The will of Philip Christ passed only a life estate to the land in controversy to his wife, Mary Christ, unless the super added words in the third item, that “After the expiration of the life estate, I give, devise, and bequeath all my estate, real and personal, to my heirs *229at law and the heirs of the said Mary Christ,” bring the devise within the operation of the rule in Shelley's case.
There might be some ground for this contention but for the additional words appearing in the item, “to be equally divided between them, share and share alike.”
In Mills v. Thorne, 95 N. C., 364, which is affirmed in Gilmore v. Sellars, 145 N. C., 285, it was said that “In England, ever since the leading case of Jepson v. Wright, 2 Bligh, 1, it has been held that the words 'equally to be divided/ or 'share and share alike/ superadded to limitations to the heirs of the body, etc., do not prevent the application of the rule. But in this State it would seem that the superaddition of like words to the limitations to the heirs, or heirs of the body, or issue, do prevent the application of the rule”; and this has been the consistent ruling of this Court since the case of Ward v. Jones, 40 N. C., 400.
¥e are, therefore, of opinion there was no estate of inheritance in Mary Christ, and that there is therefore a failure of title as to one-half of the land in controversy.
The other question discussed in the briefs, as to whether the heirs at law of Mary Christ and of Philip Christ take per stirpes or per capita, is not now before us, and it cannot hereafter arise, if, as stated in the record, Mary Christ left one heir, there being only one heir of Philip Christ. '