#### Jeffries vs. Hunt.

JC’JECTMENT. Osborn Jeffries devised as follows: “/ give to David Jeffries, his male heirs and assigns forever ; and for want of such, to the male heirs of Simon Jeffries, the lands in questionThere was a devise in the same will to Simon. — , David, at the date of this will, had daughters but no sod, and died without ever having had a son.

Baker for the plaintiff,

insisted that David took nothing, and that his male heirs were intended to take as purchasers ; and that he dving without having had male heirs, the devise became inoperative, and the lands vested in the lessors of the plaintiff, the sons of Simon, who were in being when the will was made, and are designated as purchasers by the words used in describe ing them.

Per curiam

David Jeffries surely was not intended to be disinherited by this will — Another part of the will takes notice that part of the lands in question, lying on Roanoke river, was devised to him by the clause in question. If he took at all, he took an estate entail male, which by the operation of the act of 1784, ch. 22, is converted into a fee, and descended on his death to his daughters ; or went as his will directed.

Verdict and judgment for the defendant, who acted for the daughters.