#### CHARLES J. O’HAGAN et al. v. ADELAIDE JOHNSON et al.

(Filed 1 October, 1913.)

Contingent Remainder — Reinvestment—Interpretation of Statutes.

A devise of real and personal property to such of the testator’s children as may survive him, to them and their “bodily heirs” forever, and should they die without “heirs of their body”, surviving them, to the brothers and sisters of the testator, and should any of these predecease the testator and his children, then the “bodily heirs” of such brother or sister shall take such a part of the estate as their parents would-have taken had they *198been living. This action is brought for the sale of certain of the testator’s land by his solé surviving son and his wife, to whom he conveyed his interest therein, the defendants being the testator’s brothers and sisters and the children thereof and all persons who could possibly have an interest in the lands should the plaintiff die without issue, ^and all being served with process, the infant parties properly represented by guardians ad litem,: Held, in proceedings for the sale of certain lands of testator and reinvestment of thé proceeds under the provisions of the Revisal, sec. 1590, the order was properly made under the authority of Springs v. Scott, 132 N. O., 542, and that line of decisions.

Appeal by defendants from O. H. Allen, J., at May Term, 1913, of Pitt.

This is an action, instituted for the purpose of selling certain lands for reinvestment under the provisions of section 1590 of the Revisal.

The land ordered by the court to be sold for reinvestment was devised in item 1 of the last will and testament of Elvira O’Hagan, and said devise is in words as follows: “I give, devise, and bequeath to imy children who shall survive me, if any, all my estate, real, personal, or mixed, of every kind and description, to have and to hold unto them and the heirs of their bodies forever. Arid should they die without heirs of their body surviving them,- then, and in that event, I give, devise, and bequeath the same to all my brothers and sisters equally, share andr share alike, and if any of my brothers and sisters shall die before my decease or the decease of my children, if I leave any, then and in that event it is my will and desire that the bodily heirs of such brother or sister shall have such a part of my estate as their parent would have taken, had they been living.”

The testatrix left surviving her one child, Charles J. O’Hagan, Sr., one of the parties plaintiff, who is now living, and such estate as he has by reason of said devise in said property he has conveyed to his wife, the other plaintiff herein; and the said plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants, who are brothers and sisters of the late Elvira O’Hagan, and the children of certain brothers and sisters, as fully set out in the complaint, and summons has been duly served upon all of the defendants as required by the statute, together with all persons *199wbo in any event may become interested in tbe property songbt to be sold upon tbe happening o£ any contingency, and these latter persons are duly represented by a guardian ad litem, wbo has filed an answer in tbe cause.

All parties wbo would be interested in said land, provided tbe plaintiff, Charles J. O’Hagan, Sr., should die without issue, have been made parties defendant, and have been duly served with process; and all parties wbo might hereafter become interested in said land upon tbe -happening of said contingency have been made parties defendant and are represented herein-by a duly appointed guardian ad litem.

Upon the filing of the answers, the court rendered a judgment directing the sale of the property, and from which the defendants appealed.

Harry Skinner and Albion Dtmn for plaintiffs.

Don Gilliam for defendants.

AlleN, J.

We have examined the record, and see no reason for disturbing the decree entered in the Superior Court.

The proceedings are regular, and have been prepared with great care, indicating patient investigation and a familiarity with the legal principles involved.

The decree is fully sustained by Springs v. Scott, 132 N. C., 548; Hodges v. Lipscomb, 133 N. C., 199, and Trust Co. v. Nicholson, 162 N. C., 257, and upon the authority of these eases the judgment is

Affirmed.