; Harvey J. said he felt great doubt ; and the language of this will
is such as to occasion it. Reading it, unembarrassed by any prior
decisions on other wills, which, however similar, have important
points of difference, its meaning, so far as the present case is con-
cerned, appears to be this: The testator directed his residuary
estate to be turned into money so far as it did not already consist
of money, and then that the trustees should forthwith divide it
among his five children, so that each son's "share" of the pro-
ceeds be five per cent. more than a daughter's share, and if when
the moment for actual division came any child had died without
issue, his or her "share," that is, share, not of residuary estate
unconverted but of the " proceeds" after conversion, should be
"divided " among the others. It is clear that the word " divided "
in this latter event means divided by the trustees. It follows that
the respondents' contention involves the retention of the corpus
of each child's share in the hands of the trustees until, at all events,
the death of all the children but one. It may involve that retention
until the death of the survivor. It involves, further, that though
the residue (other than ready money), however invested by the
testator, must be converted into money and "divided," and, not-
withstanding that no direction is given to invest it, yet it myst be
invested, and the income only paid to the children until they die.
It is to be observed that when by the codicil an express permission
is given to sell " Hllerslie " and hold the proceeds, directions are given