On 28 January, 1880, Tom Godwin married Mary Ann Gilmore, who, by a former husband, was the mother of the appellants, Julia Gilmore and Willie Ann Gilmore. In 1882 he purchased the land in controversy and died without lawful issue in 1909. Mary Ann Gilmore died in 1923. The appellants are in possession of the land and claim title thereto under Rule 8 of the Canons of Descent: “When any person dies leaving none who can claim as heir to him, his widow shall be deemed his heir and as such shall inherit his estate.” C. S., 1654. The specific question, then, is this: Did the title acquired by Tom Godwin vest, upon his death, in the legitimate issue of his *374 illegitimate brothers and bis illegitimate sisters, as contended by tbe appellees, or in bis widow, Mary Ami Godwin, as contended by tbe appellants?

In express terms Rule 8 provides that tbe widow, shall be heir only when there is no one else who can claim as heir. University v. Markham, 174 N. C., 338; Powers v. Kite, 83 N. C., 156. If, then, tbe representatives of Tom Godwin’s illegitimate brothers and illegitimate sister may inherit from him, bis widow if living would be excluded and her children will be barred.

It is perfectly clear that Rule 13 has no application to tbe facts/ for it confer^ the right of inheritance upon tbe children only as to tbe estate of their parents; not as to collaterals. Tucker v. Bellamy, 98 N. C., 31; Tucker v. Tucker, 108 N. C., 236; Bettis v. Avery, 140 N. C., 184; Croom v. Whitehead, 174 N. C., 305. Tbe appellees admit this and say that tbe descent was cast upon them by virtue of Rule 10: “Illegitimate children shall be considered legitimate as between themselves and their representatives, and their estates shall descend accordingly in the same manner as if they had been born in wedlock. And in case of the death of any such child or his issue, without leaving issue, his estate shall descend to such person as would inherit if all such children had been born in wedlock: Provided, that when any illegitimate child dies without issue, his inheritance shall vest in the mother in the same manner as is provided in Rule 6 of this chapter.” C. S., 1654.

This rule has been construed in a number of decisions. In Powers v. Kite, supra, Ashe, J., who wrote the opinion for the Court, said: “This rule has received an interpretation by repeated decisions of this Court, which it is now too late to controvert. The construction given to the rule is, that if an illegitimate or natural-born child shall die intestate without leaving any child or children, his or her estate shall descend to and be equally divided among his or her brothers and sisters, born of the body of the same mother, and their representatives, whether legitimate or illegitimate, in the same manner and under the same regulations and restrictions as if they had been born in wedlock.” It will be noted that in this quotation the words “whether legitimate or illegitimate” follow the words “and their representatives”; but in Tucker v. Tucker, supra, Clark, J., held that while the rule allows illegitimate children to be legitimate as between themselves and their representatives, it contemplates that such representatives shall themselves be legitimate representatives of the illegitimate child. In the statement of facts, however, it is admitted that the brothers and the sister of Tom Godwin each left children born in lawful wedlock and that the legitimate representatives claim as his heirs at law. Under these *375 circumstances tbe appellees bold tbe title acquired by Tom Godwin and are entitled to tbe relief demanded. In addition to tbe cases cited see, also, Ashe v. Mfg. Co., 154 N. C., 241; McBryde v. Patterson, 78 N. C., 412; Flintham v. Holder, 16 N. C., 345.

Tbe judgment is

Affirmed.