178 WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER.

had received from the estate, from the 16th of January, 1815, to
the 28th of November, 1825, deducting the amount paid for taxes,
repairs, &c, the sum of $24,149 35|, for all which he was ready to
account; that he had not taken possession of any other part of the
testator's estate, or received any other rents and profits than those
specified; and that the property devised to Sarah was more than
her equal proportion of her father's estate.

The three infant defendants put in their answers by guardian ad
litem, in which they stated, that they had no knowledge of the
matters set forth in the bill; and prayed, that their interests might
be protected, &c.

To these answers the plaintiffs put in a general replication; and
commissions were issued to take testimony; under which the
depositions of sundry witnesses were taken and returned on the 7th
of September, 1827. After which the defendant John Diffenderffer
with the consent of parties, was allowed to amend his answer; in
which amended answer, he stated, that the devisee Ann, with her
husband Alexander Martin, had executed a conveyance of the pro-
perty devised to her, whereby she had docked the estate tail therein
given to her; so that William Hitchborn became seized thereof in
fee simple, in trust for her sole and separate use; after which she had,
by her last will devised the property as therein specified and died.

7th April, 1828.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case standing
ready for hearing, and the solicitors of the parties having been
heard, the proceedings were read and considered.

After an attentive consideration of the will of the late Charles
Rogers, upon the true construction of which this controversy turns,
it is my opinion, that he devised the property, mentioned in the
complainants' bill, to his daughters for life, with remainder to
their children in fee simple; and upon the death of any one daugh-
ter, without children, then her share was to go to the survivors and
their children. There is nothing in this will which shews it to
have been the intention of the testator, that his daughters, or their
issue should take an estate tail only. All four of his daughters are
now dead, and two of them, Ann and Mary, have left no issue;
consequently, the undivided shares of the property, in the proceed-
ings mentioned, which were devised to the late Ann and Mary,
must pass, in two equal parts to the testator's grand-children, the
one-half part thereof to the plaintiff Araminta, as the daughter and
sole heir of the late Sarah; and the other half part thereof to be
equally divided among Amelia Diffenderffer, Michael Diffenderffer