¶1 The plaintiffs’ application is for an order to sell land and re-in vest .the proceeds. They show that it would promote their interest if they can do so. The deed under which they derive their interest shows an-estate for life in Carrie E. Smith., with divers contingent remainders depending upon the happening of several future events.
¶2 However well the Court might be convinced of the propriety of the sale, it is powerless to grant the plaintiff’s-application for the reason that these' remainder interests are not and cannot be before the Court, as- they can only arise in futuro. Whether or when they may arise does not affect the question, as they may do so.. They cannot now be represented even by classes, because of the uncertainty of future e,vents. This- rule' has been long settled, and the reasoning seems- to be exhausted in the following cases cited by the defendant:. Watson v. Watson, 3 Jones Eq., 400; Justice v. Guion, 76 N. C., 442; Young v. Young, 97 N. C., 132.
¶3 Affirmed..