rule in Shelley's Case

In the classic statement of the rule as made in the case from which it derived its name: -when the ancestor by any gift or conveyance takes an estate of freehold, and in the same gift or conveyance an estate is limited, either mediately or immediately to his heirs in fee or in tail, the word "heirs" is one of limitation, not of purchase. 1 Coke 93b, 104b, 76 Eng Reprint 206, 234. In terms in which it is usually stated:-the principle that when a person takes an estate of freehold, legal or equitable, under a deed, will, or other writing, and in the same instrument there is a limitation by way of remainder, either with or without the interposition of another estate, of an interest of the same legal or equitable quality, to his heirs or heirs of his body, as a class of persons to take in succession from generation to generation, the limitation to the heirs entitles the ancestor to the whole estate. 28 Am J2d Est § 102. The rule that if one makes a limitation to another for life, with a remainder over mediately or immediately to his heirs, or the heirs of his body, the heirs do not take remainders at all, but the word "heirs" is regarded as defining or limiting the estate which the first taker has, and his heirs, if they take at all, take by descent, and not by purchase. Lytle v Hulen, 128 Or 483, 275 P 45, 114 ALR 587. A grant or devise to a man "during his natural life, and then to his heirs, in a jurisdiction where the rule in Shelley's Case is in force, gives an absolute estate to the grantee or devisee, but in those jurisdictions where the rule in Shelley's Case is not in force, the grantee or devisee takes only a life estate. Doyle v Andis, 127 Iowa 36, 102 NW 177.