
    SNEED and OTHERS against W. and J. HARRIS.
    Where⅝ ^ dinted /; bequeaihed limitatum over is ex pres-tervyaidi m a tencl^f Me' estate in land is also clevis-cd toA, on tationto'ii^s ingrafted; fined by construction ■ofthe wdl, to the land; and thatas'to'the chattels,they bntabie,-after the death of A amongst the next of ⅛⅛.
    THIS was a petition brought by certain of the next of kinAif James Harris against his executor, to obtain distribution of some slaves, and other chattle property, be-qneathed by the testator to his wife for her life, but o£ which, the petitioners allege, no disposition is made by the will, after the death of the wife. On the other hand, the Defendant, William, claims it as bequeathed to him by the will, and the whole controversy arises from the following . , , , , ... clause, viz. rl give and bequeath to my beloved wile Nancy, two negroes to wit Alcy and Suck during her natural life, also three cows and calves, one sorrel horse, bed and furniture. And one half the tract of land that my son yames Harris is bound to make me a right to J J - ° which I now live on, or it he do not ehuse to make rae a g°°d and lawful tide, to have one half of the land that I have, upon my son James Harris to make me a title, to buy her a place to live on during her natural life, and then tQ re{Urn ⅛ my SOn William.” J
    
    . . , . , Tl he case was submitted without argument.
   Seawell, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court,

The bequest of the negroes to the wife for life, is a clear definite estate, and the subsequent limitation is engrafted in a separate and distinct sentence, by which the testator devises to his wife an estate in lands. This is the natural and necessary construction, and must prevail, unless controled by some otherpartof the will. In looking into the whole will, there is nothing which shows the testator intended a different meaning. There must be a decree for the petitióners.  