after stating the facts. We think there was error in the judgment of the Court below. In construing wills, the object is to ascertain the intentions of the testator, and carry them into effect as far as it may lawfully be done. The evident intention of the testator was to provide a common home for her four younger children, two of whom are still infants, for a period limited to twenty-one years after the death of herself and her husband. While in general we do not approve of the needless tying up of land, we can not ignore entirely the jus disponencti inseparable from the right of property, nor can we say that the time herein limited is so long as to be contrary to public policy. There may be cases in which conditions may so change as to bring about hardships, which could never have been within the contemplation of the testator, and which might call for judicial intervention; but none such appear to> us in the case at bar. The testatrix has been dead but a few years, and apparently nothing has occurred that would haye changed her intention, unless it were the attempted mortgaging of the land by her husband, which she may have foreseen. She knew her own family, their wants and dispositions, and may have provided for the future better than may now appear. In any event, she was the owner of the property, and we must give effect to her lawful intent Can there be any doubt as to her intention ? She devised the property to the four children, Frank, Eugene, Florine and Sam, to be held in common, until twenty-one years after the death of their surviving parent, and then to *242vest in severalty in fee simple. Sbe evidently intended it as a common borne, as sbe reserved tbe nse of one room for ber son Andrew J. Planner. Sbe provided- that if tbe bouse should be burnt, tbe insurance money should be used to build another bouse on tbe same lot. Sbe also provided a fund for protection of tbe borne by directing tbe investment for that purpose of certain building and loan stock. What has become of that stock does not appear.
It seems that tbe petitioner R. A. Watts, Sr., executed a mortgage upon the land in question after tbe death of bis wife. So far as we can see, be bad no interest whatever in tbe land, not even tbe right of curtesy, as that was destroyed by tbe will of tbe wife, tbe property having been acquired since 1868. Tiddy v. Graves, 126 N. C., 620; same case, 127 N. C., 502.
We do not mean to say that tbe children, or any of them, are required to live in. tbe bouse. Nor are we passing upon the-effect of a joint deed executed by all tbe. children after they become swi juris. Such a question is not before us in any shape. In tbe meantime, we see no reason why tbe bouse may not be rented out for tbe benefit of tbe children to whom it was devised.
Error.