The proceedings were begun by the defendant as plaintiff, and against one of the plaintiffs as defendant, the other plaintiffs having since come in and been made *771parties by consent. By some means the relative position of the plaintiñs and defendant was changed when the case got into the Superior Court, but this is immaterial, as also are some other technical irregularities which were waived, no exception having been taken at the time.
As to the first and second exceptions by the plaintiffs to the referee’s report, the will of James M. Smith was in evidence without exception, and it appears therefrom (the same having already been construed by this Court in Miller ex-parte, 90 N. C., 625) that the plaintiff Elizabeth A. Smith possessed only a life estate.
As to the remaining exceptions the defendant, was estopped to deny that the title of the land was in the plaintiffs, but in which of them, or in what proportion the damages assessed should be divided between them, was a matter arising after verdict. This in nowise concerned the defendant. The report of the referee and the judgment of the Court thereon were in accordance with the construction placed on the will. Miller ex-parte, supra. The value of the life estate was assessed as provided by The Code §1352. The balance of the recovery is the present value of the interests of the remaindermen. It stands in the same plight and condition as the realty itself stood and upon the expiration of the life estate it will be divided among the parties then entitled in the manner provided by the will as to the realty for which it has been 'substituted.
The usual manner of ascertaining the damages is by estimating the damages and benefits and deducting one from the other. Dillon Mun. Corp., sections 624, 625. And this is contemplated by the defendant’s charter. Private Acts 1883, chapter 111, section 37. Whether this shall be done by the jury, deducting one from the other and finding the difference as their response to a single issue *772submitted as to the damages, or whether the Court shall submit, as in the present case, two separate issues, one as to the damages and the other as to the benefits, is a matter of discretion. Humphrey v. Trustees, 109 N. C., 132. It cannot affect the result, when the amount of damages and benefits have been both found by the jury, whether the mathematical operation of deducting one from the other is made by the Court or the jury. By the terms of the plaintiffs’ notices of appeal the question of benefits as well as damages was expressly brought to the Superior Court for trial. No Error.