
    B. J. Vaden, Adm’r, &c. v. Harriett Hance et al.
    
    1. Will. Construction. The words, “ lawful heirs of his body,” in the following clause, to-wit: “To my son, Lodwick Yaden, I lend two negroes, Lucy and Harry, and increase, during natural life, and at his death, to he equally divided between the lawful heirs of his body,” are words of purchase, and means children. Lodwick Ya-den, therefore, took only a life estate in said slaves — remainder to his children.
    
      2.. Advancements. Notes held by the intestate. Case in ¡judgment. Notes held by the father at the time of his death, against a son, are not to be charged as advancement, unless it be proved that they were used merely as evidences of a gift or advancements to the son, or that the father did not intend to collect them. The intestate held several notos on an insolvent son. The son died before the father, leaving children. The notes came to the hands of the administrator without any evidence explaining the intention of the intestate, as to whether he held them as debts, or intended them as gifts to his son. Held, that prima facie they are debts, and cannot be charged as advancements, in the absence of proof showing that the deceased did not intend to collect them, or regarded them as gifts to his son. ■
    EROM SMITH.
    This bill was filed by the administrator of Lodwick Yaden, for a construction of the will of his father, William Yaden, and for a collation of advancements. There were sundry notes in the possession of Lodwick Yaden, at his death, against his son, S. T. Yaden, who was insolvent, and died before the death of his father. No proof was introduced explaining the intention of the intestate as to said notes. Chancellor Ridley held, that Lodwick Yaden took only a life estate in the slaves, under his father’s will, with remainder to his children. He also held, that the notes should be charged against the distributees of S. T. Yaden, as advancements to their father.
    S. M. Eite, for the complainant,
    said:
    There are only two questions raised: 1st. Did Lod-wick Vaden take an estate for life, or an absolute one in the slaves Lucy and Harry, under the following clause of the will of his father, William Vaden: “To my son, Lodwick Vaden, I lend two slaves, Lucy and Harry, and increase, during natural life, and at his death, to be equally divided between the lawful heirs of his body.” That Lodwick Vaden took only a life, estate, remainder to his children; see Loving and others v. Hunter, 8 Ter;, 4.
    2d. The question as to whether certain notes executed by S. T. Vaden, a son of the complainant’s intestate, who died before his father, shall be held to be advancements and charged in distributing to his, said S. T. Vaden’s children. ‘The Chancellor decreed that said notes should be held to be advancements, and we think correctly; otherwise, a child might be advanced to the full amount of a share, and then die, and his children come in for another share. The taking of notes for the money advanced was merely done to have evidence of the advancement at his death. The furnishing this money at intervals and holding up the notes, and making no effort to collect them, is conclusive, that they were intended as advancements and not as debts against the son. That money paid by a father for a son, is an advancement, and may be so held against the children of the son in case the son die; see Carter’s, Ex’r, v. Cat-ling, 5 Mur., 223. Much more would money loaned to the son, be held an advancement.
    J. B. Moores, for the defendants,
    argued:
    1. The notes are from the father to the grandfather, tbe father having died many years before the grandfather, could not be charged against the grandchildren in distributing the estate of the grandfather under the laws of descent and distribution, both having died intestate.
    
    There is no evidence of an intention on the part of the deceased to hold these notes as an advancement, or that it was not his intention to collect them. They remained in his possession as debts against the son.
    2. The will of William Yaden, if valid for any purpose, vests in Lodwick Yaden an absolute estate in the slaves Lucy and Harry. The provision is within the rule in Shelly’s case.
    The word “heirs,” is a word of limitation, and so held by the authorities. 4 Kent’s Com., 228, 229 and 230; Randolph v. Wendell, 4 Sneed, 646.
   Weight, «L,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The first qiiestion is as to the construction of the following clause in the will of William Yaden, senior, namely: “To my son, Lodwick Yaden, I lend two ne-groes, Lucy and ITarry, and increase, during natural life, and at his death, to be equally divided between the lawful heirs of his body.”

We are of opinion that the words “lawful heirs of his body,” as used in this will, are words of purchase, and meant children. . Lodwick Yaden, therefore, only took an estate for life in these slaves, with remainder to his children. The cases of Loving et al. v. Hunter 8 Yer., 4, and Settle v. Settle, 10 Hum., 474, are direct authority and decisive of the question. The Chancellor so held, and in this respect, we affirm his decree.

The next question is as to the various notes, or bonds, held by Lodwick Vaden, the intestate, at his death, upon his son Samuel T. Vaden; are they to be regarded as debts, or advancements, in the distribution of his estate? If the former, then they are not to be brought into hotchpot by the children of Samuel T. Vaden. If the latter, they must. Proud v. Turner, 2 Piere Williams, 561. These notes are four in number, ail under seal, and made payable by the said Samuel T. Vaden to said Lodwick. Two of them bear date in September, 1847, one in 1850, and one in 1853, and were retained by the intestate till his death in 1856, and the same are now in possession of his administrator. Samuel T. Vaden had died before his father, and, it is said, was insolvent. There is no evidence explaining the intention of the father as to these debts, other than the notes themselves. Nothing to show that they were used merely as the evidences of gifts or advancements to the son, or that the father did not intend to collect them. As before stated, the case rests alone on the notes. To show that they are advancements, and to be so regarded, we have been referred to Gilbert v. Wetherill, 1 Cond. Eng. Ch. Rep., 444. But in that case it was made manifest by the evidence, that the father did not intend to collect the note. He burnt it and, in effect, declared his son was not to pay it; and the case had many other facts tending to show a purpose not to keep it as a debt.

The fact here, that the intestate had several notes, taken at different times, and that he seems not, so far as we can see, to have pressed Samuel T. Yaden for their payment, can, as we think, furnish no evidence of an intention to make them gifts. He was his son, and insolvent, and he might very well indulge him. And if they were not debts, but gifts, why did he take or hold the notes at all. In the absence of proof to that effect, we have been unable to find any authority that these notes are to be regarded as advancements. We think that, prima facie, they must be treated as debts.

The decree of the Chancellor, as to this branch of the case, is reversed and the cause remanded; and if desired, evidence may be taken as to the purpose of the intestate in regard to these notes.  