The rule applies in the case of equitable as well as legal limitations;72 but it does not apply if the limitation of

68. Hardage v. Strope, 58 Ark. 303, 24 S. W. 490; Marsh v. Griffin, 136 N. C. 333, 48 S. B. 735; Hileman v. Bonslaugh. 13 Pa. 351, 53 Am. Dec. 474.

69. Jesson v. Wright, 3 Bligh 1; Sims v. Georgetown College, 1 App. D. C 72.

70. Holt v. Pickett, 111 Ala. 362, 20 So. 432; Clark v. Smith, 49 Md. 106; Crockett v. Robinson, 46 N. H. 454; Cockin's Appeal, 111 Pa. 26, 2 Atl. 363; Cooper v. Cooper, 6 R. I. 261; Simms v. Buist, 52 S. C. 554, 30 S. E. 400, S. Moore v. Brooks, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 135.

But occasionally such words have been regarded as indicating that the words "heirs" or "heirs of the body" were not to be taken in their technical sense. Herring v. Rogers, 30 Ga. 615; Jenkins v. Jenkins. 96 N. C. 254, 2 S. E. 522; Miller v. Thorne. 95 N. C. 362; Fields v. Watson, 23 S. C. 12; Simonton v. White. 93 Tex. 50, 77 Am. St. Rep. 824. 53 S. W. 339; See Pearson v. Easterling, 104 S. C. 178, 88 S. E. 376.

71. Jesson v. Wright, 2 Bligh, 1; Roddy v. Fitzgerald, 6 H. L. Cas. 823; Jordan v. Adams, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 483.

72. Wright v. Pearson. 1 Eden. 119; Brydges v. Brydges. 3 Ves. 120; Baile v. Coleman, 2 Vera. 670, Croxall v. Shererd, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 268. Lord v. Comstock. 240 111. 492, 88 N. E. 1012; Brown v. Ren the particular estate and the limitation in favor of the heirs are not both legal or both equitable in their nature.73 Obviously, in ascertaining whether the limitations are both equitable or legal, the question whether a use or trust expressly created is such as to be executed by the Statute of Uses, is frequently of paramount importance.74 For instance, in the case of a conveyance in trust for A for life and after his death in trust for his heirs, if the trust for A is an active one, while that for his heirs is passive, the rule would ordinarily not apply, since A's estate is equitable while the limitation in remainder is legal.

As has been before stated, the rule does not apply to executory trusts, which, we have previously explained, are such trusts as are to be carried out by a conveyance or settlement, to be framed according to certain directions, and the intention of the creator of such a trust will be considered, irrespective of the fact that words which would otherwise involve an application of the rule are used in the declaration of trust.75 shaw, 57 Md. 67; Loring v. Eliot, 16 Gray (Mass.) 568; Martling v. Martling, 55 N. J. Eq. 771, 39 Atl. 203; Payne v. Sayle, 2 Dev. & B. Eq. (22 N. C.) 455; Armstrong v. Zane, 12 Ohio, 299; Taylor v. Liad-say, 14 R. I. 518.

73. Fearne, Cont. Rem. 52, 57; 2 Jarman, Wills, 1180; Lord Say & Seal v. Jones, 3. Brown, Parl. Cas. 113; Silvester v. Wilson, 2 Term R. 444; Green v. Green, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 486, 23 L. Ed. 75; Shackelford v. Bullock, 34 Ala. 418; Glover v. Condell, 163 111. 566, 35 L. R. A. 360, 45 N. E. 173; Hanna v. Hawes, 45 Iowa, 437; Mercer v. Hopkins, 88 Md. 292; Shugrue v. Long, 82 N. J. L. 717, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257, 82 Atl. 905; Brown v. Wadsworth, 168 N.

Y. 225, 61 N. E. 250; Mannerback's Estate, 133 Pa. 342, 19 Atl. 552; Thurston v. Thurston, 6 R. I. 296; Gourd in v. Deas, 27 S. E. 479, 4 S. E. 64; Turner v. Ivie, 5 Heisk, (Tenn.) 222.

74. Vogt v. Vogt, 26 App. D. C. 46; Glover v. Condell, 163 111. 566, 45 N. E. 173, 35 L. R. A. 360; Handy v. McKim, 64 Md. 560, 4 Atl. 125; Wilson v. Heilman, 219 Pa. 237, 68 Atl. 675; Shaw v. Robinson, 42 S. C. 342, 20 S. E. 161; Sprague v. Sprague, 13 R. I. 701.

75. Papillon v. Voice, 2 P. Wms. 471; Trevor v. Trevor, 5 Brown, Parl. Cas. 122; Green v. Green, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 486; Sims v. Georgetown College, 1 App. Cas. Dc. 85; Wayne v. Lawrence, 58 Ga. 15; Berry v. Williamson, 11