•Accord  (on  the  point  that  the  rule  in  Shelley's  Case  did  not  apply):  Wil-
lis V.  Hlscox,  4  Myl.  A  Cr.  197 ;  Clerk  v.  Day,  Moore,  593 ;  Greaves  v.  Simp-
son, 12  W.  R.  773,  10  Jur.  609;  Bayley  v.  Morris,  4  Ves.  Jr.  788;  Ganedy  r.
Haskins,  54  Mass.  (13  Meta)  889,  46  Am.  Dec.  739;  Hamilton  y.  Weatworth,
58  Me.  101.
But  where  the  remainder  created  by  will  was  to  **the  next  lawful  heir"  of
the  life  tenant  "all  the  freehold  estate  forever,"  the  rule  in  SheUey's  Oase
applied.    Fuller  v.  Ghamier,  L.  R.  2  Eq.  682  (1866).  i

A  fortiori,  where  the  remainder  is  to  the  heir  (In  the  singular)  of  the  life
tenant  and  there  are  no  superadded  words  of  limitation  or  otherMse,  the  rule
in  Shelley*s  Case  applies.  Richards  v.  Bergavenny,  2  Vern.  324;  Theobald
on  Wills,  7th  Ed.,  422.
But  where  the  remainder  is  limited  to  the  life  tenant's  heir  (In  the  singu-
lar) "for  life,"  the  rule  in  Shelley's  Case  does  not  apply.  White  v.  Collins,
Com.  289 ;   Pedder  v.  Hunt,  18  Q.  B.  D.  565.
The  principal  case  is  followed  so  Ivlt  as  it  holds  that  the  rule  in  Shelley's
Case  applies  where  there  are  life  estates  to  several  with  a  remainder  to  the
heirs  of  one  only.  Hess  v.  Lakin,  7  Ohio  Dec.  300 ;  Kepler  v.  Reeves,  7  Ohio
Dec  (Reprint)  34 ;  BuUard  v.  Ck>ffe,  20  Pick.  (Mass.)  252 ;  Bails  v.  Davis,  241
III.  536,  89  N.  E.  706,  29  L.  B.  A.  (N.  S.)  937 ;  Feame,  a  R.  36,  63,  310.  But
see  Shaw  v,  Robinson,  42  S.  O.  342,  347,  20  S.  E.  161.
