While the natural and appropriate mode of creating an estate for the life of the tenant is by a limitation to him "for life," at common law, as was shown in the discussion of the methods of creating an estate in fee simple, an estate for life is created by a deed which omits the word "heirs," necessary for the creation of an estate of inheritance, and, even in the case of a will, the presumption is, at common law, that such a limitation creates an estate for life only.31 Under the modern statutes dispensing with words of inheritance in creating an estate in fee, and providing that a conveyance or devise shall, unless a contrary intent appear, transfer the estate which the grantor or testator has, an estate for life will not be created unless this is plainly expressed or clearly to be inferred, or unless the grantor owns a life estate merely.32

An estate pur auter vie may be created by an express limitation, or by a transfer to another person of his estate by one who holds for his own life, the grantee thus becoming tenant for the life of the grantor.33

Although particular language in a will, taken by itself, is such as to indicate an intention to create an estate in fee simple, it may be qualified by subsequent language clearly indicative of a different intention, so that the devisee named will take an estate for life merely.34 But language of a merely ambiguous charac31. See ante, Sec. 21. See, also, 2 Jarman, Wills, 1131, and Mr. Bigelow's notes thereto.

32. See ante, Sec. 21. See, also, 1 Sharswood & B. Lead. Cas. Real Prop. 195 et seq., for numerous cases involving the construction of particular phrases, as showing an intent to create a life estate vel non.

33. Co. Litt. 41b; Challis, Real Prop. 351; 1 Cruise's Dig. tit. 3, c. 1, Sec. 3. See Roseboom v. Van Vech ten, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 414.

34. Cobb v. Wrightsville & T. R. Co., 129 Ga. 377, 58 S. E. 862: Clark v. Baker, 91 Conn. 663, 101 Atl. 9; Morrison v. Schorr, 197 111. 554, 64 N. B. 545; Bauman v. Stoller, 235 111. 480, 85 N. E. 657; Conover v. Stringer, 53 Ind. 248; Dinger v. Lucken, 143 Ky. 850, 137 S. W. 776; Fecht v. Henze, 162 Mich. 52, 127 N. W. 26; Armor v. Frey, 226 Mo. 646, 126 S. W. 483; Mee v. Gordon, 187 N. Y. 400, 116 Am. St. Rep. 613, 10 Ann. Cas. 172. 80 N. E. 353; In re Urich's ApSec. 32]

Ter will not serve thus to qualify the effect of language previously employed, or, as it would ordinarily be expressed, the gift of a fee simple cannot be cut down to a life estate by inference from language of an ambiguous character.35

That, after a devise to one in general terms, without any words of inheritance or other language showing an intention to create a fee simple, it is stated to whom the property shall go upon the death of the devisee named, tends to show that he was intended to take, not a fee simple estate, but one merely for life.36 On the other hand, if an intention is clearly shown to give an estate in fee simple, a subsequent clause undertaking to name the persons to whom the property shall pass upon the peal, 86 Pa. St. 386, 27 Am. Rep. 707; In re Boulevard from Second St. to Rhawn St., 230 Pa. 491, 79 Atl. 716; Gourdin v. Shrewsbury, 11 S. C. 1; Frank v. Frank, 120 Tenn. 569, 111 S. W. 1119; Behrens v. Baumann, 66 W. Va. 56, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1092, 66 S. E. 5; In re Olson's Will, 165 Wis. 409, 162 N. W. 429; Compare Ex parte Yown, 17 S. C. 532.

35. Eaton v. Eaton, 88 Conn. 269, 91 Atl. 191; Wilson v. Linder 18 Idaho 438, 138 Am. St. Rep. 213, 110 Pac. 274; Slick v. Brooks, 253 111. 58, 97 N. E. 250; Hayes v. Martz, 173 Ind. 279 90 N. E. 309, 89 N. E. 303; Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Stich, 61 Kan. 474, 59 Pac. 1082; Burnam v. Suttle, 148 Ky. 495, 147 S. W. 3; Barrett v. Marsh, 126 Mass. 213; Cornet v. Cornet, 248 Mo. 184, 154 S. W. 121; Salter v. Philbrick, 77 N. H. 322, 91 Atl. 914; Carter v. Gray, 58 N. J. Eq. 411, 43 Atl. 711; Crain v. Wright, 114 N. Y. 307, 21 N. E. 401; Irvine v. Irvine, 69 Ore. 187, 136 Pac. 18; Miller v. Stubbs, 244 Pa. 482; 9C

Atl. 1132; Chaplin v. Doty, 60 Vt 712, 15 Atl. 362; Hawley v. Wat-kins, 109 Va. 122, 63 S. E. 560.

36. Dean v. Hart, 62 Ala. 308; Mansfield v. Shelton, 67 Conn. 390, 52 Am. St. Rep. 285, 35 Atl. 271; Gruenewald v. Neu, 215 111. 132, 74 N. E. 101; Powers v. Wells, 244 111. 558, 91 N. E. 717; Smyth v. Fogle, 150 Iowa, 161, 129 N. W. 735; Browning v. Ashbrook's Ex'r, 175 Ky. 755, 195 S. W. 105; Chase v. Ladd, 153 Mass. 126, 25 Am. St. Rep. 614, 26 N. E. 429; Ware v. Minot, 202 Mass. 512, 88 N. E. 1091; Defeese v. Lake, 109 Mich. 415, 32 L. R. A. 744, 63 Am. St. Rep. 584, 67 N. W. 505; Montgomery v. McPherson, 86 Miss. 4, 38 So. 196; Campbell v. Cole, 71 N. J. Eq. 327, 64 Atl. 461; Dennett v. Dennett, 40 N. H. 498; In re Sheets' Appeal, 52 Pa. St. 257; Marion Center Nat. Bank v. Creswell, 255 Pa. 545, 100 Atl. 456; Carson v. Carson, 115 Tenn. 37, 88 S. W. 175; Swarthout v. Swarthout, 111 Wis. 102, 86 N. W. 558! death of the donee named is necessarily invalid, as an attempt to deprive the estate of the qualities of herita-bility and devisability, inherent in a fee simple estate.37 If an immediate gift to A, in terms sufficient to confer an estate in fee simple, is followed by a gift over to another "in case of the death of A" or "if A dies," the latter gift is ordinarily regarded as substitutionary in character, taking effect only in case A dies during testator's life.38 Death can be regarded as contingent only as regards the time of its occurrence,39 and no

37. Bernstein v. Bramble, 81 Ark. 480, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1028, 11 Ann. Cas. 343, 99 S. W. 682; Trustees of Central M. E. Church v. Harris, 62 Conn. 93, 25 Atl. 456; Clark v. Baker, 91 Conn. 663, 101 Atl. 9; Marsh v. Morris, 133 Ind. 548, 33 N. E. 290; Schricker v. Schricker, 151 Iowa 309, 131 N. W. 42; Johnson v. Mansfield, 176 Ky. 386, 195 S. W. 453; Morrill v. Morrill, 116 Me. 154, 100 Atl. 756; Davis v. Davis, 225 Mass. 311, 114 N. E. 309; Moran v. Moran, 143 Mich. 322, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 323, 114 Am. St. Rep. 648, 106 N. W. 206; Loosing v. Loosing, 85 Neb. 66, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 920, 122 N. W. 707; In re Ithaca Trust Co., 220 N. Y. 437, 116 N. E. 102; Foster v. Lee, 150 N. C. 688, 64 S. E. 761; Evans v. Smith, 166 Pa. St. 625, 31 Atl. 346; Littlefield v. Mott, 14 R. I. 288; In re Wood, 28 R. I. 290, 125 Am. St. Rep. 738, 67 Atl. 8; Sandford v. Sandford, 106 S. C. 304, 91 S. E. 294; Hawley v. Watkins, 109 Va. 122, 63 S. E. 560.