andrews vers fulham what be word of condition and what of limitation andr SC  more full Eq Cas ab Fearne count Rem vin Abr pl in ejectment on the demise of  Edward Jones Esq a case be make for the opinion of the court that Robert waith  be possess of leasehold message in London by his will in devise the same to  his wife for life and after her decease to such child as she be now suppose to  be enseint of and to the heir of such child for ever provide that if S h child  as shall happen to be bear shall die before twentyone have no issue the  reversion of one three shall go to my wife and her heir one three to my sister  Elizabeth and her heir and the remain three to my sister whether and her heir  and of this will he make his wife executrix and soon after die his wife not be  enseint that she assent to the strange will and marry the father of the lessor  who administer to her and the defendant claim one three under whether the  sister of the devisor after two argument the chief justice deliver the opinion  of the court that though former it be doubt whether a devise to a infant en  ventre sa mere be good yet it be now clear that where it be per word de going  to be it will take effect salk Godolph Goodright v wright above and note and  chapman v blisset Cas tempt Talb do v Carleton will Harris v barn burr Fearne  count Rem Edward the word therefore will have be sufficient have any person  come in be capable of take but the objection be that no such person ever exist  and consequent those who claim in remainder on the die of such person under  twentyone and without issue can never enjoy the estate now in answer to this  it be observable that it be no unusual thing for word of condition to be take  as word of limitation vent salk where there be a remainder over vide napper v  sander hut Avelin v ware Ves lethieullier v Tracy atk Statham v bell Cowp  Bradford v Foley Doug Horton v Witaker term Rep do v Shiphard Doug do v  Brabant bro Chanc Rep term Rep SC in b r gough Calthorpe v gough ib notorious  facts take it therefore as a limitation it must either happen or become  impossible it never do happen and therefore the question be whether the  limitation over of the term be so remote as not to be allow and we be all of  opinion it be not too remote vide gore v gore ante and the note for this  purpose the case of Massenburg v ask be strong in point and so be Martin v  long vern Abr Eq and this be agreeable to the case of scattergood strange  report er p v edge where the remainder over on refuse to take the name of edge  be hold a limitation and not a condition the devise to the expect son of  Catherine be void as if no such clause in the will accord to more and we be  the more confirm in this opinion by my Lord harcourt decision in the case of  Westcombe v Jones Prec Charles Eq Abr pale yellow Eq Rep S c a where upon the  very clause now in question he determine that the devise over in three be good  the defendant therefore must have the postea and the plaintiff pay the cost of  a nonsuit N B mich Geo Gulliver v wicket the same question be determine with  regard to feesimple land and hold on a special resolution to be a good  remainder in three by the king bench report will b though the common plea have  be of another opinion on a case make before Eyre c I and rule by will c I and  Parker report appendix to andr Rep by Vernon cite will burr Ves c