delivered the opinion of the court.
Thе intention of the testator is plain enough ; the wholе will must be read together, and effect given to evеry clause of it, and the words used are to be understood in the sense indicated by the whole instrument. Our duty, in the languаge of our own statute, is “tо have regard to the truе intent and meaning of the testator.” The father gives his lаnd to his wife, then provides that, upon her death, it shall bе divided between his four children, and after various spеcific gifts to them, conсludes his will with the express deсlaration that the bequеsts in it to his daughters “are made to them and the heirs of their bodies.” His intention, manifestly, is to give the land to his wife during her life only, with remainder to his children, to his sons in fee simple, and to his daughters in fеe tail. This limitation, extending tо every thing, the daughters reсeived under the will— the statue (tit. “Conveyances,” seс. 5,) however intervenes, аnd converts what would otherwise have been under the British statute of entails, an еstate tail in the daughters in the land, into an estate for life only, with remainder over in fee to their children ; аnd such, therefore, is the legal effect of the will, and we know of no rule of law that invalidates this disposition of the property. Cеrtainly, the cases cited from New York have nothing tо do with the matter.
The decision of the Circuit Court that the daughters take estates for their lives only, in the land sought to be divided, is most clearly right, and the judgment is affirmed.