PUE VS. PUE 385

the testator, that the devise to her was converted into a life
estate, merely, with remainder to her children; and that the
surviving sons of the testator are entitled to hold the property
in trust for such children, until they respectively attain the age
of twenty-one years or marry.

It is quite possible, that if there were no provisions in the
will upon which this latter clause could take effect, except on
those to be found in the devises to the daughters, the construc-
tion contended for would prevail, as it is the duty of the court
to give effect to every part of the will, without change, or re-
jection; provided, an effect can be given to it, not inconsist-
ent with the general intent of the whole will, taken together.

But when, upon an examination of this will it is found, that
that there are provisions upon which this latter clause can ope-
rate, without at all disturbing the devises to the daughters, it is
believed that there is no rule of law which requires its applica-
tion to those devises. The principle appears to be, that you
are not to disturb the prior devise further than is absolutely
necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the posterior quali-
fying disposition. 1 Jarman on Wills, 414.

It was said by Lord Redesdale in Jesson vs. Wright, 2 Bligh,
56, "it must not be understood that because a testator uses in
one part of his will words having a clear meaning in law, and
in another part words inconsistent with the former, that the first
words are to be cancelled or overthrown." This is only to be
done when the two provisions are totally inconsistent with each
other, and where the real intention of the testator cannot be as-
certained. Corecuboven vs. Shuler, 2 Paige, 122.

It is quite apparent in this case, that the testator did not in-
tend to give his sons and daughters the same interest in the
real estate devised to them respectively, and it would seem
equally manifest, that he knew the proper language to be em-
ployed in creating a life estate and an estate in fee. In the
devises to each one of his numerous sons, he says in terms—I
give him the land described, for and during his natural life ;

and to the child or children of such son born in lawful wedlock,
and their heirs forever. The same precise language is repeated
VOL. i.—33