384 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

expressly, or by plain implication, reduce the estate thus clear-
ly devised, to a lesser interest.

The will is a very long one. It disposes of a large estate
among the children and other objects of the testator's bounty.
To his sons, of whom he had several, he devises portions of his
real estate for life, in express terms, with remainder in fee to
their children; but to his daughters, Matilda Hammond and
Harriet Hammond, he gives the absolute and entire interest, in
the most unequivocal language—the devises to them being,
them, "their heirs and assigns forever."

There could, therefore, of course be no doubt upon the ques-
tion, but for a clause in the latter part of the will, which is sup-
posed to be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the devises in
fee to the daughters, and to place them upon an equality with
the sons, who took estates for life only. These clauses being
regarded as repugnant, the rule in the construction of wills is
supposed to be applicable, which makes the posterior clause in
local position, prevail, when the clauses are utterly irreconcila-
ble, so that they cannot stand together; the subsequent words
being considered to denote a subsequent intention.

The clause relied upon, and which, in conformity with the
above rule, is supposed to reduce the fee simple estate given to
Mrs. Pue, to a life estate, is as follows:

"I will and desire, that in case any of my said sons or daugh-
ters should die, leaving a child or children under the age of
twenty-one years, that my surviving sons take the property of
such child or children into their care and possession, and man-
age the same for the benefit of such child or children. And,
I do hereby give and devise, to my said sons who shall be so
surviving, the property herein before devised to such child or
children, until they shall respectively arrive at the age of twenty-
one years, or marry; in trust, however, to receive the rents,"
&c., thereof, for the sole use, benefit and interest of such child
or children.

It is supposed, and it has been argued, that by force of this
clause, which is posterior in local position to the clause which
contains the devise in fee to Mrs. Pue, one of the daughters of