
    Ward, adm’r., &c. vs. Saunders et als.
    
    Construction or Writings. Will. The testatrix made the following devise: “I will that all my estate, both real and personal, which may come to the hands of my executors for the use and benefit of my daughters, Levisa Saunders, Catharine Campbell and Celia Stone, remain in the hands of my executors, in trust for my said daughters during their natural lives and to the heirs of their bodies forever.” To which will there was this codicil: “ In pursuance of my last will and testament, it is my desire that my young negroes already devised by will be divided as follows, to wit: To my daughter Levisa Saunders and the heirs of her body, negro girl Polly,” &c. Held that the clause of the will above quoted fixed and controlled the rights of Levisa Saunders and the other legatees and that the codicil only designated what particular property each legatee should take under the restrictions and limitations of the will, and that Levisa Saunders took only a life estate in the property.
    Mary II. Bowen’s will contained the clause and codicil quoted in tbe opinion. After the death of the testatrix, Levisa Saunders, one of the legatees, died, having made her last will and testament in which she disposes of the property bequeathed to her in the will of Mary H. Bowen. This bill was filed by the complainant as administrator, with the will annexed of Levisa Saunders, in the chancery court at Franklin for a construction of the will of Mary H. Bowen as to tbe extent and character of tbe estate devised to Levisa Saunders, whether absolute or for life only. At the July Term, 1852, Chancellor Ridley decreed that Levisa Saunders was vested with an absolute estate. From this decree there was an appeal.
    Carutieers and Ready, for complainant.
    Stoees, MaetiN and Guild, for respondent.
   HoustoN, Special J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The question in this case arises upon the construction to he given to the sixth clause of the will of Mary H. Bowen, in connection with the codicil to the will. The clause is in these words: “ I will that all my estate, both real and personal, that may come to the hands of my executors for the use and benefit of my daughters, Levisa Saunders, Catharine Campbell, and Celia Stone, remain in the hands of my executors, in trust for my said daughters, during their natural lives, and to the heirs of their bodies forever.” The words of the codicil are as follows: “In pursuance of my last will and testament, it is my will and desire that my young negroes already devised by will, be divided as follows, to-wit: To my daughter Levisa Saunders, and the heirs of her body, negro girl Polly,” &c.

It is conceded in the argument, that if the 6th clause of. the will stood alone without the codicil, the case would be embraced by the principles laid down in the case of Suttle vs. Suttle, 10 Humph. 474, and that Levisa Saunders would only take a life estate in the property. But it is argued that the codicil revokes this clause, and gives tbe slave to Levisa Saunders and tire heirs of her body, bringing the case within the rule in Shelly’s case, and giving to Levisa Saunders the absolute estate in the property. This is not the proper construction. We think the sixth clause of the will fixes and controls the right of Levisa Saunders, and the other legatees, to the property mentioned in the will; and that the codicil only designates what particular property each legatee should take under the restrictions and limitations of the will, and that Levisa Saunders took a life estate only in the property. We therefore reverse the decree of the chancellor, and order a decree in conformity with this opinion.  