¶1 The transaction between the deceased and her son, relative to the insurance policy in question, seems to have been a joint enterprise. Some of the premiums were paid by the parent, some by the child. Both benefited thereby. We think the trial court correctly held that such payments on the part of the mother, under the fact situation disclosed by the record, could not be regarded as gifts or advancements to the son.
¶2 An advancement may be defined as a gift in prcesenti or provision made by a parent on behalf of a child for the purpose of advancing said *41 child in life, and thus to enable him to anticipate his inheritance to the extent of such advancement. C. S., 1654, rule 2; Lunsford v. Yarbrough, 189 N. C., 476, 127 S. E., 426; Nobles v. Davenport, 183 N. C., 207, 111 S. E., 180; Thompson v. Smith, 160 N. C., 256, 75 S. E., 1010; Kyle v. Conrad, 25 W. Va., p. 774.
¶3 Affirmed.