
    George Pooser and others v. Thomas Tyler and others.
    A limitation in a deed, of negroes and their issue, to heirs lawfully begotten in wedlock with E.T. (his vests an ateo-lute^estate in
    T, HE bill in this case charged, that Rebecca Minnick gave to William Tyler, the father of the defendants, deed which sundry negroes and their increase, 1 by was in these words : “ to him and his heirs lawfully be-gotten in wedlock with Elizabeth Tyler,, formerly Eliza-beth Young,” to have and to hold to-the use of the'said-William Tyler and his lawfully begotten heirs for ever, That the said William Tyler in his life time divided the said negroes among his children, the defendants, and great grand children of the said Rebecca, and alleged that the defendants were bound to bring the said negroes into hotchpot with the complainants, who were children of William Tyler by a second wife, or consider the division as void, and make a legal distribution of them with the second wife, and,her children, of the said William Tyler
    
    dence is inad- ^ ^fthat apparent on instrument, The gift he-
    January 1825,
    The answer admitted the execution of the said by the said Rebecca Minnick, but charged that the negroes, thereby given, were, after the death of their mother, vested m them by the terms of the deed. That if not vested, yet such was the meaning and intent of the said Rebecca as understood both by herself and William Tyler, their, the defendants, father. That in pursuance of such intent, the said William Tyler made the division complained of in the bill. That if the deed did not vest in the defendants the negroes in question after the death of their mother, yet as such was the intent arid understanding of all the parties to the deed, and the division made in pursuance of such understanding, the partition of the negroes in question would not only be suffered to remain undisturbed, but the Court would refuse to order the negroes to be brought into hotchpot. Testimony was offered to prove the meaning and intent óf the deed by the parties, and rejected.
    ThompsoN, Chancellor.
    
      Rebecca Minnick, by deed duly executed, bearing date the 15th of November 1792, gave to her grandson, William Tyler, the negroes' mentioned in the deed, with a remainder oyer to his lawful heirs, “ lawfully begotten in wedlock with his wife Elizabeth Tyler, formerly Elizabeth Young,” with an haben-dum to the said William Tyler and his lawfully begotten heirs for ever; absolutely, without any manner of condition, for ever. Elizabeth Tyler departed this life in the month of July 1813,'leaving her said husband and siy children surviving : to wit, Henry Tyler, Thomas Tyler,. William Tyler, Elizabeth Tyler now the wife of John Sanford, Ann Tyler now the wife of James Simmons, and Elisha Tyler. Henry Tyler departed this life in the year 1815, leaving a widow, who has since intermarried with William Riley, and three children, named in the bill. William Tyler, the donee, had possession of the negroes, from the date of the deed .until the month of March 1818, when he intermarried with'the oratrix. On the 15th of October 1811 he made a division of the said negroes with his children by his first wife, who was the grand daughter of the donor, Rebecca Minnick, which children are the defendants in the present suit, and gave them possession thereof, which they have since held. William Tyler departed this life in the year-, leaving a widow, the present complainant, and a minor son, also complainant by his guardian.
    
      1825.
    
      Columbia.
    
    
      The object of the bill had a double aspect: the first was to set aside the division made between the said William Tyler and the defendants, which has been abandoned; the second was to compel the defendants, in the event of.their claiming a division and partition of the estate of the intestate William Tyler, to bring into hotchpot the advancement made to them by virtue of the said division. Upon a scrupulous examination of the deed, it will be found to be absolute, unconditional and unfettered with any limitation, to William Tyler. He had a right to dispose of the negroes in whatever way he thought proper. He did exercise that right, and with more discretion than men generally do in similar cases. He was about to enter into, a second marriage, and inasmuch as these negroes came to him by the grandmother of his first wife, he divided them among her descendants. The undisposed property of which William Tyler, intestate, died possessed, will have to bé divided between the oratrix and her son, according to the act of the legislature in such case made and provided.
    
      But should the defendants claim any part or proportion thereof, they will have to bring into hotchpot the advancement made to them by their father in his life time: but should they choose not to come in for a division of the residue of their father’s estate, the share which they have received under the aforesaid division is hereby ordered and adjudged to be absolutely vested in them respectively.
    It is further ordered, that a writ of partition do issue to divide the intestate’s property according to the intention and meaning of this decree, and that all matters of account be referred to the Commissioner: the costs to be paid out of the estate.
    From this decree Felder, for the defendants, appealed.
    1. Because the deed vested the negroes in the defendants after the death of their father and mother.
    
      2. That as it was the intent and'meaning both of the donor and donee, that the negroes should be vested in the defendants, and the division made in pursuance of such meaning and intent, the Court would neither disturb such division, nor decree the property thus divided to be brought into hotchpot.
    3. That his Honour the Chancellor erred, in rejecting testimony to prove the true meaning and intent of the said deed, as understood by all the parties concerned.
    4. That the reservation and conditions in the deed rendered it void, and William Tyler, the father of the defendants, received the negroes as a gift by parol, the conditions of which it was competent to prove by parol testimony. •
    
      Stark, for the complainants.
   Cuma, per

Nott, J.

There are but two questions for April 1825. the consideration of the Court in this case.

Limitation too remote. W. T. takes a fee.

Parol evidence inadmissible to change the construction of a deed.

First, It is contended that the deed gave a life estate to the donee, with a limitation to the defendants.

Secondly, That the Chancellor erred in rejecting pa-rol evidence, to prove, the true intent and meaning of the deed as understood byall the parties concerned.

By the deed the property is given to “ William, Tyler and his heirs lawfully begotten in wedlock with Elizabeth Tyler formerly Elizabeth Young.” These words would limit the property, in perpetual succession, to the lineal descendants of the donee, which the law will not allow. The limitation is too remote and' therefore void, and' the estate became absolute in the first taker, William Tyler: And the gift being by deed, no parol evidence, could be admitted to give it a different operation from that appearing on the face of the instrument. The decree must therefore be supported.

Decree affirmed.  