
    *Coleman and Wife v. Holladay.
    Monday, Dec. 7th, 1812.
    Trust Deed — Construction—Case at Bar. — A tract of land was conveyed, in trust, "to X. Ju, his heirs and assigns forever, to the use of the grantor during her natural life, and, after her death, to the use of her son, If. Li., and nis heirs and assigns forever; hut her said son to possess, as soon as he should arrive at full age, a certain part thereof; her intended husband to have the use of the remaining part during his life, or until he should marry, after her death, and no longer; and if the said L. L. should die before he arrived at the age of twenty-one years, or if he should die without child, or children, the said trustee, his heirs and assigns, to hold the said lands to the use of the grantor’s daughter, M. D., and her heirs and assigns forever.'1 It was decided, that L. L„ the son, was seised in fee, of the lands conveyed by the deed, from the date thereof, (subject to the reservations and exceptions in favour of the grantor and her intended husband,) with a right to take possession of part, on attaining the age of twenty-one years; which estate in fee was subject to be defeated by his dying under age, and without a child; but that the concurrence of both these contingencies was necessary to defeat that estate; and, therefore, it appearing thatD. L. did attain the age of twenty-one years, though he afterwards died without any child, that no right accrued to the daughter, under the deed.
    This was an appeal from a judgment of the district Court of Fredericksburg, in an action of ejectment; upon a special verdict, finding “that Betty Littlepage, now Betty Holladay, the now wife of Lewis Holladay, the defendant, was, on the 14th of March, 1774, seised in her demesne, as of fee, in the lands and premises in the declaration mentioned, and being so seised, did, on the same day and year, by her certain indenture of trust, convey the same to John Lewis, his heirs and assigns, for certain uses and trusts therein mentioned; whereupon the said John Lewis entered into the said lands and premises, and was thereof seised and possessed as the law requireth, which indenture was admitted to record in the general Court the 9th of December, 1783; that the said Lewis Holladay had notice thereof on the day when it was executed; that soon after the execution of the said indenture, a marriage took effect between the said Lewis Holladay and Betty Littlepage, who was living at the time of finding this special verdict; that Mary Littlepage, (the daughter mentioned in the said indenture of trust,) one of the lessors of the plaintiff, intermarried with Robert S. Coleman, the other lessor of the plaintiff, prior to the institution-of this suit; that Lewis Little-page (the son in the same indenture mentioned) having attained the age of twenty-one years, died, without ever having had a child; that John Lewis, the trustee, departed this life prior to the institution of this suit; *that the defendant, Lewis Holladay, and Betty, his wife, by their certain indenture of bargain and sale, bearing date the 15th of June, 1778, conveyed the land in question to Joseph Holladay, (who was a subscribing witness to the said indenture of trust, and had full notice thereof,) to him, his heirs and assigns forever; that Joseph Holladay departed this life, having first duly made and published his last will and testament in writing, whereby he directed the lands in question to be sold by his executors; that the defendant, Lewis Holladay, one of the executors therein mentioned, alone proved the same, and took upon himself the burthen of the execution thereof; that he, as ‘executor’ of Joseph Holladay, by indenture of bargain and sale, dated the 1st of May, 1798, conveyed the said land to Benjamin Holladay, who was one of the devi-sees under the said will; and the said Benjamin Holladay, by his indenture of bargain and sale, dated thé 28th of November, 1799, conveyed the same to the said Lewis Holladay, the defendant.”
    The deeds and wills above mentioned were found, by the jury, in hasc verba. The deed of trust from Betty Holladay to John Lewis, (after reciting that the said Betty had two children, to wit, a son named Lewis, and a daughter named Mary, for whom she intended to make some provision, and that a marriage was shortly to be solemnized between the said Betty and Lewis Holladay,) witnessed that, “for, and in consideration of the premises, &c. she conveyed the land, &c. to the said John Lewis, his heirs and assigns forever, to the use of the said Betty during her natural life, and after her death to the use of her son, Lewis Littlepage, and his heirs and assigns forever; but her said son to possess, as soon as he arrived of full age, that part of the said land that lies on the east side of East North East River; her said intended husband to have the use of the remaining part of her said land, during his life, or till he should marry, after her death, and no longer: and if the said Lewis Littlepage ^should die before he arrived to the age of twenty-one years, or if he should die without child or children, the said John Lewis, his heirs and assigns, were to hold the said lands to the use of the said Mary Littlepage, and -her heirs and assigns forever.”
    The district Court, on this verdict, entered judgment for the defendant.
    Warden and Williams, for the appellants.
    Call and Wickham, for the appellee.
   On the part of the appellants, it was contended, that Mary Littlepage was entitled to the land, under the limitations in the deed of trust; Lewis Littlepage having •died without any child, though after attaining the age of twenty-one years.

Saturday, March 6th, 1813, the president pronounced the following opinion of the Court.

The Court is of opinion that Lewis Littlepage, in the special verdict mentioned, was seised in fee of the land conveyed in and by the deed of trust therein contained, from and after the time of the execution thereof, subject, nevertheless, to the reservations and exceptions therein contained, in favour of Betty Littlepage, the grantor, and Lewis Holladay, her then intended husband; and that, upon the said Lewis Littlepage’s attaining his age of twenty-one years, he was also entitled to the possession of a part thereof; but that the said estate was subject to be defeated, in favour of the female appellant, by the said Lewis Littlepage’s dying under the age of twenty-one years, and without a child, or children, which not being the case, as he is found to have attained the said age, the Court is further of opinion, that no right accrued to the appellants under the deed aforesaid; and that the judgment of the district Court is correct, and should be affirmed; but this de-cisión is not to affect any right *which the said appellants, or either of them, may have to the land in controversy, in case they can show themselves entitled thereto as heir, or devisee, of the said Lewis Littlepage; which are facts not sufficiently appearing in this case, in which the appellants profess to claim only under the limitations of the deed aforesaid.  