Weatherly v. . Armfield

30 N.C. 25

Opinion

Ruffin, C. J.

The limitation over is clearly too remote, and the whole estate vested absolutely in the first takerff “Heir” means heir of the body in this will, as the gift over, upon the death of one son, “without an heir,” is to his two brothers. There is nothing in the will to enable us to read “child” or “children” for “heirand in its proper sense of “ heir of the body,” Isaiah the son took a fee by force of the Act, which turns estates tail into fee-simples. This conclusion is supported by several cases, which are directly in point. Davidson v. Davidson, 1 Hawks. 163. Sanders v. Hyatt, Ibid. 247. Hollowell v. Kornegay, 7 Ire. 264.

Per Curiam,. Judgment affirmed..