¶1 The case of Holmes v. Holmes, 86 N. C., 205, is similar to the one before us, and, according to the principles there laid down, Z. T. McCaslin took an equitable fee, although words of inheritance were omitted in the limitation. It is therefore unnecessary to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence offered for the purpose of correcting the deed. While it must be admitted that the doctrine of the above mentioned case is not supported by text-writers or the previous decisions of this Court, yet it is believed to be founded upon more equitable principles in arriving at the real intention of the grantor. It is also in accord with the spirit of recent legislation (The Code, § 1280) which declares that limitations without the use of the word “heirs” shall be construed as limitations in fee, unless a contrary intention plainly appear. In view of these considerations, we do not feel inclined to overrule the said decision. Its application to this case, as well perhaps to the great majority of others, very clearly gives effect to the true intention of the parties.
¶2 Affirmed.