Tu determining whether the rule is in any particular case to be applied, so as to give an estate in fee simple or in fee tail to the ancestor, the first question to be determined is whether the gift of the remainder is to the heirs of A, which is purely a question of construction, and herein lies the chief difficulty in regard to the application of the rule. Other words, such as "children" or "issue," may have the meaning, in a devise, of the word "heirs," or "heirs of the body," and in such case the rule will apply; and the same is true in the case of deeds where the use of the word "heirs," in order to create an estate of inheritance, has been dispensed

48. Challis, Real Prop. 162; 2 Jarman, Wills, 1181; Curtis v. Price, 12 Ves. 89; Bails v. Davis, 241 111. 536, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 937, 89 N. E. 706.

49. Fearne, Cont. Rem. 35; 1 Preston, Estates, 313, 336; Wright v. Gaskill, 74 N. J. 742, 72 Atl. 108; Kimmel v. Shaffer, 219 Pa. 375, 68 Atl. 1017; Waters v. Lyon, 141 Ind. 170, 40 N. E. 662; Waller v. Pollit, 104 Md. 172, 64 Atl. 1040.

50. Watkins, Descents, (4th Ed.) 204; 1 Preston, Estates, 337;

Merrill v. Rumsey, 1 Keh. 88; Fuller v. Chamier, L. R. 2 Eq. 682; Rails v. Davis, 241 111. 536, 29 L. R. A. 89 N. E. 706, (N. S.) 937; Bullard v. Goffe, 20 Pick, (Mass.) 252; Cotten v. Moseley, 159 N. Car. 1, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 768, 74 S. E. 454.

50a. Vangieson v. Henderson, 150 111. 119, 36 N. E. 974; Brown v Renshaw, 57 Md. 67; Spader v. Powers, 56 Hun (N. Y.) 153; Wool v. Fleetwood, 136 N. Car. 460, 67 L,. R. A. 444, 48 S. E. 785; Reutter settled by construction, the rule Itself is in no way a rule of construction, but takes effect regardless of the donor's intention, and usually in direct contravention thereof, he intending to give merely a life estate to the ancestor.54 As stated by a distinguished English judge, it having been settled, on construction of the instrument, that the persons to whom the remainder is given are the heirs of the ancestor, whether they are or are not so termed, then the rule in Shelley's Case is imperative, and no incident superadded to the estate for life, however clearly showing that an estate for life merely, and not an estate of inheritance, was intended to be given to the first donee, nor any modification of the estate given to the heirs, however, plainly inconsistent with an estate of inheritance, nor any declaration, however express or emphatic, of the grantor or testator, can, either by inference or by the force of express direction, affect in any way the operation of the rule as creating an estate in fee or in tail in the ancestor.55

Real Property.

[Sec. 151 with.51 On the other hand, when the words "heirs" or "heirs of the body," in the limitation of the remainder, have, in view of the context, the meaning of "children," or are otherwise intended to designate certain individuals merely, the rule does not apply.52 And it obviously does not apply when the limitation of the remainder is in terms in favor of "children," and this expression is used in its ordinary sense.53

Though the meaning of the words used to describe donees of the estate in remainder is a matter to be v. McCall, 192 Pa. St. 77, 43 Atl. 398; Chipps v. Hall, 23 W. Va. 504.

51. 2 Jarman. Wills, 1184 et seq.; Jordan v. Adams, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 483; Doe d. Dodson v. Grew, 2 Wils. 322; Roddy v. Fitzgerald. 6 H. L. Cas. 823; Dick v. Ricker, 222 111. 413, 113 Am. St. Rep. 426, 78 N. E. 823; Nelson v. Davis, 35 Ind. 474. Handy v. McKim, 64 Md. 560, 4, Atl. 125; Martling v. Martling, 55 N. J. Eq. 771, 39 Atl. 203; Simpson v. Reed, 205 Pa. 53. 54 Atl. 499.

The word "issue" has the meaning and effect of the phrase "heirs of the body" in this connection, unless a contrary intention appears. Roddy v. Fitzgerald, 6 H. L. Cas. 823; Allen v. Craft, 109 Ind. 476, 58 Am. Rep. 425; Grimes v. Shirk, 169 Pa. St. 74, 32 Atl. 113; Dickson v. Satterfield, 53 Md. 317; Moore v. Paul, 7 Rich. Eq. 362. And see ante, Sec. 26.

52. 2 Jarman, Wills, 1184, 1205 et seq.; Archer's Case, 1 Coke, 66b; Van Grutten v. Foxwell (1897) App. Cas. 658;Findley v. Hill, 133 Ala. 229, 32 So. 497; Carpenter v. Van O'Linder, 127 111. 42, 2 L. R. A. 455, 11 Am. St. Rep. 92, 19 N. E. 868; Winchell v. Winchell,

259 111. 471, 102 N. E. 823; Granger v. Granger, 147 Ind. 95, 36 L. R. A. 186. 190, 44 N. E. 189, 46 N. E. 80; Martling v. Martling, 55 N. J Eq. 771, 39 Atl. 203; Bird v. Gilliam, 121 N. Car. 326, 28 S. E. 489; Brockschmidt v. Archer. 64 Ohio St. 502, 60 N. E. 623; Kunt-zleman's Trust Estate, 136 Pa. St. 142, 20 Am. St. Rep. 909; Carri-gan v. Drake, 36 S. Car. 354, 15 S E. 339; Simonton v. White, 93 Tex. 50, 77 Am. St. Rep. 824, 53 S. W. 339.

53. Wild's Case, 6 Coke, 16; May v. Ritchie, 65 Ala. 602; Craig v. Rowland, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 412; Hanes v. Cent. 111. Utilities Co. 262 111. 86. 104 N. E. 156; Jackson v. Jackson, 127 Ind. 346, 26 N. E. 897; Brown v. Brown, 125 Iowa. 218. 101 N. W. 81, 67 L. R. A. 629; Stonebraker v. Zollickof-fer, 52 Md. 154, 36 Am. Rep. 364; Tate v. Townsend, 61 Miss. 316; Ford v. McBrayer, 171 N. Car. 420, 88 S. E. 736; Oyster v. Knull, 137 Pa. 448, 21 Am. St. Rep. 890, 20 Atl. 624; Boutelle v. City Sav. Bank, 18 R. I. 177, 26 Atl. 53; Bannister v. Bull, 16 S. Car. 220; Collins v. Williams, 98 Tenn. 525, 41 S. W. 1056.

54. Van Grutten v. Foxwell, (1897) App. Cas. 658; Daniel v. Whartenby, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 639; Carpenter v. Van Olinder, 127 111. 42. 11 Am. St. Rep. 92; Teal v. Richardson, 160 Ind. 119, 66 N. E. 435; Berry v. Williamson, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 245; Hughes v. Nick-las, 70 Md. 484, 14 Am. St. Rep. 377; Trumbull v. Trumbull, 149 Mass. 200, 4 L. R. A. 117, 21 N. E. 366; Crockett v. Robinson, 46 N. H. 461; Lippincott v. Davis, 59 N. J. Law, 241, 28 Atl. 587; Brant v. Gelston, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 384; Nichols v. Gladden, 117 N. C. 497, 23 S. E. 459; Brockenschmidt v. Archer, 64 Ohio St. 502, 60 N. E. 623; Hileman v. Bouslaugh, 13 Pa. St. 344, 53 Am. Dec. 475; McEl-wain v. Whitacre, 251 Pa. 279, 96 Atl. 655; Polk v. Faris, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 209, 30 Am. Dec. 400;

Brown v. Bryant, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 454, 44 S. W. 399. Occasionally the rule has been regarded as one of construction. Smith v. Hastings, 29 Vt. 240; Albin v. Parmele, 70 Neb. 740, 98 N. W. 29. To the same effect are Loring v. Eliot, 16 Gray (Mass.) 568, and Howell v. Knight, 100 N. C. 254, 6 S. E. 721; Earnhart v. Earnhart, 127 Ind. 397, 22 Am. St. Rep. 625; Tongue v. Nutwell, 13 Md. 415; which are, however, overruled in this respect by later decisions.

In Iowa the somewhat peculiar view has been adopted that the rule is one of construction in the case of wills but not in the case of deeds. Harland v. Manington, 152 Iowa, 707, 133 N. W. 367.

55. Cockburn, C. J., in Jordan v. Adams, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 483.

Thus, the rule will apply though the donor superadds to the estate for life some incident of an estate of inheritance, such as unimpeachability for waste, which would be superfluous if an estate of inheritance was intended,56 or he declares in express terms that his, intention in creating the estate for life is that the donee thereof shall not be able to dispose of his estate for longer than his life;57 or that it is his "will and meaning" that the first donee shall have only an estate for life, and that she shall not have power to defeat his intent and meaning in this respect.58