386 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

in the devise to each son, whilst in the clauses devising to the
daughters the terms used are, to her heirs and assigns forever.

In view of the marked difference in these devises; the repe-
tition of the same identical language in the devises to each son,
and each daughter, it would require a very strong implication
to induce the court to believe, that notwithstanding the appa-
rent care of the testator to give different estates to his sons and
daughters, as thus manifested, still he intended to place them
upon a footing of entire equality. If such was his intention,
why did he give himself the trouble to repeat with scrupulous
care, the same language in the several devises to his sons, and
employ totally different terms, with a meaning essentially vari-
ant, when he came to provide for his daughters ?

We might speculate upon the motives which actuated the
testator to make this difference, and by possibility hit upon the
true one; but it is quite as likely we should fall into error, and
as we have no concern with his motives, and are only bound to
carry his intentions into effect, as well as we can ascertain them,
we will not indulge in conjectures upon the subject. That he
did not mean to place his sons and daughters upon an equality
with regard to the real estate devised to them, seems to me very
obvious.

The sons, as we have seen, took estates for life with remain-
ders in fee to their children; and upon these devises the clause
creating the trust will operate, without disturbing the devises to
the daughters. The cause in question was intended to operate
upon property, which the testator had devised, or thought he
had devised to his grandchildren; but he had devised nothing
to the grandchildren who might be born of his daughters,
and, therefore, as to them, the provision in the latter part of the
will, must be ineffectual, though it will operate upon the prop-
erty devised to the grandchildren born of the sons. The tes-
tator may have thought, that although he had given his daugh-
ters estates in fee, still their children, if they left any, would take
under his will, and not by descent from the mother, and that,
therefore, he could place it in the hands of trustees for their
use. But it is clear that he had devised nothing to the children