Does the addition of the word "heirs" to a devise affect the gift in tail?

In Dodson v. Grew, 2 Wils. 322, there was a devise to a person for life, and after his death to his issue male and the heirs male of the body of such issue male; and Wilmot, C.J., said that the superadded words meant only that they were not all to take at a time, but in succession; and that they were not words of limitation. Now I think All the other cases in which the addition of the word “heirs” was held not to affect the gift in tail, were decided on the same principle, namely, that the word not being itself necessarily a word of limitation, was not used for that purpose, but for some other purpose not inconsistent with the estate tail which had been given.