CUTTING V, CT7TTING. 263 �poBsessory right went to his heirs, who, upon making proof of the settlement and death of their ancestor, took the land, not from their ancestor, but as the grantees and donees of the United States. �Under these decisions, as well as others of this court, it is clear that the interest of Charles Cutting in this donation, whatever it was, terminated with his life, and that the land was not thereafter liable for his debts or subject to sale by his administrator, but thereupon became and was the abso- lute property of his wife and children, as the direct donees and grantees of the United States. In other ■words, they took by purchase and not desoent. Fields v. Sqiiires, 1 Deady, 382; Lam&v. Storr, Id. 451. �The power of sale or devise -which the settler had upon the completion of his residence and cultivation was never exer- cised, and therefore the survivor and children became en- titled to the premises, as though such power had never ex- isted. �Doubtless this power of sale ought to be construed to include the power to impose a charge or lien upon the prem- ises, as by mortgage, which should bind the interest of the deceased in the donation to the extent of such lien, as in the case of an outright sale. But in the case of a settler dying without a patent, and leaving debts not secured upon his interest in the donation, the creditors have no claim upon the property as agaiast the survivor and children, and there- fore a sale by the administrator of the deceased settler is void. Therefore, the sale to Trullinger by Outting's admin- istrator gave the former no interest in the premises. �The next question to be considered is, can or ought the word "children," as used in this connection, be construed to include grandchildren ? It is admitted that ordinarily and properly the former term does not include the latter ; but it has been so construed in the case of wHls where it appeared from the context that such waS the intention of the testator. Bouv. DIQI.verha, "Children." A power to appoint an estate to the use of children has been held not to include grand- children. But Chancellor Kent, while admitting this to be ��� �
