In North Carolina the principle of law known as the rule in Shelley’s case has always prevailed. The estate conveyed in the premises of the deed to Mrs. Dawson is limited to a life estate, and in the habendum clause the following language is used : “To have and to hold to her the said Priscilla L. Dawson for and during the term of her natural life as aforesaid, and at her death then the same shall go and descend to the heirs ■of said Priscilla L. Dawson which have been or may be begotten on the body of said Priscilla L. Dawson by her present husband the said L. "W. Dawson, to them the heirs of said Priscilla L. Dawson and L. V. Dawson their heirs •and assigns forever.” If the habendum had not contained the words “ by the present husband the said L. W. Daw'-son to them the heirs of said Priscilla L. Daw'son and L. W. Daw'son their heirs and assigns forever,” the rule in Shelley’s case would apply. These words however appearing, they furnish the necessary words of qualification and ■explanation to the other preceding words to take the ease •out of the rule. The qualifying and explanatory words used in the deed as above pointed out, confined the remainder interest to the children of Priscilla L. Daw'son and her husband L. W. Dawson, thus altering the general rule of descent. Leathers v. Gray, 101 N. C., 162; Starnes v. Hill, 112 N. C., 1; Nichols v. Gladden, 117 N. C., 497. The Act of 1784, Ch. 204, Sec. 5, (Code, Sec. 1325,) converting estates tail into estates in fee simple has no bearing upon the principle of law decided in Shelley’s case, for as we have said the rule of law established in that case prevailed before the act of 1784 and has always prevailed *191since. There was error in the ruling and judgment of the court below, and the same is reversed.