Reports of that grave and learned judge, Sir John Bridgman, knight, serjeant at law, sometime chief justice of Chester to which are added two exact tables, the one of the cases, and the other of the principal matters therein contained.

Periman against Pierce and Margaret his Wife.

TEnant in Socage had issue by his first Wife, Joan, Elizabeth, and Agnes, and Alice and Elizabeth by his second Wife, Kathe∣rine, Mary, William, and Joan by his third Wife; and by his Will did Devise his Land to Joan the younger for her life, rendering 13 s. 4 d. Rent to William, the remainder to William in Tayl, the re∣mainder to Elizabeth and Mary for life, the remainder propinquo sanguinitatis of the Devisor for ever. William dyes without issue, Joan the younger dyes without issue, Elizabeth had issue William Stokes, and dyes; Mary had issue William Pierce, and dyes; Joan the elder dyes, having issue John Periman and William Periman; Agnes and Alice dye without issue: John Periman had issue, John Periman the Lessor, and dyes; Elizabeth and Mary dye, Katherine dyes with∣out issue, Elizabeth had issue George Dean and John Dean; Elizabeth deviseth her Land to John Dean and his Heirs, and dyes: John Dean hath issue John Dean, and dyes: the Lessor enters, and makes a Lease to the Plaintiff, who enters and is ejected by the Defendants, by commandment of the said John Dean the son, upon which the Plain∣tiff brought an Ejectment.

And it seemeth to me that judgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff for all the Land, or at least for part thereof.

And therefore in the first place I conceive, that when William the son dyed without issue, the remainder in fee did vest in John Perri∣man, who was the eldest son of Joan the elder, who was the eldest daughter of the Devisor: for although the Devisor had many

daughters, yet his intent appeared in the Will to a single person, and not to divers: also it appears, that he doth not intend that this re∣mainder should vest in William his son, for he deviseth to him a Rent during the life of Joan the younger, and afterwards an Estate. Tail cannot be in Joan the younger, or any of her issues, because that an express Estate for life is limited to her; nor in Elizabeth or Mary, for he deviseth a remainder to them for life; nor in any other of his daugh∣ters, for then he would have named them either by their proper names, or as his daughters, and not by such circumlocution as is pretended in this Case.

Also, the words of Remainder in fee cannot extend to those daugh∣ters, for they are proximae consanguinitatis, which does clearly exclude his own sons and daughters, for they cannot properly be termed to be of consanguinity of the blood of the father; as it is said in Sir William Herberts Case, Cooks Rep. 3. that filius est pars patris, and this is proved by the usual pleading of a Descent; for if the Plea be by any, except son or daughter, the form is to say, That the Land descends to him as Cosin and Heir, and shall shew how; but if by the son or daugh∣ter, then to plead as before. And 30 Assis. 47. Land was devised to one for life, the remainder to another for life, the remainder propin∣quioribus haeredibus de sanguine puerorum of the Devisor: there it is agreed that the sons and daughters are excluded by that Devise.

And so here in this Case, neither William the son, nor any of the daughters of the Devisor, can take any thing by this Devise; for they cannot be said, de Consanguinitate de sanguine of the Devisor, but the Issues of the Children of the Devisor are comprized within these words. And then I conceive that the limitation being in the singular number, viz. proximo consanguinitat. all the issues of those Children shall not take, but one onely, and that as I conceive shall be the eldest son of the eldest daughter of the Devisor, which was John Periman, father of the Lessor of the Plaintiff; as in the 20 H. 6. 23. In an Ac∣count, supposing the Defendant to be his Receivor from the Feast of St. Michael, it shall be taken to be the principal Feast of St. Michael the Archangel, and not the Feast of St. Michael in Monte Teneb. And 13 H 4. 4. 21 H. 68. 37 H. 6. 29. If father and son be of one name, scil. of J. S. If J. S. be named generally in a Writ, Recove∣ry, or Deed, it shall be intended the father, for that he is most worthy. And so Pladwels Case in this Court, Mich. 38 and 39 Eliz. If a woman hath a Bastard and two legal issues, and Land be given to one for life, the remainder to the eldest issue of the woman, the eldest legal issue shall take, and not the bastard, although he be the eldest issue, for ge∣neral words shall always be taken in the most worthy sence.

And so here, the Devisor did dispose of his Estate to Joan the youn∣ger, rendering Rent to William his son, the remainder to William in Tail, the remainder to two of his daughters, scil. to Elizabeth and Mary for life, the remainder proxim. consanguin. &c. in fee: By which words it is apparent, that the Devisor intended, that for the default of the issues of William, and after the death of Elizabeth and Mary, the Estate should remain to one who was next of blood to him, and that is John Periman the eldest son of his eldest daughter.

But admitting that all the issues of the daughters shall be in equal degree to take by this remainder, as well as the eldest son of Joan the eldest daughter; yet I conceive that those daughters, who had an Estate devised to them by Will, are excluded. Cooks 8 Rep. 95. B.

Always the intention of the Devisor expressed in his Will, is the best Expositor and Director of his words: and therefore if Land be devised to one in perpetuum, this shall pass a fee, although it be otherwise in a Grant: So if one deviseth Land to another, to dispose of, or sell at his pleasure, this is a fee to the Devisee. Litt. 133. 19 H. 8, 9. B. And so in our Case, the intent of the Devisor appears, to dispose of his Land among his Children and their issues: as in Trin. 38 Eliz. Ewre and Heydons Case. Heydon was seised of a Messuage in D, and of three houses and certain Land in Watford, did devise his Messuage in D, and all his Land in Watford; it was judged the houses in Wat∣ford did not pass, in regard of the express mentioning the houses in D. and this was affirmed in a Writ of Error.