‘ 14 FEDERAL BEPOBTEB.
his respective portion;'. and it was held that the legal title was vested in the
sons respectively as trustees of their children, who took the beneficial inter-
ests. ,
‘* In the case of Below v. White, 2 Head, 703, the will gave real and personal
property to three trustees ‘for the use and annual support of my daughter
Elizabeth and her children;' the concluding clause providing that the trustees
were to hold the same * in trust for the use and benefit of my daughter Eliz— `
abeth and her children, present and future, * * * and after her death "
thewhole to be equally divided between all her living children and the heirs
» of those who may be dead ;’ and the court, in construing the rights of the l
parties under that will, held that-‘ the trustees took the legal title of the whole
property during the life of Elizabeth, and at her death the entire estate became
invested in her children ;. that at the testator’s death Elizabeth and her chil-
dren tookan equitable estate as tenants in common in equal shares, her inter-
est being for life only, with remainder as to that interest to them and their
interestsin fee.’_ . .
f‘ In Ellis v. Fisher, 3 Sneed, 230, the testator made a devise in these words:
*I give to my sons, W. and J ., as trustees, in trust for the use and benefit of I
my daughter Nancy, a tract of land,’ with $1,000 in money, the interest on
which was to be *for her separate use and benefit during her natural life. _
.*· * * The land isto vest in my said sons * * * in trust for the use
and benefit of my said daughter during her natural life, and at her death to
the use of the heirs of her body, if she have any, and in default of the heirs
of her body, then to my own right heirs.’ Nancy died in 1850, leaving a. hus-
band and three minor children surviving her. Held, •that the trustees `took
the legal estate only for the life of Nancy, the trust being merely to protect
the property against the marital rights of her husband. Upon the death of
Nancy the absolute title vested in the heirs of her body. I * . * * On Nancy’s
death the limitation to the heirs of her body was instantly executed in them,
· consequently they became vested with the legal estate, not as heirs, butas
purchasers! _
» _+· But in Middleton v. Smith, 1 Cold. 144, the devise was to Jane, *for the
benefit of my daughter Jane and her bodily heirs ;’ and the court held she
took an estate tail, or conditional fee at common law,· which under our
~ statutes became an estate in fee-simple in Tennessee.
l .•·’1‘he deed construed in Kirk v. Fwrgerson, 6 Cold. 479, was as follows:
.eWhich said lot I give, grant, and convey to the said Rachel, and to her heirs,
-——the natural issue of he1··body,—-forever; if thereshould be no issue, then
the said lot to descend to my grandchildren;' and the court decided that the
limitation tothe grandchildren was void, and that the grantee took an abso-
lute title, subject to her husband's life estate. V
· esktllm sv. Loyd,6·Cold. 563, involved the construction of a will in the
following language: ‘ I give and bequeath to Julia (wife of S.) and the heirs
of her body, for her sole and separate use during her natural life,' certain real
and personal property therein described; and the decision followed that of the
preceding case, of Kirk v. Ferguson, the court holding that Julia took an
estate in fee-simple, in which the marital rights of her husband were excluded.
See Tennessee Code, §§ 2006, 2008. r . ;   . ‘ ;