law of jane Q whether he be entitle to a share and hold he be as be  one of the young child at the death of the testator V wile v Bradbury vern v  ante Bartlett v Hollister p ellison v ayrey Ves Isaac v Isaac state short bro  c c that Dec a new bill by the husband after the death of his wife and several  child to who he be administrator to have the question determine and Lord  Camden chancellor be clear of opinion that the interest vest at the death of  the testator be give per word de presenti and that the afterborn child be  exclude see Bartlett v Hollister ante and the note there see also Davidson v  Dallas Ves in Paul v Compton Ves Heathe v Heathe atk verno v Francis bro g S c  Cox it be order that the interest shall be pay for the maintenance and  education of the child but that to be without prejudice to any question  concern the right that the defendant a Isaac bear after the death of the  testator or any other child of the say testator niece may have under like  circumstance to any part of the capital of the say residue lib Reg ambler er p