1>UNscoMB· ·v. HOLST. 13 •
mother, Amelia E. Rogers, is now living, together with her six daughters,
three of whom are married and three unmarried, their ages being now respect-
ively about 14,15,21, 23, 26, and 30 years. I assume, and it has not been con-
troverted, that since the date of her deed, September 23, 1868, Mis. Margaret
Holst has been in actual, continued, and uninterrupted possession of this
property. A
** The case of Beecher v. Hicks, 7 Lea, 207, was the construction of a deed to
*Saral1——-, the wife of James--, for her sole and separate use and benefit,
and free from all the debts, liabilities, and contracts of her said husband, and to
the children of the said Sarah upon her body begotten by her said husband ;’ and ‘
it was held by the supreme court of this state that * the mother did not take a
fee in the land, but only a separate life estate,' and that on her death the entire '
estate passed to her children by the terms of the deed. '
“ The will construed by the same court in Bowers v. Bowers, 4 Heisk. 293, 1
was in these words: *I bequeath to my daughter `Oaroline’ (wife of Bow-
ers) certain land described in the will, ‘ to have and to hold the same to her and
her children, to their special use and benefit, forever ;’ and the court held that *the
legal title was vested in the daughter, but she was to hold it as trustee for
the joint use and benedt of herselfand her children. The daughter, therefore,
had the legal title to the whole property, and an equal equi_table interest therein
with each of her children. * * * The testator intended that his daughter
and all of her children should enjoy the use and benefit of the property until
, the legal and equitable title should be vested in the children when his daugh-
ter should die. It was further the intention of the testator to give to his
daughter the sole and separate use of the property for herself and chil- . r
dren, excluding the right of the husband. * * *~ It is well settled that the
term *children,’ as well as all other similar terms descriptive of classes or rela-
tions, must always be understood in wills in its primary and simple significa-
tion when it can be done; in snort, where ·there are any persons in existence .
at the time of the will, or before the time of the devise or legacytakes effect, if
answering the meaning of the terms, such persons will be iutendedto be des-
ign steer See, also, Stubbs v. Stubbs, 11 Humph. 43;* Williams v. Snead, 3
Cold. 538§·Bookcr v. Booker, 5 Humph. 505. 1 ‘ . ` »
*• In Turner v.1I2>ie,- 5 Heisk.222, the devise in the will was as follows: *1
give to my son John, in trust, for the sole use and benefit of my daughter Sarah
and "to her children, if ·she should have any, ia tract of iand; * ** * 'and
should my daughter, the said Sarah, die without anychild or children, the
property to return to my children.' ‘ At the death of the` testator Sarah was
but 11 years old. She afterwards married and hsdchildren, and she and her
husband conveyed the land to the defendants. After her death the children
brought suit, and, in deciding in their favor,·theicourt says: {There can be
no doubt that the intention of the testator was to give to his daughter-the _
equitable title tothe land during her life} and- at lier death to give the legal
title to any child orchildren she might then have!   " U ’ 1 ‘ ~
i ··r>ame vt Rmzey, 1 Bax. 145, involved s construbtion ofthe rciicwmg mm1
clause of a will: · The balance of my estate .to”be equally divided among the
.heirs of my-body. The portion thatgoes toimy sonsl give to the heirs of
their bodies, and hereby appoint each of mysons trustees, without bond; of