case Humberston versus Humberston see Vanderplank v king hare Lyddon v ellison  Beav Parfitt v Hember l r Eq Juttendromohun Tagore v Ganendromohun Tagore l r  ind App Supp Vol Hampton v Holman Ch d Lord chancellor Cowper vern pre Charles  pale yellow Rep Eq can ab pl Eq can ab pl devise of land to a corporation in  trust to convey the premise to his godson a for life and so to his first son  for life and afterward to convey the premise to the first son of that son for  life and in failure of such issue of a to convey it to b for life c this be a  perpetuity but the conveyance shall be make as near the intent of the party as  the rule of law will admit videlicet by make all the person in be but tenant  for life but the limitation to the son unborn must be in tail one Matthew  Humberston report to have be former a ChristHospitalboy devise his estate  which be very considerable to the draper company and their successor in trust  to convey the premise to his godson Matthew Humberston for life and afterward  upon the death of the say Matthew to his first son for life and so to the  first son of that first son for life c and if no issue male of the first son  then to the second son of the say Matthew Humberston for life and so to his  first son c and in failure of such issue of Matthew then to another Matthew  Humberston for life and peer William er p to mrs first son for life c with  remainder over to very many of the Humberstons I think about fifty for their  life successive and their respective son when bear for their life without give  a estate in tail to any of they or make any disposition of the fee peer  William on a bill bring by the first devisee against several in remainder the  trustee and executor and also against the attorneygeneral no heir be to be  find for a execution of the trust of the will by Lord chancellor though a  attempt to make a perpetuity for several life be vain yet so far as be  consistent with the rule of law it ought to be comply with and therefore let  all the son of these several Humberstons that be already bear take estate for  their life but where the limitation be to the first son unborn there the  limitation to such unborn son shall be in tail male dly whereas it be object  that where the limitation for want of issue male of the first Matthew  Humberston give a remainder over these word for want of issue male of the  first Matthew Humberston do by implication create a estatetail in the say  Matthew Humberston precedent to the next remainder the court say that these be  word of implication only after a express estate for life vide ante Bamfield v  Popham and be in default of such issue vide post Blackborn v hewer edgley e  content can not create a estatetail and the rather too in regard this will  defeat the intent of the testator by empower the first Matthew Humberston by a  recovery to bar all the subsequent remainder dly in this case the testator as  a encouragement to his executor who be four to accept of the trust and  executorship have give to each of they pound and pound apiece for mourning and  to each of they a ring and pound ayear for their trouble peer William upon  which Lord chancellor say that notwithstanding the condition of the acceptance  may seem to run to all the legacy yet the executor though they do not act  shall have their ring and mourning these be intend they immediate and not to  wait their time of acceptance but that they shall not have their pound and a  annuity of pound each unless they accept of the trust and that the share or  annuity of the renounce executor shall not go over to the act executor as a  further encouragement but ought to sink for the benefit of the estate vide  Godolphin v Godolphin ves hucks v hucks ves Spencer v duke of Marlborough bro  p c and Edward bro p c chapman v brown burr Pitt v Jackson bro c c nchol v  nchol Bla Rep somervile v Lethbridge t r Marlboro v Godolphin Eden heath v  heath Eden Routledge v Dorril Ves jun thellusson v Woodford Ves Ves n r  Mainwaring v Baxter Ves Deerhurst v saint Alban mad beard v Westcott Taun b a  Tur Bacon v proctor Tur the decree direct that the master shall see a  settlement make of the say trust estate pursuant to the say will with  limitation to the several person name to be tenant for life in the say will  and to the heir male of their body in strict settlement accord to the court of  law and if any of the party who be make tenant for life have any issue male  live their name be to be insert in the say deed of settlement Reg lib a fol by  the name of Humberston v collet see read v devaynes bro c c abbot v massy Ves  Harrison v Rowley Ves Stackpoole v Howell Ves bridge v Wotton V b freeman v  Fairlie mere Dix v reed S S