case of Glenorchy v. Bosville (1). That case arose on a devise by a man to trustees, among other trusts, upon trust to convey the estate, after the marriage of his daughter with a protestant, to the use of his daughter for life, without impeachment of waste; remainder to her husband for her life, remainder" to the issue OF HER BODY," with several remainders over; and it was decreed by Talbot, Lord Chancellor, that the daughter should be only tenant for life with remainder to her first and other SONS

IN TAIL.

Even in a devise by will, the word issue may be construed to be a word of purchase and of limitation uno flatu (m).

And that the same word may have the like construction in articles for a settlement, is settled by Hart v. Middlehurst (n).

This case arose on articles for conveying lands, in trust for the husband for life, and afterwards to the ISSUE of the match, in such manner, and subject to such charges for younger children, as the husband should, by deed or will, appoint; and Lord Hardwicke held, that a daughter, the only issue of the marriage, was entitled, under an equitable execution of those articles in strict settlement, to an estate-tail: issue of the marriage, he said, included male as female; and, therefore, if it had gone no further than to the issue of the marriage,

well as female;

(1) Ashton and Ashton, cited 2 Atk. 582; 1 Ves. 149; Villiers v. Villiers, 2 Atk. 71. S.P.

(m) Whitelock v. Hedding, 1 Bos. & Pull. 244.

and a bill had been brought for carrying the articles into execution, the settlement must have been to ALL THE ISSUE; to the first and every other son, and for default of such issue, to the daughters, with proper remainders following one after the other; and that he had known several decrees of that kind on the words ISSUE of the MARRIAGE.

In Jones v. Seys and others (o), there were articles to convey, in an event which happened, to trustees, in trust, by one entire clause, for Robert Jones and his issue by any future wife, lawfully begotten, and for want of such issue, to the right heirs of the settlor; and the Court decreed an estate-tail to the first and other sons successively in tail, with remainder to the daughters in tail, with cross-remainders between them in tail.

In Dod and Dod (p), the articles were to lay out money in the purchase of lands, to be settled on the husband, D. Dod, for life, then on the wife for life, then on such issue of their bodies as husband and wife should appoint; in default of appointment, in trust, for the issue of their bodies, remainder to the right heirs of D. Dod: and on the bill of the eldest son, Sir T. Clarke, M. R. was of opinion, the lands ought to be limited in strict settlement, and settled on the first and other sons in tail, &c.

Also in Meure and Meure (q), money arising from the sale of lands was directed to be laid out in the purchase of other lands, and settled (0) In Ch. 29 Nov, 1795. (p) Ambl. 274. (9) 2 Atk. 265.

in trust, to permit A to have the benefit for his life; 2dly, to permit B to receive the profits, &c. during his life; after his death, in trust for the issue of the body of B, lawfully begotten; in default of such issue, then over and it was held, that the lands must be settled on the first and other sons in tail, with remainder to the daughters as tenants in common in tail, with cross-remainders between them. This case,

however, had particular circumstances.

In some cases of articles, the issue are to be tenants in common, by the express stipulation of the parties.

In cases of this description, the Court would, it is apprehended, decree to them estates-tail, with cross-remainders between them in tail (r).

And in Horne v. Barton (s), the testator devised real estates to trustees and their heirs, upon trust, for the use and benefit of all and every his children who should live to attain the age of twenty-one years, or be married, which should first happen, in equal shares or proportions, undivided, for and during their respective lives, with remainder to their issue severally and respectively in tail general, with cross-remainders over; and he directed his trustees to make and execute a settlement of his said real estates accordingly.

There were only two daughters; and the Court, in decreeing a settlement, approved of crosslimitations of each moiety, so that the entirety

(r) Dodson v. Hay, 3 Bro. C. C. 404. (s) Cooper, 257.

was settled on each child, and the descendants of each child, in like manner as the original share was settled; only with the right to the posssesion at different periods, as in cross-remainders. But in Prebble and others v. Boghurst and others, and Prebble v. Prebble, (2d June 1818,) a bond recited, that if at any time during the term of the natural life of John Prebble, he should be seised of any messuages, tenements, lands, &c. in possession, he would, by such good conveyances in the law as counsel should advise, settle the same upon the said Mary Townsend, and the issue of the said intended marriage, in such parts and proportions, and to such use and uses as should be thought requisite, to make a provision for her, in case she should survive said John Prebble.

And it was conditioned to be void if the said intended marriage took effect; and that the said John Prebble should, at ANY TIME during his natural life, become seised of any messuages, lands, &c. in possession, and should convey, settle, and assure the same upon the said Mary Townsend, and the issue of the said intended marriage, by such good conveyances in the law as counsel should advise, and to use and uses as should be thought requisite, the better to make a provision for said Mary Townsend, in case she should happen to survive said John Prebble. The Court of Chancery decreed, that the condition of the bɔnd ought to be specifically performed, and that, according to the true con

struction of the condition, all the freehold and copy hold messuages, tenements, lands and hereditaments, which said John Prebble, the testator in the pleadings mentioned, became seised in possession at any time during his natural life, ought to be settled upon the issue of the said John Prebble and Mary Townsend his first wife.

And the Court also decreed, that Mary Townsend, the first wife of said testator, having died in his life-time, John, Thomas, and Richard Prebble, and Letitia Jenner, the children of the marriage with the said Mary Townsend, became entitled to have all the messuages, tenements, lands and hereditaments, of which said testator died seised in possession, conveyed to them as tenants in common in fee.

And in Taggart v. Taggart (t), a bond, by way of marriage articles, bound a farm to be the right, title and interest as to one moiety of the issue whether son or daughter, if begotten on the body of the said Rebecca by the said William : and Redesdale, Lord Chancellor, decreed the children to be purchasers and tenants in common, with limitations over, in case any of such children died under twenty-one without issue.

One more case will be added, as relevant to this head, though the precise division to which it belongs is not easily ascertained.

In Earl of Stafford v. Buckley (u), after directing his trustees to intail on his daughter and her issue, all the estate and effects which (t) 1 Scho. & Lefroy, 84. (u) 2 Ves. sen. 170