#### THE STATE *TO THE*USE *OF*WILLIAM P. LONG & AL. *vs.*JOHN NORCOM AND OTHERS.

Á testator devised certain slaves to three of his daughters and to1 a child (then1 *in ventre sa mere)*to be divided at a’ designated period, and then directed,"And if either of my daughters or the child which my -wife now appears-pregnant with, as aforesaid, should die, after the division, without lawful is~sue, it is my will that such part should be equally divided between my wife and my surviving children.” The child afterwards born (a son) died, after the division and without issue1, leaving his1 mother and two of thé daughters surviving him. *Held,*that the limitation over was go'od as to the mother1 and the two surviving daughters; but that it did not extend to the children of one of the daughters who had died before the sons

The casos of *Threadgill*v Ingram, 1 Ired. 577, and *Skinner*v *Lamb,*3 Ired. 155, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Perquimons County at Spring Term, 1844, his Honor Judge Bailey presiding.-

*256This was an action of debt upon an administration bond executed by the defendant John Norcom and the other defendants as his sureties for his administration on the estate o£ -yyjjyam Long; dee’d, the execution of which was admitted, The breach assigned was the failure to pay the relators their respective distributive shares. The evidence established the following case. In the year 1817, Thomas Long made his will, and bequeathed several slaves to three of his daughters, Mary, Sarah and Harriet and to the child or children with which his wife was supposed to be pregnant, to be divided among them when his daughter Sarah arrived to the age of sixteen years. Sarah did arrive to the age of sixteen years, and the slaves were divided *among the*legatees agreeably to the- testators will. William, the defendant’s intestate and the son who was- in *ventre sa mere*at the date of the will, afterwards died without issue, leaving brothers and sisters surviving him, the children of the testator. The two relators in this suit are the children of a brother and sister of 'William Long, the defendant’s intestate, who died before him. The testator, Thomas Long, by his will made the following limitation of the property bequeathed as above: “ And if either *of*my daughters *or the*child which my wife now appears pregnant with, as aforesaid, should die after the division, without lawful issue, it is my will that such part should be equally divided between my wife and my *surviving*children,” The question, before the Court was, whether the two relators were entitled to have any portion of the staves, which their miele William derived from father under the above bequest. The Judge was of opinion that they were not entitled to any part of the said slaves.

The jury under the instructions of his HoNon rendered a verdict for the defendants, and judgment being given accordingly, the plaintiff appealed.

No counsel in this Court for the plaintiff.

*Thomas F. Jones*for the defendants.

*257Dauiel, J.

We concur in opinion with the Judge of the Superior Court. The executory limitation over to the wife and surviving children, on the death of Ms son William. Long, without issue, was not too remote. We have herto-fore decided in several eases in this Court, that such a limitation was good; *Threadgill*v *Ingram,*1 Ired. 577, *Skinner v Lamb,*3 Ired. 155, and the cases there cited. The relators are not *any*of the surviving children of the testator Thomas Long at the death of William, and therefore they have no interest in the said legacy, which was given, first to William Long, and then over to the surviving children of the testator.

Per Curiam, . Judgment affirmed.