
    A. J. FALLS and ROBERT TORRENCE, Executors, &c., v. DAVID McCULLOCH and others.
    A legacy of property, “to be sold at my wife’s death and equally divided among all my children,” is vested; and therefore the representatives of such children as survived the testator and died before the wife are entitled to shares.
    
      (Conly y. JGncade, Win. Eq., 4A, cited and approved.)
    Bill, by, executors, praying for advice and a construction of a clause in a will, filed to Spring Term, 1865, of the Court of Equity for Gaston, and at Fall Term, 1866, taken pro confesso, and transferred to this court.
    The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court.
    
      Bynum, for the complainants.
    The legacy is vested. Anderson v. Fulton, 1 Ire. Eq., 55; Vanhook v. Rogers, 3 Mur., 178; Chambers v. Bayne, 6 Jon. Eq., 276; Conly v. Eincade, Win. Eq., 44.
    No counsel for the defendants.
   Reabe, J.

The clause of the will upon Avliich the advice of the court is asked is as follows:

“The balance of my property I allow to be sold and my just debts paid. The negroes to be sold at my wife’s death and equally divided among all my children.”

Some of the children died after the testator and in the lifetime of the tenant for life. The question is, was the remainder vested, so that the representatives of the deceased children take.

It is a vested remainder, and the representatives of the deceased children do take.

The doctrine governing this case is settled in the case of Conly v. Kincade, Win. Eq., 44.

Per Curiam.

Decree accordingly.  