## Facts

- J.H. Sybert died in 1942, leaving a will that gave his wife, Cora R. Sybert, a life estate in all property, with specified tracts devised to their five sons after Cora’s death.
- As to one tract, the will devised it to the son Fred Sybert “(a life estate only ... and after the death of [Fred], to vest in fee simple in the heirs of his body).”
- Cora later died leaving a will disposing of the same land in the same manner, using identical operative language for Fred’s tract.
- Fred Sybert died in 1950, childless and intestate, survived by his widow, Eunice Sybert.
- Fred’s brothers claimed Fred held only a life estate and, because he left no “heirs of his body,” the land reverted to the parents’ heirs.
- Eunice Sybert claimed the Rule in Shelley’s Case converted the devise into a fee simple in Fred, passing to her by intestate succession.

## Issues

1. Whether a devise to Fred Sybert “(a life estate only ... and after his death, to vest in fee simple in the heirs of his body)” triggered the Rule in Shelley’s Case and vested a fee simple in Fred.
2. Whether the parenthetical expression of intent (“a life estate only”) prevented application of the Rule in Shelley’s Case absent qualifying language showing “heirs of his body” was used nontechnically.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the judgment for Eunice Sybert.
- The court held the Rule in Shelley’s Case applied because the same instrument gave Fred a present estate and limited the remainder to “the heirs of his body.”
- The court treated “heirs of his body” as technical words of limitation, not words of purchase creating a separate class of takers.
- As a result, Fred took a fee simple, and upon his intestate death without issue, title passed to Eunice under Texas descent and distribution law.

## Legal Principles

- In Texas, the Rule in Shelley’s Case operates as a rule of law (a rule of property), not merely a rule of construction; courts apply it when its elements are met.
- When an instrument gives an ancestor a present estate and, in the same instrument, purports to create a remainder in the ancestor’s “heirs” or “heirs of the body,” the term “heirs” is treated as a word of limitation defining the line of descent, and the ancestor takes the fee.
- An expressed intent to give “a life estate only” does not defeat the rule unless the instrument contains qualifying language showing “heirs” or “heirs of the body” was used in a nontechnical sense (such as identifying specific persons like “children”).
- When the rule applies, the present estate and the attempted remainder merge into a single fee simple estate in the first taker.

## Conclusion

The court held that the devise to Fred for life with a remainder “to vest in fee simple in the heirs of his body” vested a fee simple in Fred under the Rule in Shelley’s Case, so the land passed to his widow by intestate succession rather than reverting to Fred’s brothers.


Sybert v. Sybert, 254 S.W.2d 999 (Tex. 1953)