Hannah and her inórense are to be equally divided between Joseph and Mary, after the. death of the widow. The rest of the estate is given to his wife during her widowhood, but if she marries, the estate is to be sold, and two-thirds are to he divided between bis son and daughter, the other third is to go ,to his wife during life, and at her death, to be divided between his son and daughter, hut if they should die before they came of age, then to his wife. I cannot see upon what principles this bill can be sustained ; for if it was a cross remainder, then upon the death of the son under twenty-one, it vested in the daughter ; if it was not, it went immediately to the testator’s wife — (See 4 Cruise 414 el seq. T. Ray 452—1 Show. 135—Dyer 303, 330—Cro. Jac. 448—Saund. 104.) These authorities I cite from Cruise; they are all to be found in Bacon “ Devises G.” The death of the son without issue does away the necessity of considering, whether if there had been issue, the Court would not have supplied these words, aud without issue $ for I should he very unwilling to take the property from the issue of the son and give it to either the sister or mother by implication; for it is by implication alone that the eister takes, and by implication also that the mother can take before the death of both under twenty-one — (Vide Stephenson vs. Jacock’s case, decided in this Court at June term last- — 1 Hawks 285.) It has been said that Hannah and her issue, who are the subject of this suit, are not within the operation of the clause in the will now under consideration ; that it relates entirely to the perishable property in the clause immediately preceding it. Huí 1 think that the words their estate, include every thing given to them in the will; they are sufficiently broad to embrace if, and there is nothing to restrict them. 1 should think it was the plain and obvious meaning (,r the testator to subject all the property given to them by the will to the ulterior limitations.
Per Curiam. — Lc+ ?V bT he dismissed with costs.