Eule 6 of our Canons of Descent, Eevisal, ch. 30, sec. 1556, is as follows: “Collateral relations of the half blood shall inherit equally with those of the whole blood, and the degrees of relationship shall be computed according to the rules which prevail in descents at common law: Provided, that in all cases where the person last seised shall have left no issue capable of inheriting, nor brother nor sister, nor issue of such, the inheritance shall vest in the father if living, and if not, then in the mother if living.”
It is contended for plaintiffs that under the proviso contained in this rule the father of the person last seised is only allowed to inherit in case such person, last seised, died without brothers or sisters of the half or the whole blood and without reference to their capacity to take by inheritance, but the decisions of our Court construing the rule have been uniformly against the plaintiffs’ position.
At common law, collateral descent was not allowed in case of land. 2 Blackstone, pp. 227-228. This was changed at an early date by our legislation on the subject, and it was provided by statute that on failure of lineal descendants, collaterals could inherit land provided they were of the blood of the first purchaser, the ancestor who had acquired the estate. Eevisal, eh. 30, rule 4. The same statute established rule 6, and our courts construing the law have held as stated that this requirement of rule 4, *248that a collateral claimant should be of the blood of the purchasing ancestor, affected and controlled the interpretation of rule 6, the one before us, and required that in order for a collateral of the half blood to inherit, he should be of the blood of such ancestor. Paul v. Carter, at present term; McMichael v. Moore, 56 N. C., p. 471; Bell v. Dozier, 12 N. C., p. 333. This same construction has been extended and applied to the terms of the proviso and to the effect that the words brother and sister shall be understood to mean brother and sister who are capable of taking under this statute of descents. Dozier et al. v. Grandy, 66 N. C., p. 484; Little et al. v. Buie et al., 58 N. C., p. 10. In Dozier’s case, supra, it was held: “It is well settled that in descended estates, where the person last seised dies without leaving issue, or brother or sister of the blood of the first purchaser, but a half-sister not of such blood, and remote collaterals of such blood, the inheritance shall descend upon such remote collaterals, rather than upon such half-sister.” And in Little v. Buie, more directly applicable, the ruling was as follows: “Half-brothers and sisters, not of the blood of the purchasing ancestor, cannot take under the statute of descents; where, therefore, one died seised of land descended through his mother from her father, and left no issue, nor brothernor sister, except half-sisters, not any of his mother’s blood, it was held, that the father, surviving, took the inheritance.” The authorities are decisive and the judgment of the court below is
Affirmed.