
    Early v. Early.
    
    October, 1820.
    Wüñis—Loan of Slave to Legatee for Certain Tims, Then to His Heirs—Effect.—Lending a slave to a legatee until he become 50 years oí age, then to his heirs for ever, gives the use to the legatee, until the time arrive: and does not gife the absolute property, from the death of the testator.
    John Early, surviving executor of Joshua Early, filed a bill in Chancery, against Jabez Early, Samuel Garland, Samuel Read, and William Booth, stating, that Joshua Early, had by his will, lent to Jabez Early, a negro woman named Venus, until he (Jabez) should attain the age of fifty: to be under the control of his executors *and in case Jabez died under 50, the executors were to make a title to his heirs. That Jabez is still under 50, embarrassed in his circumstances; and that Venus has been taken under an execution against Jabez Early, and purchased by Garland, (as the agent for certain plaintiffs in the execution,) who sold her to Read, who sold to Booth. The bill prayed, that the defendants might be compelled to give security for the forthcoming of Venus and her increase, when Jabez Early should attain the age of 50, and be restrained in the meanwhile, from taking her out of the slate.
    The clause of the will after lending Venus to Jabez Early, subject to the control of the executors, and directing, that no title should be made until he attained 50 years of age; and that if he died before that time, the executors should make a t tie to his heirs, was in these words: “I lend him one negro girl, by name Venus, now on his plantation, to him until he arrives to the age of 50 years, for the express purpose of supporting his family, and to his heirs for ever.” The Chancellor of the Richmond district was of opinion, that the absolute property passed to Jabez Early by the testament; and dismissed the bill.
    Bouldin for the appellant.
    The word “heirs” often means “children;” “children,” sometimes means “issue:” we must take either in the construction of wills, in the sense in which the testator used them. Here the testator clearly means, to give the use for a specific number of years to Jabez, and the absolute property to his children. The limitation is not too remote, and the devise to the remainder-men is good.
    Cali, contra.
    The words convey the whole estate; for they give the absolute property to Jabez, when he reaches 50; he is , therefore the legal owner ab initio, and *this by operation of the rule in Shelly’s case. Words in a devise are to be construed according- to their natural sense() unless some obvious incongruity would result; the word “heirs” in this testament, cannot be restricted to children; and taking it to mean “heirs,” in the common acceptation, the whole estate passed to Jabez.
    Bouldin replied.
    The rule in Shelly’s case has no application, where the first dev-isee or legatee, takes less than a life estate. At SO years of age, Jabez Early may have no heirs; he may not be dead, and the persons described as “heirs,” are then to take, whether he be dead or alive, which they cannot do, as Mr. Call interprets the word. “Heirs,” then, is not used in the legal sense, but the whole clause shews the testator uses it as descriptive of children.
    
      
       sir monographic note on Legacies and Devises, see end of case.
    
    
      
      (a) Doe v. Jessep; 13 East 293.
    
   ' ROANE, Judge.

The court not concurring in opinion with the court of Chancery, that the absolute property of the slave Venus, in the proceedings mentioned, passed to Jabez Early by the will of the father, until he should have attained the age of SO years', reverses the decree with costs; and remands the case to the said court of Chancery, to be further proceeded in, pursuant to the principles now stated. 
      
      Cabell absent.
     