We entirely concur with the Court below. The bill lays no foundation for the relief asked. It has been repeatedly decided, that the fears and apprehensions of a remainder man, that property in the hands of a tenant for life will be destroyed or carried out of the State, are no sufficient grounds, upon which to grant a sequestration or Tie exeat; but that the facts must be set forth, to enable the Court to see that they are well founded. The only-ground stated here is, that the defendant is a very aged lady, and labors, no doubt, under many of the infirmities incident to other’s at her time of life, and she stoutly denies, she labors under more. It is to be remarked, toos that none of the other claimants in remainder complain, or say, that they fear a destruction or wasting of the property. They are content to risk their interests, until, in the course of nature, they shall come into its possession; and the plaintiff must be content, so far as this case is concern-, ed, to bide his time. We see no reason for depriving the defendant of the possession of the property, which the affection and bounty of her husband have secured to her.

There is no error in the interlocutory order appealed from, which is hereby affirmed.; and the plaintiff must pay the costs of this Court.

This opinion will be certified to the Court of Equity for Surry county.

Per Curiam, Ordered accordingly..