¶1 The basic question here involved: Did the grandchildren of the late Charles H. Robinson, living at the date of his death, acquire vested interests in the trust estate created under the fifth item of his will? The decisions of this Court point to an affirmative answer. See Walker v. Johnston, 70 N. C., 576; Witty v. Witty, 184 N. C., 375, 114 S. E., 482; Weill v. Weill, 212 N. C., 764, 194 S. E., 462; Coddington v. Stone, 217 N. C., 714, 9 S. E. (2d), 420; and Priddy & Co. v. Sanderford, 221 N. C., 422, 20 S. E. (2d), 341, and cases cited, where applicable principles are enunciated and applied. Decision here may aptly be made on authority of these cases.
¶2 It is declared in the Walker case that: “When a legacy is given to a class — as to the children of A — with no preceding estate, only such as can answer to the roll call at the death of the testator can take, for the ownership is then to be fixed and the estate must devolve upon those who answer the description.” Also in the Coddington case the Court states that the absence of any limitation over upon the contingency of the death of the beneficiary has been considered to raise a strong inference *158 that it was the intention of the testator to confer an immediate estate vested at his death. -And, continuing, “It is generally held, nothing else appearing in the will to the contrary, where an estate is devised to a trustee in an active trust for the sole benefit of persons named as beneficiaries with directions to divide up and deliver the estate at a stated time, this will have the effect of vesting the estate immediately upon the death of the testator. The intervention of the estate of the trustee will not have the effect of postponing the gift itself, but only the enjoyment . . . The rule is, we think, applicable to an estate in trust of mixed personalty and realty.”
¶3 Moreover, the primary purpose in interpreting all wills is to ascertain what the testator desired to be done with his estate. Carroll v. Herring, 180 N. C., 369, 104 S. E., 892; Williams v. Rand, 223 N. C., 734, 28 S. E. (2d), 247. And the law favors the early vesting of estates. Weill v. Weill, supra, and cases cited.
¶4 In the will and codicil presently being considered, such expressions as these in the wall, “I will and bequeath to my executors ... to be held in trust for my grandchildren,” and “to be held as a trust fund for the benefit of my grandchildren,” and in the codicil, “the stock of said company is to be held in trust in equal amounts for each of my grandchildren,” clearly manifest an intention of the testator to make an immediate gift to each of his grandchildren. And careful consideration of other provisions of the will fails to show a contrary intention on the part of the testator.
¶5 Thus, under the above principles of law as applied to the ease in hand,' the court below correctly held that each of the grandchildren of the late Charles H. Robinson living at the time of his death took under his will a vested interest in one-ninth of the trust estate created, the enjoyment and possession only being deferred until the termination of the trust. Therefore, the grandson Charles Robinson Hanes, living at the time of the death of his grandfather, acquired a vested interest in the trust estate, and the same passed under his will to his wife, the defendant Delphine Muse.
¶6 The judgment below is
¶7 Affirmed.