Tbe court below by consent found tbe facts. Josiab Brown died 25 June, 1926, and left a will with two codicils. I. M. Brown, plaintiff, was left executor.' There was no eaveat to tbe will. His wife, Malinda Brown, died after tbe will was made and before tbe first codicil -was made. He left four children: (1) Minnie Britton Brown, (2) N. H. Brown, (3) I. M. Brown, (4) Tulie C. Brown, who is dead and who left one heir at law, Bruce Brown, one of tbe defendants.
In tbe findings of facts we have: “Tbat Tulie C. Brown executed an agreement of record in Book 105, page 486, office of tbe register of deeds for Bertie County, releasing bis interest in bis father’s estate, wbicb agreement is referred to in Item 8 of tbe said will; tbat N. H. Brown *318executed a similar agreement of record in Book 114, page 141, office of tbe register of deeds for Bertie County, and wbicb is referred to in Item 9 of tbe said will.”
Items 8 and 9 of tbe will are as follows:
“Item 8. My son, Tulie Cbesson, bas been amply provided for during my lifetime. I bave given bim tbe farm known as tbe Willis Barrett farm, besides repairing tbe dwelling-bouse on said farm and also giving bim a borse and a year’s provision, all of wbicb farm and other provisions made for bim I bave made as an advancement, and wbat I bave given bim is all tbe share that I wish bim to bave in my estate, and be is'not to share in my lands or other property wbicb may belong to my estate at my death. My son Tulie and I fully understand each other, as is evidenced by a contract wbicb we bave heretofore made and executed between eách other, wbicb is of record in Book 105, page 486, register of deeds office for Bertie County, North Carolina, and said contract is referred to and made a part of this my last will and testament.
“Item 9. My beloved son, Newton Henry, is not to share in nly estate at my death, neither real, personal or mixed, because be bas been amply provided for during my lifetime, as evidenced by an instrument of writing of record in Book 114, page 141, register of deeds office for Bertie County, N. C., wbicb record is referred to and made a part of my last will and testament. Tbe advancement wbicb I bave made to my son Newton Henry consists of tbe borne place on which be now lives, a borse and other personalty wbicb is in full settlement with bim of all right of claim in my estate.”
It will be noted that as to Tulie C. Brown, tbe will distinctly says: “What I have given him is all the share that I wish him to have in my estate, and he is not to share in my lands or other property which rrpay belong to my estate at my death.” As to N. H. Brown, tbe will distinctly says: “Is not to share in my estate at my death, neither real, personal or mixed, because hé has been amply provided for during my lifetime.”
Tbe contracts under seal between Josiab Brown and tbe two sons, Tulie 0. Brown and N. H. Brown, were both recorded and recitals in each are as follows: “Saving received all of my share of property ruhereof I (would) be entitled to in my father’s and mother’s estate, . feeling satisfied that I have received my full share of property whereof I am heir and that I shall not be entitled to no (any) more property in my father’s and mother’s estate during their life, nor shall I be entitled to- any more at their death.” Tbe contract with Tulie C. Brown was dated 1 January, 1901, and N. H. Brown, 15 April, 1902.
Tbe will of Josiab Brown was made 6 October, 1910, tbe first codicil II June, 1914, and tbe second 24 February, 1923.
*319Tbe second codicil bas reference witb particularity to a trust fund of $500 to be used for tbe upkeep of tbe family burying ground. In tbe will be mentions tbat it is bis will and desire tbat bis body be buried in tbe graveyard on my “borne place,” and one-balf acre to be reserved, “embracing tbe graveyard to be used as a burying ground for my descendants.” Tbe codicil says: “Wishing to preserve and keep sacred from tbe bands of vandalism tbe graveyard or cemetery where sleep my wife and children, and where I expect to make my last resting place, it is my will and desire tbat tbe said graveyard be kept and preserved witb sacred care.”
Tbe last clause of this second codicil is where defendants claim their rights arise, which is as follows: “If there should be any property remaining after the same has been divided according to my last will and testament and the two codicils, it is my will and desire that it be divided equally among my heirs at law under the canons of descent'.”
But, on tbe other band, plaintiffs claim tbe first part of tbe second codicil shows tbat defendants, N. II. Brown and Bruce Brown (only heir of Tulie 0. Brown) can have no interest, as tbe second codicil says: “I, Josiah Brown, of said county and State, malee this second codicil to my last will and testament, and dated 6 October, 1910, which I ratify and confirm, as also the codicil dated 11 June, 1911.”
Tbe court below in construing tbe will excluded N. H. Brown and Bruce Brown from any participation in certain of tbe personal property, and adjudged tbat Minnie Britton Brown, who does not appeal, and I. M. Brown, plaintiff, is entitled to tbe same. In this we think tbe court below correct.
From tbe contracts and will it clearly appears tbat tbe testator bad fully provided for N. H. Brown and Tulie C. Brown, father of Bruce Brown. In fact, N. H. Brown and Tulie 0. Brown, under their bands and seals signed a solemn agreement to tbat effect. This agreement was specifically referred to in tbe will and they in tbe will, by clear language, were excluded from any further share.
We do not think tbat tbe latter part of the'second codicil gave them anything additional. Tbe will and codicils are to 'be construed as a whole. Tbe clear language of tbe contracts and will was to tbe effect tbat N. H. Brown and Tulie 0. Brown, father of Bruce Brown, were to get nothing from tbe estate. Tbe first part of tbe second codicil ratifies and confirms tbe will, which gives them nothing, and tbe latter part of tbe second- codicil divides tbe remaining property “equally among my heirs at law,” we think, namely: I. M. Brown and Minnie Britton Brown, tbe two children who bad not been previously provided for and only provided for by tbe will. They were the heirs at law referred to. We think this construction is further borne out by tbe reason of tbe *320fact that in Item 12 of the will, before he appoints the executor, he gives certain life insurance “to my beloved daughter Minnie Britton (Brown) and Isaac McOony (Brown) to share and, share alike/’ Further in the contracts both N. H. Brown and Tulie C. Brown agree that they have received their full share of property "whereof I am heir.” We think they have no rights under the will. If anything more was intended to be given them, the testator could have so said. ¥e must construe the will and codicils together — the last codicil ratifies and confirms the will that gave N. II. Brown and Tulie C. Brown, father of Bruce Brown, nothing, and the will refers to the contracts in which they agree that they have received their full share.
It is said in Patterson v. McCormick, 181 N. C., at p. 313: “It must be construed, Taking it by its all four corners’ and according to the intent of the testator as we conceive it to be upon the face thereof and according to the circumstances attendant. We can derive but little help from adjudicated cases upon facts more or less different from those in this ease, for hardly ever can the facts and. the language be identical in any two cases. In the construction of a will, therefore, ‘Every tub must stand on its own bottom,’ except as to the meaning of words and phrases of a settled legal purport. The object is to arrive at, if possible, the intention and meaning of the testator as expressed in the language used by him.” Edmonson v. Leigh, 189 N. C., 196; Scales v. Barringer, 192 N. C., 94; Walker v. Trollinger, 192 N. C., 744.
For the reason given the judgment below is
Affirmed.