
    Bishop v. Selleck.
    In the Court below,
    Jacob Bishop, Henry Weed, and Mary his wife, in her right, Dequate Weed, and Sarah his wife, in her right, Moses Máther, 2d, and Sally Ids wife, -;n her right, Ebenezer Bishop, Abraham Haw-ley, Isaac Hawley, Charles Seelf.ck, Rhena Bishop, Lavtna Bishop, Isaac Bishop, Abraham Bishop, and Hannah Bishop, Plaintiff's; Jesse Selleck, Defendant.
    
    
      '^a Po-life, remain-cierto her heirs, and their ⅛?-»⅛?⅛ ⅛ A.
    TP HIS was an action of ejectment, for sixteen acres of land in Stamford.
    - - • The defendant made a .special plea, in which the whole case was fully stated, and admitted, on the part of die plaintiffs, by a demurrer. On the 9th of May, 1757, John Bales made his will, by which, after,giving to his two eldest sons a small tract of land, he devised to his other sons, and to his daughters, of whom Sarah Selleck was one, the rest of his estate, real and personal, to be divided among them in certain specified proportions. He then made provision for the payment of his daughters’ proportions out of his personal estate, so far an it should be sufficient, and directed, that what should be wanting should be made up to them out of his real es-O i tute, which the sons should have four years to redeem. The following clause was then subjoined : “ But what “ land shall be set out to my daughter, Sarah Selleck, to “ make her half so good as one of her brethren, shall not “ be redeemed, but shall be to her heirs, and their as- “ signs, forever, and I give only the use of it to her, du- “ ring her natural life.” The testator died before June 5th, 1759, and on the 11th of April, 1760, the demanded premises were distributed to Sarah Selleck under the will. From Sarah Selleck the defendant deduced his title, by a regular chain of conveyances. The plaintiffs claimed title as heirs at law of Sarah Selleck. The question in the case was, whether Sarah Selleck, under the will, took a fee-simple, or a life estate ? 
       The Superi or Court decided, that she took a fee-simple, and adjudged the defendant’s plea sufficient.
    1804.
    
      Edwards, (of New-Haven) for the plaintiffs,
    contended, that'by the word “ heirs" in the devise, was not meant the whole inheritable blood of Sarah Selleck, but her children, and was, therefore, descripiio personarían.
    
    
      Daggett, and I?. M. Sherman, for the defendant,
    contended, that the rule in Shelly’s case 
       is the true rule, viz. -that-where-a freehold estate is given to a person, and, in the same instrument, is limited to his heirs, the heirs take by descent, and not by purchase. In support of this doctrine, they cited Bowles’ case, 
      
      Wright v. Pearson, 
       Hargrave’s Law Tracts, 502, Dean y, Gillot,  Rafe v. Coleman, 
      
      Bagshaw v. Spencer, 
      
       Butterfield v. Butterfield, 
      
      Garth v. Baldwin, 
      Colson v. Colson, 
      
       and Hayes v. Foorde, 
    
    
      
       There was another question made, viz. whether Sarah Sel-leck did not get the estate by a deed ? That question depended upon tills, whether a freehold estate could commence in futuro ? It was the opinion of the S. C. E. that it could not.
    
    
      
       1 Go. 104.
    
    
      
       11 Co. 79.
      
    
    
      
       Cited in ganes v, Margan, and reported in a note, 1 Brovin’s Ch. Ca. 212.
    
    
      
       2 Term-Rep. 431.
    
    
      
       1 />. 2*⅝«. 142.
    
    
      
       1142.
    
    
      
       1 Fes. 154.
    
    
      
       2 Fes. 646.
    
    
      
       2/⅛#.246.
    
    
      
       2 ¾⅛. 698., .
    
   By the Court,

The judgment was affirmed.  