1
1
(5om?U ^am ^rJinnl Eibtarjj
Cornell University Library
KF 570.K41
V.I
A treatise on the law of real property.
3 1924 018 814 370
Cornell University
Library
The original of tiiis book is in
tine Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924018814370
THE LAW OF REAL PPvOPERTY.
A TREATISE
ON THE
LA¥ OF REAL PROPERTY
IN THREE VOLUMES
- P.M^^'"^^
JAMES M. KERR
YOLUME I.
NEW YOKE AND ALBANY
BANKS & BROTHERS, LAW PUBLISHERS
1895
COFTEIGHT
JAMES M. KEKR
1895
PEEFACE.
It has been the aim of the author to set forth in this
work the law of real property, as it exists in the United
States, and to give an account of the origin and history
of the principles upon which this law is based. Incor-
porated in the work are citations from American, Eng-
lish, and Canadian adjudicated cases which enforce
and illustrate the principles and doctrines of this branch
of the law. "While our law r^ating to real property is
founded upon the principles of the Common Law, yet
some of the doctrines are derived from the Civil Law, —
particularly those relating to equity and equitable estates
(including Powers, Trusts, and Uses). The author has
sought to give an account of the origin and history of
principles, so as to meet the wants of the student just
entering upon the subject. It is thought that the short
account of Feudal Law, of Old English Tenures and Mod-
ern English Tenures, and the origin of Chancery Powers,
will be of assistance to the student in arriving at a clear
conception of the present doctrines of this branch of
the law.
The author has sought to make this treatise a manual
for the busy lawyer, wherein he can find discussed the
various questions liable to come up in every-day practice.
All the various estates, the methods of their creation,
and their incidents are given especial attention. The
chapter on Estate by the Curtesy is thought to furnish
the only systematic and exhaustive treatise on the sub-
ject. The chapter on Dower is also very full. The
same is true of Estates for Years (including Farm Leases),
Homestead Exemptions, and Equitable Estates (includ-
vi PREFACE.
ing Powers, Trusts, and Uses). Joint Estates (including
the Partition thereof), Mortgages, Deeds, Title, Eights
of Common, Ways, Easements, and Eents are fully
discussed.
In order to make this work of service to the profession,
the author has referred to all reports and reporters where ■
the cases cited may be found, so that the practitioner may
examine the authorities relied upon from the books on
his shelves ; for this double citation will enable him to
find at once the original report, no matter what series
of official or unofficial reports he may own or have ac-
cess to. This, it is thought, will be a great saving of
time and trouble to the persons using this treatise.
These duplicate citations have been made to the National
Eeporter System, which embraces the whole body of
American adjudications for the last decade ; to the
American Decisions, the American Eeports, the American
State Eeports, the Lawyers' Eeports Annotated, the Law-
yers' Co-operative Publishing Company's edition of the
United States Eeports, Moak's English Eeports, the
English Common Law Eeports, the English Law and
Equity Eeports, the Eevised Eeports, Smith's Leading
Cases, and Ballard's Annual of the Law of Eeal Prop-
erty.
To render this treatise further serviceable, the cases
are arranged in an orderly manner ; alphabetically ac-
cording to States, followed by United States, Canadian,
and English reports, in the order named, the case last
reported being put first ; that is to say, each series is ar-
ranged in the inverse order of decision. This method pre-
ents the cases relied upon in an orderly manner, bringing
all the authorities in one state, or court, together in one
place, and enables the practitioner to readily run through
each note, to secure the citation he wants. This, it is
thought, will materially facilitate the work of "running
down" a subject, or preparing a brief.
JAMES M. KEEE.
September 34, 1895.
TO
JUDGE SEYMOUR D. THOMPSON.
CONTENTS,
BOOK I.
INTRODUCTORY.
CHAPTER I.
PEELIMINARY.
PAQE
g 1. Property — Generally 1
§ 2. Same — Classes of property 3
§ 3. Same — Blackstone's definition^ — Exclusive ownership 3
§ 4. Same — Austin's definition — Restricted property 5
§ 5. Early history of property 6
§ 6. Same — Evolution of private property 7
§ 7. Right of property and hereditary patrimony 9
§ 8. Sam&— Recognition of the right of private property 10
§ 9. Same — Alienation and devise 11
§ 10. Same— The retrait 13
§ 11. Theories of the origin of private property in land 13
§ 12. Same — 1. The discovery theory 13
§ 13. Same — 2. The occupation theory 14
§ 14. Same— 3. The labor theory 15
§ 15. Same — 4. The theory of contract 15
§16. Same— 5. The Zea; theory 16
§ 17. Same — 6. The natural-economic theory 16
§ 18. Same — 7. The natural rights theory 17
§ 19. Same — 8. The government-grant theory 18
§ SO. Real and personal property — Distinction and devolution. ... 19
§ 31. Definition of real property 30
§ 32. Same — " Land " and " real estate " 31
§ 23. Same — Maryland doctrine 33
§34. Same— Tenement 33
§ 35. Same — Hereditaments S3
§ S6. Same — Same — Division of hereditaments 24
ix
X CONTENTS,
CHAPTER II.
WHAT IS REAL PROPERTY.
PAGE
§ 37. GeneraUy 37
§ 38. Things real become personalty by agreement 37
§ 39. Church-pews — Definition , 38
§ 30. Same — Assignment of pews 29
§ 31. Same— Rights of pew-holders in pews— English doctrine 30
§ 33. Same — Same — American doctrine 30
§ 33. Same— Same — ^Limitation and qualification of property in
pew 33
§ 34. Same — Same — As to right of occupancy 33
§ 35. Same — Law regulating 33
§ 36. Same — Same — Episcopal church 34
§ 37. Same — Same — Same — ^Vestry's control 34
§ 38. Same — Same — Free church — Power of trustees 35
§ 39. Same — Grant in perpetuity 35
§ 40. Same — Interest of pew-holders in church edifice and lands . . 36
§ 41. Same — Restrictions on use and treatment of pew 37
§ 43. Same — Abandonment or sale of church edifice 38
g 43. Same — Changes and repaii-s 39
g 44. Burial lots 40
% 45. Corporate stocks and lands 43
§ 46. Same — Realty held by corporation in trust when 43
§ 47. Same — Land is real estate when 44
§ 48. Same — Nature and object of investment 44
§ 49. Electric poles and wires realty 45
§ 50. Emblements — Crrowing crops. . . , 45
§ 51. Same — When crop severed 47
§ 53. Fee-farm lease 48
§ 53. Pructus industriales 48
§ 54. Same — Products of a mixed nature — Hops 53
§ 55. Fructus naturales 53
§ 56. Same — Growing trees 54
§ 57. Same — Same — Overhanging trees 56
§ 58. Same — Same — " Line trees." 57
§ 59. Same — Cut trees 58
§ 60. Ground-rent — Definition 58
§ 61. Same — Nature and methods of creation 59
§ 63. Same — Disposition of in case of intestacy 59
§ 63. Heirlooms — Definition 60
§ 64. Same — Not recognized in America 60
§ 65. Houses and buildings 61
§ 66. Same — Built by tenant 68
§ 67. Same — Consent to erection 63
§ 68. Same — Chamber or floor in building 63
§ 69. Same — Same — Effect of destruction of building 66
CONTENTS. xi
CHAPTER III.
WHAT IS REAL PROFERTY— continued.
PAGE
§ 70. Ice a part of the realty 68
g 71. Same — On navigable streams 68
§ "Hi. Same — Same — Where title extends to the tliread of the
stream 70
§ 73. Same — On non-navigable streams 70
§ 74. Same — On ponds — 1. " Great ponds" 70
§ 75. Same — Same — 2. Mill-ponds 71
§ 76. Same — On canals 73
§ 77. Same — Appropriation of ice 73
§ 78. Incorporeal hereditaments — Definition and nature 74
§ 79. Land usually real estate 74
§ 80. Same — Exceptions to the general rule 77
, § 81. Leasehold estate 77
§ 82. Light and air 78
§ 88. Manure — Real estate vphen 78
§ 84. Same — Where made in other than agricultural pursuits. .. . 79
§ 85. Same — Made on non-agricultural lands 80
§ 86. Same — Agreement of parties respecting 81
§ 87. Same — New Jersey and North Carolina doctrine 81
§ 88. Same— English rule 83
§ 89. Marketstalls 83
§ 90. Mines and minerals 83
g 91. Same — Common-law doctrine 85
§ 92. Same — Royal charters 85
§ 98. Same— New York doctrine 80
§ 94. Same — Pennsylvania doctrine 87
§ 95. Same — Georgia doctrine 87
§ 96. Same — California doctrine 87
§ 97. Same — Severance and conveyance 88
§ 98. Same — Reservation of mineral ores 89
§ 99. Same — Surface support 91
§ 100. Same — Same — Rights of grantee 92
§ 101. Same — Same — When owner retains surface 93
§ 102. Same — Same — ^Where owner grants surface and retains
minerals 98
§ 103. Money real estate when 94
§ 104. Movables realty when 96
§ 105. Railroads — Road-beds, rails, etc 96
§ 106. Same — Foundations, columns, etc., of railroad 97
§ 107. Same— Rolling stock 97
§ 108. Sea-weed— Marine increment 98
§109. Same — ^When cast between high and low water-mark 99
§ 110. Saw-mill, saw-dust, etc. , real estate when 99
§ 111. Water real estate when 100
xii CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
FIXTURES.
PAOB
§113. Definition of fixture 103
§ 113. What fixtures pass with the realty 103
§ 114. Criteria for determining Ill
§ 115. Same — 1. Actual annexation 113
§ 116. Same — Same — ^Manner of annexation and character of
article 113
§ 117. Same — 3. Appropriation to tlie use. 114
§118. Same — 3. Adaptation to the use 114
§ 119. Same— 4. Policy of tlie law , 115
§ 130. Same — 5. Intention of the parties 115
§ 131. Same — Same — Permanency of attachment controlled by
intent 117
§133. Kinds or classes of fixtures 118
§ 133. Same — 1. Agricultural fixtures 118
§ 134. Same — 3. Domestic fixtures — a. Useful fixtures. 119
§ 135. Same — Same — b. Ornamental (^omestic fixtures 130
§136. Same — 3. Ecclesiastical fixtures 131
§137. Same— 4. Trade fixtures 131
§ 138. Same— 5. Mixed fixtiires 133
§ 139. Between wliom the qviestion of fixtures may arise 124
§ 130. Same — 1. Assignee in bankruptcy or for benefit of credi-
tors and others 135
§ 131. Same — 3. Debtor and execution creditor 135
§ 133. Same — 3. Executor and heir at law 136
§ 133. Same — 4. Executor of tenant for life and remainderman. . . 137
§ 134. Same — 5. Heir at law and devisee 138
§ 133. Same — 6. Landlord and tenant 128
§136. Same — Same — Removal of fixtures by tenant 180
§ 137. Same — Same — Renewal of lease without removal of fix-
tures 131
§ 138. Same — 7. Mortgagor and mortgagee 131
§ 139. Same — 8. Personal representative and devisee 134
§ 140. Same — 9. Tenants in common 134
§ 141. Same — 10. Vendor and vendee 134
§ 142. Same — Same — Gas-fixtures, chandeliers, etc 138
§ 143. Same— Same — Fixtures annexed by one in possession under
contract of purchase 139
§ 144. Agreement in relation to fixtures 141
§ 145. Same — Limitation of doctrine 143
§ 146. Removal of fixtures 144
§ 147. Same — Exceptions to the rule 146
CONTENTS. xiii
BOOK II.
TENURES.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.
PAGE
§ 148. English origin of our institutions 148
§ 149. Same — English common and statute law 149
§ 150. Teutonic origin and English institutions 149
§ 151. Same — The feudal system 150
CHAPTER II.
THE FEUDAL LAW.
§ 153. Sources of the English law 153
§ 153. Origin of feudal government 153
§154. France and Clovis 153
§ 155. Same — Riparian Franks 154
§156. Same — Theodosian Code 154
§ 157. Same — Introduction of feuds 154
§ 158. Same — Laws of Normandy , 155
§ 159. Establishment of feudal tenures 156
§ 160. Same — Origin and growth of feudal customs 157
§ 161. Same — Military services 158
§ 162. Same — The German comites 160
§ 163. Same— Allodial tenures 163
§ 164. Same — Consuetudines feudorem 163
§ 165. Definition of feuds 163
§ 166. Kinds of feuds — Proper and improper 163
§ 167. Same — Ligium and non-ligiiim 164
§ 168. Same — Feuduni antiquum and feudum novum 164
§ 169. Same — Feudum ndbile and feudum dignitatis 164
§ 170. Investiture of feuds 165
§ 171. Same — Improper or symbolical vestiture 165
§ 173. Same — Breve testatum, 166
§ 173. Fealty— Oath of 166
§ 174. Homage— Ceremony of 167
§ 175. Duties of lord and vassal 167
§176. Feudal aids 168
§ 177. Estate of vassal 168
§ 178. Alienation of feuds 169
§ 179. Same— Sub-infeudation 169
§ 180. Estate of the lord 169
§ 181. The lord's obligation on vassal's eviction 170
xiv CONTENTS.
PAGK
§ 183. Descent of feuds 170
§ 183. Same — Feudum talliatum ^'^^
% 184. Same — Distinguished from succession under Eoman law. . . 171
§ 185. Investiture upon descent l'''^
§ 186. Same— Kelevium 173
§187. Escheat of feuds 173
§ 188. Forfeiture of feuds 173
§ 189. Forfeiture of seigniory 173
§ 190. Feudal jurisdiction 173
CHAPTER III.
ANCIENT ENGLISH TENURES.
§ 191. Introduction of feuds 175
§ 192. Doctrine that lands held of king 177
§ 193. Consequences of establishment of feudal tenures 177
§ 194. Same^-Effect on Bocland and Folcland 178
§ 195. Nature of the tenures 178
§ 196. Same — Escheat and forfeiture 179
§ 197. Kinds of tenures 179
§ 198. Same — Regarding free tenures 180
§ 199. Villeinage and copyholds 183
§ 200. Tenure in capite 184
§ 301. Tenure de honore 184
§ 302. Tenure by knight-service 185
§ 203. Same — Duties imposed 185
§ 304. Same — Scutagium 185
§ 305. Same — Fruits of tenure by knight-service 186
§ 206. Tenure by escuage 186
§ 307. Tenures by grand serjeanty 186
§ 308. Consequence of tenure 187
§ 309. Statute Quia Emptores 187
§ 310. Homage — Ceremony and importance of 188
§ 811. Fealty — An incident of feudal tenure 188
§ 212. Aids of the ancient English tenure 189
§ 213. Reliefs — Sums paid on investiture 189
§ 214. Primer seisin — Definition 190
§215. Wardship — Distinction between male and female wards. . . 190
§ 316. Marriage — Male and female wards 193
§217. Abolition of military tenures 193
CHAPTER IV.
TENURE IN THE UNITED STATES.
§ 218. Allodial tenures 194
§ 319. Doctrine of tenure in the United States— Socage tenures. . . 195
CONTENTS.
XV
PAGE
P 320. Same— Discovery foundation of title 196
§ 221. Same — Indian titles 196
§ 222. Right of eminent domain 197
§ 233. Restriction as to use 198
§ 224. Same— Foundation of doctrine 199
§225. Same— Application of maxim 200
BOOK III.
COEPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS.
CHAPTER I.
ESTATES IN GENERAL.
g 236. Definition of estate 201
§ 337. The origin of estates 304
§ 328. Estate in land— Definition 205
§ 329. Same— Division of 205
§ 330. Freehold estate in lands — Definition , 205
§ 231. Same — Qualities of freehold estate 306
§ 333. Sam(v-Seisin 206
§233. Same— Entry 207
§334. Same— Livery of seisin 308
§ 235. Same— Disseisin 309
§ 336. Same — Same — Kinds of disseisin 209
§ 237. Same — Same — What constitutes a disseisin 211
§338. Abatement— Effect of 212
§ 239. Abeyance of freehold '. .. 313
§ 340. Who may be freeholders 314
§241. Same— Aliens 216
§ 243. Same — Same — Federal and state statutes 218
§ 243. Same — Corporations 334
§ 244. Division of estates 235
CHAPTER 11.
ESTATES IN FEE-SIMPLE.
§ 245. Definition of fee 336
§ 246. Definition of fee-simple 327
§ 347. Qiiantum of estate in fee-simple 238
xvi CONTENTS.
PAGE
§ 348. Same — Taken by corporation 2^8
§ 349. Tenant in fee-simple — Definition 329
§ 350. Words of limitation 329
§ 251. Same— Bastard 330
§ 252. Same — Informal and implied limitation 230
§ 253. Same — Statutory words of limitation 381
§ 254. Same — Executory limitation 231
§ 255. Same — To corporations — " Successors" 331
§ 256. Same — Restrictions on ecclesiastical corporations 333
§ 257. . Kinds of fees 333
§ 258. Inferior estates derived out of fee-simple 333
§ 259. Abeyance of fee 233
§ 260. Same — Land granted to pious uses 234
§ 261. Same — Franchise of corporation 235
§ 263. Same — Present doctrine as to abeyance of fees 335
CHAPTER III.
INCIDENTS OF AN ESTATE IN FEE-SIMPLE.
§ 263. Introduction 238
§ 264. Power of alienation 239
§ 365. Same — Definition of alienation 239
§ 266. Same — Kinds of alienations 240
§ 267. Same — Same — Voluntary alienations 240
§268. Same — Same — Early histoiy of voluntary alienation 240
§ 269. Same — Same — Under the feudal system 341
§ 270. Same — Same — Burgage tenures 241
§ 271. Same — Same — Alienation of purchased land 241
§ 272. Same — Same — Gifts in maritagium 343
§ 373. Same — Sub-inf eudations — Magna Charta. 343
§ 374. Same — Tenants in capite 344
§ 375. Same — Alienation in mortmain. . , 345
§ 276. Same — Statute of Quia Emptores 245
§ 277. Same — Involuntary alienation — Definition 346
§ 378. Same — Same — Restrictions against, upheld when 347
§ 379. Same — Same— Gifts to charitable uses 347
§ 380. Same — Modes of alienation 348
§ 281. Same — Same — 1. Alienation by deed 348
§ 283. Same — Same — 3. Alienation by matters of record 348
§ 383. Same — Same — 3. Alienation by devise 348
§ 384. Same — General restraint of alienation 248
§ 385. Same — Same — Exceptions to the general rule 350
§ 286. Same — Same — Fee-farm estates 350
§ 387. Same — Same — Ground-rent estate 251
§ 288. Same — Same — Estates in fee-tail 253
§ 289. Same — Same — Estate for life — English doctrine 253
§ 390. Same — Same — Same — American doctrine 353
§ 391. Same — Same— Reason for the Americal rule 354
CONTENTS. xvii
CHAPTER IV.
INCIDENTS OF AN ESTATE IN FEE-SIMPLE.
PAGE
§ 293. Power of alienation — Estate for years 256
§ 293. Same— Estates settled on feme covert 257
§ 294. Same— Estates dedicated to charitable uses 257
§ 295. Same — Conditions in conveyance 258
§ 296. Same — Special restraints— Definition 258
§ 297. Same— Same— Large's Case, 260
§298. Same— Same — Prohibiting alienation to particular persons.. 261
§ 299. Same — Same — Restricting alienations to particular persons.. 261
§ 300. Same — Same — Restricting alienation to family 262
§301. Same — Same — Restraining alienation for a particular time.. 268
§ 302. Same — Same — Condition to do certain acts 265
§ 303. Same — Same — Condition not to do certain acts 266
§ 304. Same — Same — Restraints on estates of persons not sui juris, 269
§ 305. Same — Same — Restraints on marriage 270
§ 306. Same — Same — Restraints on second marriage 271
§ 307. Same — Forfeiture — Fee-simple estate 271
§308. Same— Same— Life estate 272
§ 309. Same — Same^Estate for years 274
§ 810. Same— Curtesy 274
§ 311. Same— Descent 274
§ 312. Same — Power of devise — Saxon and Danish rule 275
§ 313. Same — Same — Under the Normans and their successors. . . . 275
§ 314. Same — Same — Reason for the common-law rule 276
§ 315. Same — Same — American rule 277
§316. Same— Dower 277
§ 317. Same— Forfeiture— English doctrine 277
§ 318. Same — Same — American doctrine 277
§ 319. Same — Liability for debts — Common-law doctrine 278
§ 320. Same— Same — American doctrine 278
CHAPTER Y.
CREATION OF FEE-SIMPLE ESTATE BY DEED.
§ 321. Methods of creating fee-simple estates 280
§ 322. Same — Common-law rule — Apt words 281
§ 323. Same — Whole estate need not be conveyed 281
§ 324. Same— Reservations 283
§ 325. " Heirs ' cannot be supplied by any other word 283
§ 326. Same — Must appear in operative part of deed 285
§ 327. Same — Supplied by reference to other instruments 287
§ 328. Same— Exceptions to the rule 288
§ 329. Same — Same — Deeds in trust and equitable estates 289
§ 330. Same — Same — Deed to corporations 290
§331. Same— Same— Deed to sovereign 290
2
xviii CONTENTS.
PAGE
§ 333. Same— Abrogation of rule by statute 890
§ 333. " Heii-s "—Definition 391
§ 334. Same — Word of limitation, not of purchase 393
§ 335. Same— Construed ' • children " when 393
§ 336. Same — When to be ascertained 393
§ 337. Same—" Present heirs " 393
§ 338. Same—" Bodily heirs " or " heirs of the body " 294
CHAPTER VI.
CREATION OF FEE-SIMPLE BY DEVISE.
§ 339. Introductory 395
§ 340. Statute of uses — Eflfeot of its passage 396
§ 341. Same— Adopted in this country 397
§ 343. Same — Rules of construction — Evading the statute 398
§ 343. Same — Same — American rules of construction 398
§ 344. Statute of wills — Effect on power to devise lands 300
§ 345. Devise of land carried fee when — Common-law doctrine. . . 301
§ 346. Same — Doctrine in American courts 303
§ 347. Same— Precatory devise 303
§ 348. Same — Rules for interpretation of deeds not applicable 303
§ 349. Same— Words of limitation 304
§ 350. Same — " Heirs " not necessary to pass fee 305
§ 351. Same — What words carry a fee 306
§ 353. Same — " Estate " is ge7ius generalissimum 311
§ 353. Same — What passes fee in reversion 313
§ 354. Same — "\7hen the fee vests 314
§ 355. Same — ^Words of survivorship in will — Doctrine of early
English cases 315
§ 356. Same — Same — Doctrine of later English cases 316
§ 357. Same — Same — Doctrine of the American cases 316
§ 358. Same — Limited remainder — ^Vesting of 316
§ 359. Same — Devise with power — Carries fee when 317
§ 360. Same — Same — When fee does not pass 319
§ 361. Same — Same — Same — Reason for the rule 319
§ 363. Same — Devise with limitation over — Contingent fee 330
§ 363. Same — Same — Limitation over void for uncertainty 331
§ 364. Same — Same — Same — Fee in first taker 333
§ 365. Same — Devise to a person and his children 334
§ 366. Same— Same— What children included 335
§ 367. Same — Residuary clause carries fee when 336
CHAPTER Vn.
CREATION OF FEE-SIMPLE BY DEYISi:,— continued.
§ 368. Enlargement of devise 327
§ 369. Same — When estate not enlarged 338
CONTENTS. Xix
PAGE
§ 370. Same — Intention of testator — Construction by comparison, 339
§ 371. Same — Same — Reference to other devises in will 380
§ 373. Same — Introductory clause 330
§ 378. Same — Same — Words in intrductory clause enlarging estate
to fee 833
§ 374. Same— Conclusion of will— Intention of testator declared by, 334
§ 375. Same — Where fee necessary to carry out intention of tes-
tator 834
§ 876. Same— Estates in trust 335
§ 377. Same — Use devisee is to make of lands 336
§ 378. Same — By implication — Control over land 337
§ 379. Same — Same — Exceptions to the rule 339
§ 380. Same — Where charge on devisee 339
§ 381. Same — Same — Nature of charge on devisee 341
§ 388. Same — Same — Reason for the doctrine 341
§ 383. Same — Same — Failure or refusal to perform 343
§ 384. Same — Where charge on the estate 343
§ 385. Cutting down fee 344
§ 386. Same — Fee not cut down when 345
§ 387. Same — Doctrine of the American courts — Jackson v. Bull, 349
§ 388. Same— Same— Doctrine of Smith v. Bell 351
§ 389. Statutoi-y regulations 353
§ 390. Construction of devises since the statutes 353
CHAPTER VIII.
DESCENT OF FEE-SIMPLE ESTATES.
§ 391. Introductory 354
§ 393. Local or special customs^Control over descent 355
§ 393. Same— Gavelkind 855
g 394. Same — Same — Where prevails 356
§395. Same— Borough-English 356
§ 396. Same— Effect on right to take as heir 357
§ 397. Same— Copyholds 857
§ 398. Descent as affected by domicil 858
§ 399. Descent at common law 359
§ 400. Same — Seisin in law 359
§ 401. Same — Same — Prevents abeyance of freehold, 359
§ 403. Same— Seisin in deed 360
§ 403. Same — Same— How acquired 360
§ 404. Same — Distinction between seisin in law and in fact 361
§ 405. Same— When entry not necessary to convert seisin in law
into actual seisin 363
§ 406. Common-law rules of descent 363
§ 407. Same— First rule 863
g 408. Same— Same— Doctrine of possessio fratris 863
§ 409. Same— Same— Same— Effect on dower and curtesy 864
g 410. Same— Second rule 365
XX CONTENTS.
PAGE
§411. Same— Third rule 365
§ 412. Same— Fourth rule 365
§ 413. Same— Fifth rule 365
§ 414. Same— Sixth rule 366
§415. Same— Seventh rule 366
§ 416. Same— Eighth rule 366
§ 417. Same — Same — Feudal origin of primogeniture 367
8 418. Eules of descent in the United States 367
CHAPTER IX.
DETERMINABLE FEES.
§ 419. Definition of determinable fees 370
§ 420. Distinguished from fee-simple 371
§ 421. Mode of limitation 371
§ 422. Limitations creating a determinable fee 372
§ 423. Kinds of determinable fees 373
§ 424. Same— Direct limitation 373
§ 425. Same — Collateral limitation 374
§ 426. Converted into a fee-simple how 374
§ 427. Determinable limitations and limitations upon condition —
Distinction between 375
§ 428. Alienation and devise of 876
§ 429. Waste an incident of such estates 376
CHAPTER X.
CONDITIONAL FEES.
§ 430. Introductory 377
§ 431. Definition of conditional fee 377
§ 432. Early history of conditional fees 378
§ 483. Mode of limitation of conditional fees 378
§ 434. Nature of heirs special 379
§ 435. Statute X»e Bonis 380
§ 436. In what sense limitation conditional 880
§ 437. Descent of conditional fees 881
§ 438. Executory devLse after fee conditional 382
CHAPTER XI.
BASE FEES.
§ 439. Definition of base fee 884
§ 440. Creation of base fees 385
§ 441. Determinable conterminous with base fee 387
§ 442. Merger of base fees 388
§ 443. Descent of base fees 388
CONTENTS. xxi
CHAPTER XII.
QUALIFIED FEE-SIMPLE.
PAGE
§ 444. Definition of qualified fee-simple 390
§ 445. Power of tenant of qualified fee-simple over the estate 390
§ 446. Qualified fee-simple distinguished from other fees 391
§ 447. Objections to qualified fees-simple 391
§ 448. The doctrine of Blake v. Hynes 393
§ 449. Nature and mode of limitation 393
§ 450. Course of descent of a qualified fee-simple estate 394
§ 451. Alienation of qualified fee-simple 394
CHAPTER XIII.
ESTATES IN TAIL.
§ 453. Definition of an estate-tail 395
§ 453. "What construed an estate-tail 396
§ 454. Distinguished from estates determinable 396
§ 455. Origin of estate-tail 397
§ 456. Same— Statute De Bonis 397
§ 457. Same — Effect of construction 399
§ 458. Attempt to defeat the statute De Bonis 400
§ 459. Recognition in the United States.' 401
§ 460. Kinds of tails 403
§ 461. Same — General and special estates-tail 403
§ 462. Same — Same — Limitation in tail special valid where 404
§ 463. Same — Estates-tail male and female 404
§ 464. Same — Estate in frank-marriage 405
§ 465. Same — Fees-tail with conditional limitations 406
§ 466. Same — Estates-tail after possibility 406
§ 467. How estates-tail are created 407
§ 468. Same — Words of procreation necessary 407
§ 469. Same — Methods of creation — a. By deed 408
§ 470. Same — Same — " Heir " nomen collectivum 409
§ 471. Same — Same — b. By devise 410
§ 473. Same — Same — Same — Words creating estate-tail 411
§ 473. Same — Same — Same — Devise to several and survivors 413
§474. Same — Same — Same — Remainder over on failure of issue. . 414
§ 475. Same — Same — Same — Effect of reversion on indefinite fail-
ure 417
§ 476. Same— Same — Same— Rule of construction 418
§ 477. Same — Same — Same — Intention of testator 419
§ 478. Same — Same — Same — Expressions which carry estate-tail. . 480
§ 479. Same — Same— Same — Fee reduced by context 434
H 480. Same— Same— Same— Doctrine of Price v. Taylor 435
xxii CONTENTS.
PAGE
§ 481. Same— Same— Same— Devise in tail not enlarged by impli-
cation 42"
§ 482. Same— Same— Same— Doctrine of Wright v. Tliayer 427
§ 483. Same — ^Words in frank-marriage sufficient _. 428
CHAPTER XIV.
ESTATES IN 1AIL— continued.
§ 484. Rules relating to limitations creating estatesrtail 430
§ 485. Of whom an estate in tail is held 432
§ 486. "What property may be entailed 483
§ 487. Same — What essential to an entailment 433
§ 488. Same — Personalty not entailable 434
§ 489. Same — Annuities not entailable 434
§ 490. Same — Copyholds — Entailment by special custom 435
§ 491. Same — Conditional fee-simple entailable 436
§ 492. Same, — Freehold or chattel interest not entailable 436
§ 493. Who may hold as tenant in tail 437
§ 494. Remainder upon fee-tail 437
§ 495. Heirs of donee in tail take by descent 437
§ 496. Rule m Shelley's Case 438
§ 497. Same — When rule prevails 438
§ 498. Same — Where " heirs " deseriptio personarum 439
§499. Same— What within the rule 440
§ 500. Same — Rule of construction and not of law 441
§ 501. Same — Applied to estates in husband and wife 441
§ 502. Incidents of an estate in tail 442
§503. Same — Power to commit waste 443
§ 504. Same — Right to bar estate > 443
§ 505. Same — Right to title-deeds— English rule 443
§ 506. Same — Same — American rule 444
§ 507. Same — Curtesy and dower 444
§ 508. Same — Forfeiture for treason 444
§ 509. Same — Incidents of fees which do not attach — Alienation . . 444
§ 510. Same — Same — Duty to pay off incumbrances 445
§ 511. Same— Same— Merger 446
§ 512. Abolition and curtailment by statute 446
§ 513. Same — Effect of abolishing estates-tail 447
§ 514. Descent of estates-tail 448
§ 515. Same — Successive descents 449
§ 516. Same — Legislative change of descent. 450
CHAPTER XV.
ALIENATION AND BARRING ESTATE-TAIL.
§ 517. Conditional fees 452
§ 518. Same — Doctrine of the common law 452
'CONTENTS. XXiii
PAGE
§ 519. Statute of "Westminster II.— Origin and effect 453
§ 520. Same— Evils of the statute 453
§ 531. Same — Evading the statute — Origin of fines and recoveries, 453
§ 532. Ahenating estates-tail 454
§ 523. Same — By issue in tail 455
§ 534. Same — Meaning of statute 455
§ 535. Same — Discontinuance 455
§ 526. Same — Modes of discontinuance 455
§ 527. Same — Effects of discontinuance 456
§ 528. Same — When discontinuance not had 456
§ 539. Same — Creates base fee vehen 457
§ 530. Fines— Nature and kinds 457
§ 531. Same — Common-law and statutory fines 458
§ 533. Same — Fines in the United States 458
§ 533. Common recovery — Definition 459
§534. Same— Nature of 459
§ 535. Same — Statutory tenant of the prcecipe 459
§ 536. Same — ^Form of proceedings 460
§ 537. Same— Effect of 460
§ 538. Same— In United States 461
§ 539. Same — Against estate of creator of entail 461
§ 540. Same — By vrrit ad quod damnum 462
§ 541. Alienation by bargain and sale — Englisli doctrine 463
§ 542. Same — Doctrine in United States 463
§ 543. Same— Statutory bar by deed 464
§ 544. Same — Formality of deed 465
§ 545. Same — Conveyance of limited interests 466
§546. Same— Eecord of deed 466
§547. Same— By mortgage 466
§ 548. Same— By partition 466
§ 549. Same — By sale on execution 467
§ 550. Same — By leases and releases 467
§ 551. Statutory abolition and curtailment 468
§ 553. Equitable estates-tail 473
CHAPTER XVI.
ESTATES FOE LIFE.
Section I. Nature and incidents of life estates.
Section II. Duties incident to life estates, tenures, etc.
Section III. Estate pur autre vie.
Section TV. How estates for life created.
Sectiok V. Emblements.
Section VI. Estovers.
Section VII. Waste.
Section I. — Nature and Incidents of Life Estate.
§ 553. Introductory 475
§ 554. Estate for life under feudal law 476
xxiv CONTENTS.
PAGE
§ 555. Same— Term of grant— Formal words of instrument 476
§ 556. Definition of a life estate 477
§ 557. Estate for life a freehold 477
§558. What constitutes estate for life 478
§ 559. Kinds of estates for life 479
§560. Estates for life of the tenant 479
§ 561. Quasi-tenania for life— Ecclesiastical persons 480
§ 562. Determinable estates for life 480
§ 563. Same — Special occupant 481
§ 564. Life estate by implication 481
§ 565. Same— What creates life estates by implication 483
§ 566. Same — Adding words of limitation 482
§ 567. Same — Absurd and superfluous expressions 483
§ 568. Same — Same — Reason for the rule 483
§ 569. Tenancy by the curtesy, etc 484
§ 570. The conditions attached to life estates 484
§ 571. Same — Liability for debts of tenant 485
§ 573. Enlargement of life estate to a fee 486
§ 573. Same — Power of disposition by will 486
§ 574. Nature of estate for life 488
§ 575. Same — Possession of tenant possession of reversioner 488
§ 576. Adverse title — Purchase by life tenant 490
§ 577. Same— Not entailable 490
§ 578. Rights and incidents of an estate for life — 1. Right to pos-
session and products 490
§ 579. Same — Same — Right to possession of title-deeds 491
§ 580. Same — 3. Right to recover damages 492
§ 581. Same — Same — Rules for valuation of life estate 498
§ 583. Same — 3. Right to estovers, etc 494
§ 583. Same — 4. Right to work mines, quarries, etc 494
§ 584. Same — Same — Right to open new mines, pits, and shafts. . . 494
§ 585. Same — Same — Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Mining Co 495
§ 586. Same — 5. Right to lease 496
§ 587. Same — 6. Right to rents and profits 497
§ 588. Same — Same — Apportionment of rent 497
§ 589. Same — 7. Right to protection against sudden determina-
tion of estate 498
§ 590. Same — 8. Right of alienation 499
§ 591. Same — Same — Restraint on alienation 499
§ 593. Same — Same — Same — Active trust — Pennsylvania doctrine, 500
§593. Same — Same — Same — Withdrawing estate from creditors . . 501
§ 594. Same — Same — Must be made by deed 501
§ 595. Same — Same — How great an estate may be conveyed by
life tenant ." 501
§ 596. Same — Same — Passesby assignment for benefit of creditors. 502
Section II.— Duties Incident to Life Estates, Tenures, etc.
§ 597. Duties of tenants of life estates — 1. To defend title — Pray-
ing in aid : goa
CONTENTS.
X2V
PAGE
§ 598. Same — 3. To pay taxes — a. Ordinary taxes 504
§ 599. Same— Same— b. Betterments 505
§600. Same— 3. To make repairs 506
§ 601. Same — Same — Exception to the rule 506
§603. Same— 4. To keep down interest 508
§ 603. Sajne — Same — Former rule 510
§ 604. Same — Same — Rule as to widows • 510
§ 605. Same — 5. To pay incumbrances 511
§ 606. Same — Same — Apportionment of incumbrances 511
§ 607. Same — Same — Same — Rule wliere widow the life tenant. . . 513
§ 608. Same— 6. To insure 513
§ 609. Tenure of estate for life 513
§ 610. Permanent improvements — Rights of parties 514
§ 611. Same — Exceptions to the rule 514
§ 613. Partition by tenant for life 515
§ 613. Forfeiture of life estates 515
§ 614. Same — 1. By conveying in fee 516
§ 615. Same — 3. By adverse possession , 517
§616. Same— 3. By waste 518
§ 617. Valuation of life estate 518
§ 618. Same— English rule 518
§ 619. Same — American rule 519
§ 630. Merger of life estates 530
§ 631. Same — Estates pur autre vie 531
§ 633. Termination of life estate 531
§ 633. Same — Exception to the rule 531
§ 634. Same — Presumption of death 533
Section III.— Estates Pue Adtre Vie.
§ 635. Definition of the estate 523
§ 636. Quantum of the estate 534
§ 637. Nature of interest in the estate 534
§ 628. Methods by which estate created 535
§ 639. Rights of tenants — Alienation, devise, and entail 525
§ 630. Same— Right to estovers 526
§ 631. Occupancy — 1. Corporeal hereditaments— a. General oc-
cupancy 526
§ 633. Same— Same— Same— Abolition by statute 536
§ 633. Same— Same— b. Special occupancy 537
§ 634. Same— Same— Same— Who may be special occupants 538
§ 635. Same — 3. Incorporeal hereditaments 538
§ 636. Termination of estate 539
Section TV.- How Estates foe Life Cebated.
§ 637. Conventional and legal estates 539
§ 638. Estates for life by implication 530
§639. Creation by deed 530
§ 640. Same— Words of limitation 531
xxvi CONTENTS.
PAGE
§641. Same— What creates life estate 533
§ 642. Created by devise 533
§ 643. Same — Words which carry life estate 533
§ 644. Same — Same — Raised by implication 584
§ 645. Same^-Enlarging estate to a fee 535
§ 646. Same — Same — Devise with power of disposition 535
§ 647. Same — Same — Words in preamble 536
Section V.— Emblements.
§ 648. Definition of emblements 537
§ 649. Life tenant entitled to 537
§ 650. Crop must be planted by tenant 538
§ 651. Where estate determined by tenant 538
§ 653. Ingress, egress, and regress 539
Section VI.— Estovers.
§ 653. Definition of estovers 540
§ 654. Kinds of estovers 540
§ 655. Life tenant entitled to 541
§ 656. Same — Where tenant a widow 541
§ 657. What may be taken — Effect of exceeding right 542
§ 658. Same — English and American doctrines 543
§659. When to be taken 544
§ 660. For what purposes taken 544
§661. Where to be taken from 546
§ 663. Where to be used 546
§ 663. Common of estovers 547
Section VII. — Waste.
§ 664. Definition 549
§ 665. What constitutes waste 549
§ 666. Same — Exceptions to the rule 550
§ 667. Kinds of waste 550
§ 668. Same — Voluntary waste 550
§ 669. Same — Permissive waste 550
§670. Liability of life tenant for waste — Common-law doctrine. . . 551
§ 671. Same — American doctrine 553
§ 673. Same — Acts of strangers 553
§ 673. Same — Tenants in dower and curtesy 554
§ 674. Same — Same — Permissive waste 554
§ 675. Kinds of lands subject to waste 554
§ 676. Acts constituting waste — General rule 555
§ 677. Same— 1. Felling timber— General rule 557
§ 678. Same — Same — Amount to be taken 557
§ 679. Same — Same — Particular kinds of trees 559
§ 680. Same — Same— Local custom as to timber trees 559
§ 681. Same — Same — Timber improperly cut — Property in 560
§ 683. Same — 3. Opening mines 561
CONTENTS. XXvii
PAGE
§ 683. Same — 3. In respect to building — Pulling down houses 562
g 68 1. Same — Same — Dilapidations 563
§ 685. Same — Same — Alterations 564
§ 686. Same — Same — Erection of new buildings , 565
§ 687. Same — 4. Changing course of husbandr}' 565
§ 688. Same — Same — Permitting land to become foul 566
§ 689. Same — 5. Destruction of heirlooms 567
§ 690. Partial powers to commit waste 567
§ 691. Waste by ecclesiastics 567
§ 692. Destruction by fire 567
§ 693. Without impeachment of waste 568
§ 694. Remedies for waste — 1. Writ of estrepement and writ of
waste 569
§ 695. Same— 2. Injunction 570
§ 696. Same — Same — Character of the remedy 571
§ 697. Same— Same— When granted 573
§ 698. Same — Same — Same — Threat to commit waste 573
§ 699. Same — Same — Same — Permissive waste 573
§700. Same— Same— Privity of title 573
§ 701. Same — Same — In favor of whom granted 57.">
§ 703. Same — Same — Against whom granted 5T5
§ 703. Same — Same — Bill for accounting 577
§ 704. Same— 3. Forfeiture of estate 577
CHAPTER XVII.
ESTATE BY CURTESY.
Section I. Origin and requisites.
Section II. Nature, incidents, and duties.
Section III. Barring curtesy.
Section IV. Curtesy under statute.
Section V. Who may be tenants by curtes3^
Section VI. What property subject to curtesy.
Section VII. What property not subject to curtesy.
Section I. — Origin and Requisities.
§ 705. Estate by curtesy— Introduction 580
§ 706. Definition of estate by curtesy 580
§ 707. Origin of estate by the curtesy— Lord Littleton's view 581
§ 708. Same— Early origin of the estate 582
§ 709. Same— Adopted from northern nations 583
§710. Curtesy in England 584
§ 711. Same— Curtesy in gavelkind lands 584
§ 712. Curtesy in the United States 584
§ 713. Same — Under married women's acts 587
§ 714. Kinds of curtesy 588
§ 715. Same — 1. Curtesy initiate 589
8 716. Same — 3. Curtesy consummate 591
xxviii CONTENTS..
PAGE
Same — 3. Equitable curtesy 593
Common-law requisites of curtesy 592
Same — 1. Lawful marriage 593
Same— Same — Lex loci governs 594
Same — Same — Celebration of marriage 595
Same — Same — Void and voidable mai-riage 597
Same — 3.- Seisin of wife 597
Same — Same — What seisin is sufficient 599
Same — Same — Seisin in fact or in deed 600
Same — Same — Same — ^Exceptions to the rule 601
Same — Same — Seisin in law 603
Same — Same — Same — Reason for relaxing rule 604
Same — Same — Same — Extent to which rule relaxed 604
Same — Same — Seizure by descent cast 605
Same — Same — Seized at time of death 606
Same — Same — Possession by coparcener 606
Same — Same — Possession by co-tenant 606
Same — Same — Possession by wife's tenant 607
Same — Same — Same — Lease for life before marriage 609
Same — Same — Same — Receiving rents and profits 609
Same — Same — Possession by husband — Kentucky doctrine, 609
Same — Same — Possession by husband's grantee 610
S^ime — Same — Seisin of guardian 610
Same — Same — Equitable title and seisin 610
Same — Same — Same — Exception to the rule 611
Same — Same — Actual entrj^ 613
Same — Same — Same — Wild, waste, and uncultivated lands, 613
Same — Same — Time of seisin 614
Same — Same — Adverse possession 614
Same — Same — Remainder and reversion 614
Same — 3. Issue of marriage 616
Same — Same — Change of rule by statute 616
Same — Same — a. Bom alive 617
Same — Same — Same — Degree of development and vitality, 618
Same — Same — Same — Death of issue 619
Same — Same — b. In lifetime of wife 620
Same — Same — c. Be capable of inheriting 620
Same — Same — Same — Seisin by wife 631
Same — Same — Same — Estate devised to wife and heirs 621
Same — Same — Same— Gives second husband curtesy 631
Same — Same — Same — Wife's attainder 623
Same — Same — d. Essentials need not coincide in point of
time 623
Same — 4. Death of wife 624
Same — Same — Civil death and bigamy of wife 634
Section II.— Nature, Incidents, and Duties.
Nature of estate by the curtesy 636
Same — Tenure , 636
S717.
S718.
§ 719.
§720.
§ 731.
§733.
§733.
§724.
§ 725.
§726.
§ 727.
§ 728.
§729.
§730.
§731.
§732.
§ 733.
§ 734.
§735.
§736.
§737.
§ 738.
§ 739.
§740.
§741.
§ 742.
§ 743.
§744.
§745.
§746.
§747.
§748.
§ 749.
§750.
§ 751.
§752.
§753.
§ 754.
§ 755.
§ 756.
§ 757.
§ 758.
§759.
§760.
§ 761.
§ 762.
§
763.
g
764.
§
765.
§ 766.
§
767.
§
768.
S
769.
§
770.
§
771.
§
772.
g
773.
§
774.
§
775.
§
776.
S
777.
§
778.
§
779.
§
780.
§
781.
§
782.
§
783.
§
784.
§
785.
786.
§
787.
§
788.
§ 789.
§
790.
§
791.
793.
g
793.
§
794.
§
795.
§
796.
§
797.
S
798.
§
799.
S
800.
801.
S
803.
§
803.
804.
§
805.
S
806.
§
807.
CONTENTS. xxix
PAGE
Same — Same — At common law 637
Same — Same — Continuation of wife's estate 637
Same — Has character of title by descent, 637
Same — When estate attaches 628
Same— Same — Disclaimer 628
Same — Same — Action by husband to recover 629
Same — Same — Suspends descent 639
Same — Suspends statute of limitation 639
Same — Proceeds of judicial sale — Curtesy in 630
Same— Insurable interest 631
Incidents of curtesy — Genei-ally 633
Same — 1. Eight to sell or lease 633
Same — 2. Subject to the debts of the wife 634
Same — 3. Subject to debts of tenant 634
Same — Same — Wife's right as creditor against curtesy 636
Same — Same — Curtesy initiate 686
Same— Same — Same — Under statute subjecting " any estate
held by debtor " 637
Same — Same — Under recent American statutes 638
Same — 4. Emblements — Tenant by curtesy entitled to 639
Same — 5. Improvements — No allowance to tenant for 639
Same — 6. Waste by tenant by curtesy 639
Same — Same — LiabiUty of assignee 640
Same— 7. Partition 640
Same — 8. Power to sell, assign, or lease 641
Same — Same — Effect of subsequent divorce 643
Same — 9. Suits with i-ef erence to 648
Same — Same — Damages to reversion G43
Duties of tenant by curtesy 643
Section III. — Baering Cuetest.
Barring curtesy — By agreement of parties 645
Same — By attainder of wife 648
Same — By divesture of wife on breach of covenant 648
Same — By judicial proceedings under statute 649
Same — By consent of husband to wife's will 600
Same — By statute of limitations 651
Same— By statutory enactment 651
Same— Bj' husband's conveyance 651
Same— Same— In lands purchased with proceeds 632
Same— By fine and recovery 653
Same— By conveyance by wife during coverture 653
Same— By settlement in trust 653
Same — By instrument creating equitable estate 054
Same— Same— Provisions excluding curtesy £54
Same — By separate use for wife C5G
Same— Not by will or deed of grantor C"0
Same — Not by will of wife C57
Same— Not by decree enjoining husband 657
XXX
CONTENTS.
PAGE
§ 809. Same — Not by attainder of wife after issue 658
§ 810. Same — Not by ante-nuptial deed 658
§ 811. Same — Not by ante-nuptial gift 658
§ 812. Same — Not by abandonment of possession to co-tenant in
common 659
§813. Forfeiture— By alienage 659
§ 814. Same — By decree of divorce 660
§ 815. Same — Same — 1. Decree of nullity 660
§ 816. Same — Same — 2. Decree nisi 661
§ 817. Same — Same — 3. A vinculo 661
§ 818. Same — Same — Same — At suit of wife 662
§ 819. Same — Same — Same — At suit of husband 663
§ 820. Same — Same — Same — Rights of third persons 663
§ 821. Same— Same— 4. A mensa 663
§822. Same— By adultery 664
§ 823. Same — By abandonment of wife 664
§ 824. Same — By failure to provide 665
§825. Same— By bigamy 665
§ 826. Same — By wrongful alienation 665
§ 827. Same — By attainder of husband of treason or felony 666
Section IV.- Ccetest undeh Statute.
§ 828. Statutes— Generally. 666
§ 829. Same — Construction of statutes 668
§ 830. Same — Married women's acts 669
§ 831. Same — Effect of statute — On curtesy initiate 670
§ 832. Same — Same — On curtesy consummate 672
Section V. — Who Mat be Tenants by the Curtesy.
§ 883. Tenants by the curtesy — Generally 672
§ 834. Same — Alienage 672
§ 835. Same — Same — Naturalization 673
§ 836. Same — Attainder of treason or felony 674
Section VI. — ^What Property Subject to Curtesy.
§ 837. Ancient rule 675
§ 838. At common law 675
§ 839. In estates-tail 676
§ 840. Same — On failure of issue 676
§ 841. Same — In this country 677
g 842. In separate estate — At common law 677
§ 843. Same — ^Under statute 678
g 844. In equitable estates of inheritance 679
§ 845. Same — Intention of grantor 680
CONTENTS. xxxi
PAGE
§ 846. In estate of former husband 681
§ 847. In lands recovered 681
§ 848. In lands deed to which is taken in wife's name 681
§ 849. In lands of which wife seized by direct gift 682
§ 850. In lands conveyed to wife by husband 683
§ 851. In lands conveyed to trustee — By husband 683
§ 853. Same— By the wife 683
§ 853. Same— By third party 683
§ 854. Same — Same — Express exclusion of husband 684
§ 855. In lands held by guardian 685
§ 856. In wild lands 685
§ 857. In lands cast by descent 686
§ 858. In lands devised in trust 686
§ 859. In lands of beneficiary under will 687
§ 860. In mortgaged estate 688
§ 861. In trust estate 6-i9
§ 863. In fees with conditional limitation 6S9
§ 863. In fees determinable 690
§ 864. In estate in remainder 693
§ 865. In estate in reversion 693
§ 866. In lands held in joint tenancy 693
§ 867. In estates in coparcenary 694
§ 868. In merged estates 694
§ 869. In money when 694
§ 870. In incorporeal hereditaments 695
Section VII. — ^What Pbopekty not Subject to Curtesy.
§ 871. Introduction 696
§ 873. Estates not of inheritance 696
§ 873. Life estates 697
§ 874. Separate estate when 697
g 875. Same— WiU of grantor 698
§ 876. Same — ^With resei'vation in 698
§ 877. Same— Settlement by husband 699
§ 878. Estates held as trustee 699
§ 879. Pre-emption claim 700
§ 880. Land assigned for dower 700
§ 881. Estates held in joint tenancy 700
§ 8S3. Determinable fees '■ 700
§ 883. In proceeds of land 701
§ 884. Lands of former husband 701
§ 885. Lands sold before marriage 701
§ 886. Adverse possession and bar of statute 703
§ 887. In lands mortgaged to wife 703
g 888. In remainder and reversion 703
Section
n.
Section
III.
Section
IV.
Section
V.
Section
YI.
Section
VII.
Section
vin.
XYxij CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XVIII.
DOWER ESTATE.
Section I. Origin, history, and kinds of dower.
Nature and incidents of dower.
Requisites of dower.
Wlio may be endowed.
Wliat property and estates subject to dower.
"What property and estates not subject to dower.
Assignment of dower.
Detention and recovery of dowei- — Actions affecting.
Section IX. Barring dower.
Section X. Provisions in lieu of dower — Election.
Section I, — Origin, History, and Kinds op Dower.
PAGE
§ 889. Inti-oductory 704
§ 890. Origin of dower 705
§ 891. Same — German origin 707
§ 893. Definition of dower 707
§ 893. Favored in law 708
§894. Kinds of dower 709
§ 895. Same — 1. Dower by custom 709
§ 896. Same — 2. Dower ad ostium ecclesioe 710
§ 897. Same — 3. Dower ex assensus patris 710
§ 898. Same — 4. Dower de la plus belle 710
§ 899. Same — 5. Dower at common law 710
§900. Dower in the United States 711
§ 901. Dower under statute 711
§ 902. Stages of dower 713
Section II. — Nature and Incidents of Dower.
§903. Nature of dower 714
§ 904. Object of dower 715
§ 905. When dower vests 71 5
§ 996. Interest of wife in dower 715
§ 907. Same — Rights before assignment 716
K 908. Same — Rights after assignment 718
§ 909. Law governing dower 719
§ 910. Same — As to place 719
§ 911. Same — As to time 721
§ 912. Same — Where law changed during coverture 722
g 913. Incidents of dower , 723
S 914. Same — 1. Inchoate dower 725
§ 915. Same — 3. Consummate dower 781
CONTENTS. xxxiii
PAGE
§916. Same— Same— Right of quarantine 736
§ 917. Same— 3. Assigned dower 737
§ 91 8. Same— Same— Right of alienation 739
§ 919. Same — Same — Duties imposed on 739
§ 920. Same— Same— Liability for debts of widow 741
S 921. Same— Same— Subject to waste 742
§ 922. Same—Same— Subject to forfeiture 743
g 923. Priority of dower 744
§ 924. Revival of dower rights 745
§ 925. Valuation of dower interest 745
Section III. — Requisites op Doweh.
§ 926. Legal dower— Generally 748
§ 927. Same— 1. Marriage— Must be legal 750
§ 928. Same — Same — Void and voidable marriage 755
§ 929. Same — Same — Proof of marriage 757
§ 930. Same— 2. Seisin of husband 759
§ 931. Same — Same — What a sufficient seisin 763
g 932. Same — Same — Character of seisin 763
§ 933. Same — Same — Duration of seisin 765
§ 934. Same — Same — Evidences of seisin 766
§ 935. Same— 3. Death of husband 767
§936. Same— Same— Proof of death 767
§ 937. Equitable dower 767
Section IV. — Who May be Endowed.
§ 938. Introduction 768
§ 939. Second marriage — Spouse living 769
§ 940. Divorced wife 770
§ 941. Abandonment and adultery 773
§ 942. Alienage 774
§ 943. Same — Naturalization 775
Section V. — What Property and Estates Subject to Dower.
§ 944. GeneraUy 776
§ 945. Base and qualified fees 779
§ 946. Determinable fees 780
§ 947. Equitable estates 781
§ 948. Equity of redemption 782
§ 949. Estates for life— Pur autre vie 784
§ 950. Estates for years 784
§ 951. Estates in common 785
§ 952. Estates in copartnership 785
§ 953. Estates in expectancy 787
§ 954. Estates in joint tenancy 787
p 955. Estates in tail 787
§ 956. Estates in trust 788
3
xxxiv CONTENTS.
PAGE
§ 957. Estates subject to conditions '''88
§ 958. Growing crops TOS
§ 959. Improvements — By liusband and lieir 789
§ 960. Incorporeal hereditaments 790
§ 961. Lands aliened during coverture 790
§ 963. Lands conveyed in fraud of ci'editors 793
§ 963. Lands conveyed in fraud of dower 794
§ 964. Lands dedicated to public use 796 ,
§ 965. Lands exchanged 797
§ 966. Lands held as dower 797
§ 967. Lands held by incomplete title 798
§ 968. Lands mortgaged — Mortgagor's wife 799
§ 969. Same — Same — Redeemed by husband or representatives. . 801
§ 970. Same— Mortgagee's wife 803
§ 971. Lands not fully paid for 803
§ 973. Lands redeemed 805
§ 973. Lands sold by an assignee 806
§ 974. Lands wild and uncultivated 806
§ 975. Merged estates 807
§ 976. Mines, mineral lands, and quarries 811
§ 977. Money 813
§ 978. Kents and profits 814
§ 979. Reversions and remainders 815
§ 980. Shares of corporation 816
§ 981. Surplus proceeds of land 817
Section VI. — What Peofeety and Estates not Subject to Dower.
§ 982. Introductory 819
§ 983. Improvements 832
§ 984. Estates for years 833
§ 985. Estates in joint tenancy 823
§ 986. Estates in copartnership , 824
§ 987. Estates in reversion and remainder , 825
§ 988. Estates mortgaged 836
§ 989. Estates in tail 837
§ 990. Equitable estates 837
§ 991. Lands condemned for public use 828
§ 993. Lands given to public use 828
§ 993. Momentary and transitory seisin 839
§ 994. Pre-emption claims 830
§ 995. Trust estates 831
§ 996. Vendor's lien 832
§ 997. Wild and uncultivated lands 833
§ 998. Wrongful estatps 833
Section VII. — Assignment of Dowek.
§ 999. Necessity for assignment 834
g 1000. When right to assignment accrues 835
CONTENTS. XXXV
PAGE
§ 1001. Demand of assignment 835
§ 1002. Widow's quarantine 835
§ 1003. Right of dower— Cliaraoter 888
§ 1004. Same— Right of alienation 838
§ 1005. When dower assigned 839
§ 1006. Same— Contribution to redemption 840
§ 1007. Estimating value of dower 840
§ 1008. In improvements 848
§1009. Rents and profits 844
§ 1010. In property not devisable 845
§ 1011. In aliened lands 845
§ 1013. In partitioned lands 846
§ 1013. In crops growing on land 846
§ 1014. How dower assigned — Generally 847
§ 1015. Same — Manner of assignment 848
§ 1016. Same — Same — According to the common right 849
§ 1017. Same — ^Rules governing 849
§ 1018. Same — ^Law governing 850
§ 1019. Same — Estate granted 851
§ 1020. Same — Assignment by parol 851
§ 1021. Same — According to common right 852
§ 1022. Same — Same — Assignment in special manner 853
§ 1028. Game — Against common right 854
§1024. By metes and bounds 854
§ 1025. Same — Assignments in several parcels 856
§ 1026. Same— Same— Where held in severalty 856
§1027. Same— In common 857
§1028. Same— Inmoney 857
§ 1029. Same — Improper assignment 858
§ 1080. Same — Failure of assignment 859
§ 1031. Same — Re-assignment 860
§ 1032. Who may make assignment of dower 861
§ 1038. Effect of assignment of dower 862
Section VIII. — Detention and Recovery of Dower — Actions
Affecting.
§ 1034. Action to recover dower 864
§ 1035. Same — Writ of dower under nihil habet 865
§1086. Same— Suit in equity 866
§ 1037. Same — Pleading and practice 867
§ 1038. Same— Same— Demand 867
§ 1039. Same — Same — Where action to be brought 869
§ 1040. Same— Same— Against whom action brought 869
§ 1041. Same — Same — Abatement of action 870
§1042. Same— Same— Estoppel 870
§ 1048. Same— Same— Statute of Umitations 870
§ 1044. Same— Same— Allowance of rents and profits 873
§ 1045. Same— Same— Assignment of mortgaged lands 873
Xxxvi CONTENTS.
PAGE
§ 1046. Same — Same — Valuation of dower interest 8~4
§ 1047. Same^Same — Damages for detention 874
§ 1048. Same— Same— Judgment 870
§ 1049. Same— Same— Same— Form of 877
§ 1050. Same — Same — Assignment 877
§1051. Same — Same — Same — Writ of assignment — Return 878
§1053. Same— Same— Costs 878
§ 1053. Suits affecting dower 878
Section IX. — Baeeing Dowee.
§ 1054. Methods of barring dower 880
§ 1055. Abandonment of husband not a bar to dower 891
§ 1056. Act of liusband bars dower when 893
§ 1057. Act of Legislature may bar dower 893
§ 1058. Adultery of wife bars dower 894
§ 1059. Agreement for voluntary separation bars dower 895
§ 1060. Ante-nuptial contract bars dower 897
§ 1061. Conveyance and release bar dower 899
§ 1063. Same— Execution by wife 901
§ 1063. Same — Acknowledgment by wife 903
§ 1064. Same — Same — Defective acknowledgment — Curative stat-
utes 904
§ 1065. Same— Where wife an infant 905
§ 1066. Same — Defeating conveyance by paramount title, etc. —
Effect 905
§1067. Same— Power of release 907
§1068. Same— Mode of release 907
§ 1069. Same — Consideration to support release 910
§ 1070. Same — To whom release may be made 910
§1071. Same— Effect of release 910
§ 1073. Same— Evidence of release 911
§ 1073. Same — Constraction of release 913
§ 1074. Conveyance by husband — Bars dower when 913
§ 1075. Conveyance in fraud of creditors — ^Effect of dower 914
§ 1076. Devise in lieu of dower— Effect of 915
§ 1077. Divorce bars dower 919
§ 1078. Abandonment and adultery as bar to dower 931
§ 1079. Eminent domain — Exercising power of, bars dower 931
§ 1080. Enforcement of mechanic's lien does not bar dower 933
§ 1081. Estoppel in pais bars dower 933
§ 1083. Foreclosure as a bar to dower 924
§ 1083. Jointure bars dower 936
§ 1084. Judicial sale for debts as a bar to dower 936
§ 1085. Mortgage as a bar to dower 928
§ 1086. Provision in lieu of, bars dower 939
§ 1087. Settlement during coverture as a bar to dower 939
§ 1088. Statute of limitations as a bar of dower 930
§ 1089. Statutory provisions in lieu of, bars dower 931
§ 1090. Waste bars dower 931
CONTENTS. XXXvii
Section X.— Provisions in Ijeu of Dower— Election.
PAGE
§ 1091. Introductory 933
g 1093. Effect of provision in lieu of dower 933
§ 1093. Settlement in lieu of dower 933
§ 1094. Same — Annuity — Calculation of 934
g 1095. Testamentary provisions in lieu of dower 935
§ 1096. Same — Incidents of a bequest in lieu of dower 936
§ 1097. Acceptance by the widow 937
§ 1098. Failure of provision in lieu of dower 938
§ 1099. Forfeiture of provision in lieu of dower 939
§ 1100. Election — In case of exchanged lands , 939
§ 1101. Same — Of provision in lieu of dower 940
§ 1102. Same — Right of election a personal one 941
§ 1103. Same — When election necessary 942
§ 1104. Same — When election not necessary 945
§ 1105. Same — What constitutes an election 945
§ 1106. Same — Retraction of election 948
§1107. Same— Effect of an election 949
CHAPTER XIX.
JOINTURE.
§ 1108. Definition 950
§ 1109. Origin and history 951
§ 1110. Kinds of jointure — 1. Legal jointure 951
§ 1111. Same— 2. Equitable jointure 953
§ 1112. Requisites of jointure 953
§ 1113. Effect of jointure— Bars dower 957
§ 1114. Who may limit a jointure 958
§ 1115. Who may take a jointure 958
§ 1116. Nature of jointure — Not continuation of husband's estate.. 9.59
§ 1117. When made — 1. Before marriage 959
§1118. Same— 2. After marriage 960
§ 1119. Howmade 960
§ 1120. Election 963
§ 1121. Entry 963
§ 1123. Favored in equity 963
§ 1133. As affected by the statute of uses — Statute in United
States 964
§1124. Bar and forfeiture 964
§ 1125. Eviction — Endowment in remainder 966
§ 1126. Waste 967
XXXviii CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XX.
ESTATES FOR YEAES.
Section
I.
Section
II.
Section
III.
Section
IV.
Section
V.
Section
VI.
Section
VII.
Section VIII.
Section
IX.
Section
X.
Section
XI.
Section
XII.
Section XITI.
Origin and nature of estates for years.
How estates for years created.
The lease.
The lease — The conditions.
Tlie lease — The covenants.
The lease — Assignment and subletting.
The lease — Termination, holding over.
Forfeiture, surrender, and merger.
Eviction, destruction, and use of premises.
Fixtures, alterations, improvements, and repairs.
Incidents.
Letting on shares.
Descent.
Section I. — Origin and Nature of Estates for Years.
PAGE
§ 1127. Definition 968
§ 1128. The term 970
§ 1129. Same — To begin in futuro 970
§ 1130. Early tenure 971
§ 1131. Distinguished from freehold estates 973
§ 1132. Origin of estates for years 973
§ 1133. How estate for years created 973
§ 1134. Tenure of estate for years 973
§ 1135. Nature of an estate for years 973
§ 1136. Same — Freehold qualities by statute 976
§ 1137. No seisin in tenant for years 977
§ 1138. Jnteresse termini 978
§1139. Enti-y by tenant for years 978
§ 1140. Liability for rent before entry, 979
§ 1141. Estate may be assigned before entry 979
Section II. — How Estates for Yeaes Created.
§ 1142. By lease and devise 980
§ 1148. Character of the estate — A chattel interest 981
§ 1144. Reservation of rent 981
§ 1145. What may be leased 983
§ 1146. Who may be lessors 985
§ 1147. Who may be lessees 987
§ 1148. Possession by lessee — Effects of 988
§ 1149. Landlord and tenant — Consequences of relation of 988
§ 1150. Tenure of estate and privity of parties 989
CONTENTS. xsxix
Section III.— The Lease.
PAGE
§ 1151. Defiuition 99O
§ 1158. Lease and agreement to lease 991
§ 1153. Lease as affected by statute of frauds 994
§ 1154. Same — Parol lease to commence infuturo 997
§ 1155. Same — Memorandum in writing 998
§ 1156. Proper words to create a lease 1001
§ 1157. Form of instrument 1003
§ 1158. Must be for fixed term 1002
§ 1159. Same— Length term may run 1003
§ 1160. Same — Computing time 1005
§ 1161. Same — Same— Optional number of years 1007
§ 1162. Same — Renewable forever 1008
§ 1168. Rent reserved 1010
§ 1164. Parol lease ; 1010
§ 1165. What lease embraces 1014
§ 1166. Same —On demise of part of premises 1015
§ 1167. Acceptance of lease 1016
§ 1168. Entry— Statute of uses 1016
§ 1169. Same — Effect of execution and delivery without 1017
§ 1170. When lease takes effect 1017
§ 1171. Who may make a lease 1017
§ 1172. Same— By agents 1018
§ 1173. Same— Corporation 1018
§ 1174. Same — Executors and administrators 1020
§ 1175. Same — Guardian 1021
§ 1176. Same— Husband and wife ; 1024
§ 1177. Same — Joint tenants and tenants in common 1026
§ 1178. Same— Mortgagor 1027
§ 1179. Same— Mortgagee 1028
§ 1180. Same — Municipal corporations 1028
§ 1181. Same— Partners 1029
§ 1182. Same — Persons under disability — 1. Infants 1080
§ 1183. Same— Same— 2. Lunatics 1032
§ 1184. Same— Same— 8. Married women 1034
§ 1185. Same— Pubhc officers 1035
§ 1186. Same— Receivers 1036
§ 1187. Same— Trustees 1036
§ 1188. Same— Under powers 1038
§ 1189. Lessors exceeding power 1040
§ 1190. Ratification of leases 1041
§ 1191. Signing lease 1042
§ 1192. Same — Mode of signing by agent 1043
§ 1193. SeaUng instrument— Effect 1044
§ 1194. Fraud in procuring the execution of lease 1045
§ 1195. Recording lease 1046
§ 1196. Presumption of lease 1047
8 1197. Construction of lease 1048
xl CONTENTS.
Section IV. — The Lease — The Conditions.
PAGE
§ 1198. Introductory 1049
§ 1199. What conditions may be imposed 1050
§ 1200. Same — Privilege of renewing lease 1053
§ 1301. Same — Privilege of purchasing premises 1053
§ 1303. Same — Privilege of terminating by sale 1053
§ 1303. Implied conditions — Furnished house 1054
§ 1304. Breach of condition — Involuntary act 105(5
§ 1305. Same — License to break. 1057
§ 1306. Same— Entry for 1058
§1307. Same— Demand 1059
§ 1308. Same— Same— For what made 1081
§ 1309. Same— Same— Waiver of 1063
Section V. — The Lea.se — The Covenants,
§ 1310. Definition— How created 1063
§ 1311. Kinds of covenants 1063
§ 1313. Same — Express and implied covenants 1065
§ 1313. Same — Implied covenants of lessor 1065
§ 1314. Same— Same— Effect of 1067
§ 1315. Same— Implied covenant of lessee 1067
§ 1316. Same — Distinction between express and implied covenants, 1068
§ 1317. Same — Real and personal covenants 1069
§ 1318. Covenants running with the land — ^When covenants run
with land 1070
§ 1319. Same — Covenants running with part of the land 1071
§ 1330. Same — What covenants run with the land 1074
§ 1331. Same — Rights of assignee under '. 1076
§ 1333. Same— When assignee bound 1078
§ 1333. Covenants usually inserted in lease — On the part of lessor, 1079
§ 1334. Same — Same — Covenant for quiet enjoyment 1079
§133.5. Same — Same — Implied covenants for quiet enjoyment. .. . 1081
§ 1336. Same — Same — Covenant to repair 1083
§ 1337. Same — Same — Same — Effect of lessor's covenant to repair, 1085
§ 1338. Same — Same — Covenant to renew lease 1086
§ 1339. Same — Sarae — Covenant against incumbrances 1093
§ 1330. Same — Same — Same — When covenant is broken — Damages
for breach 1093
§ 1331. Same — Same — Covenant for further assurance 1095
§ 1333. Same— On part of lessee 1096
§ 1333. Same — Same — Covenant to pay rent 1099
§ 1334. Same — Same — Covenant to pay taxes 1101
§ 1335. Same — Same — Covenant to insure premises 1103
§ 1236. Same — Same — Covenant as to use of premises 1103
§ 1337. Same — Same — Covenant not to assign or underlet 1104
§ 1338. Same — Same — Covenant to deliver in good repair 1105
§ 1239. Same — Same — Covenant against waste 1106
§ 1240. Same — On part of assignee and sub-lessee 1107
CONTENTS. Xli
PAGE
§ 1241. Covenants raised by fraud 1109
§ 1243. Construction of covenants 1110
Section VI.— The Lease— Assignment and Subletting.
§ 1343. Assignment of lease 1111
§ 1244. Same— Clause prohibiting 1113
§ 1345. Same — Statutory restrictions 1113
§ 1346. Same— Involuntary assignments 1113
§ 1347. Same — By insolvent assignee 1114
§ 1248. Same — Transfer of entire term in part of premises 1115
§ 1349. Same — Assignee takes subject to burdens 1116
§ 1250. Same— How made 1118
§ 1251. Same— Of reversion 1119
§ 1253. Distinction between assignment and sub-leasing 1131
§ 13.53. Same — Effect of reservation 1132
§1354. Sub-leasing 1133
§ 1355. Same — Sub-lessee's covenants 1124
Section VII. — The Lease— Termination, Holding Over.
§ 1356. Termination of lease , 1135
§ 1357. Same— By surrender 1136
§ 1358. Same — By eviction of landlord 1136
§ 1259. Same — By eviction of tenant by lessor 1137
§ 1360. Same— By collateral event 1138
§ 1361. Same — By exercise of riglit of eminent domain 1129
§ 1363. Holding over— Definition 1130
§ 1363. Same — What constitutes a holding over 1130
§ 1364. Same— Effect of holding over 1131
§ 1265. Same— Same — On terms of lease 1183
§ 1366. Same— Same — On privileges conferred by the lease 1134
§ 1367. Same — Holding over by consent— Character of tenancy. . . 1134
Section VIIL— Forfeiture, Surrender, and Merger.
§ 1268. Forfeiture of lease— Grounds of 1137
§ 1369. Same— By alienation 1143
§ 1370. Same— Same— Involuntary alienation 1143
§ 1371. Same— By assigning or sub-leasing 1143
§ 1373. Same— By disclaimer— Common-law doctrine 1144
§ 1373. Same— Same— What amounts to a disclaimer 1145
§ 1274. Same— Same— Effect on statute of limitations 1146
§ 1275. Same— Same— American doctrine 1147
§ 1276. Same— Same— Notice to lessor 1148
§ 1377. Same— by failure or refusal to pay rent 1150
§ 1378. Same— Same— Tender saves forfeiture 1151
§ 1279. Same— By failure to insure 1153
^ 1280. Same— By commission of waste 1153
xlii CONTENTS.
PAGE
§ 1381. Same — How taken advantage of 1153
§ 1383. Same— Waiver of forfeiture 1153
§ 1383. Same— Relief against forfeiture 1157
§ 1384. Same— Effects of forfeiture 1158
§ 1385. Surrender — Necessity of 1159
§1386. Same— Requisites of 1160
§ 1387. Same— Acceptance 1160
§ 1388. Same — By operation of law 1161
§ 1389. Same — What amounts to a surrendet 1163
§ 1390. Same — Agreement to surrender — Consideration 1163
§ 1391. Same— Effect on third person 1163
§ 1393. Merger— Definition 1163
8 1393. Same— When occurs 1164
Section IX. — Eviction, Desteuction, and Use of Premises.
§ 1394. Eviction- What constitutes 1168
§ 1395. Same — Actual eviction 1167
§ 1396. Same — Constructive eviction 1168
§ 1397. Same— By landlord or of landlord 1169
§ 1398. Same — By stranger — Duty of lessee 1169
§ 1399. Same — Same — May attorn to stranger when 1170
§ 1300. Same — By eminent domain 1170
§ 1801. Same— Effect of eviction 1171
§ 1303. Destruction of premises — Effect on covenants 1175
§ 1303. Same— Effect on rent 1177
§ 1304. Same — Same — Apportionment of rent 1180
§ 1305. Same — Where term commences infuturo 1180
§ 1306. Same — Effect on covenant to repair, etc 1181
§ 1307. Same — Same — Effect of lessor's insurance 1181
§ 1308. Same — Lessor not bound to repair 1183
§ 1309. Same — Liability of lessee for property destroyed 1183
§ 1310. Use of premises 1183
§ 1311. Same — Restrictions on use 1184
Section X. — Fixtures, Alterations, Improvements, and Repairs.
§ 1313. Fixtures— What are 1186
§ 1313. Same— Right of removal 1187
§ 1814. Same — Same — On renewal of lease 1188
§ 1315. Alterations by lessor 1189
§ 1316. Improvements by tenant 1189
§ 1317. Repairs — By lessor — Common-law doctrine 1190
§1318. Same — Same — Statutory variance of the common-law rule, 1191
§ 1319. Same — Same — May make repairs to prevent ruin 1193
§ 1330. Same — Same — Liability for damage on repairing 1193
§ 1331'. Same — Same — Damages resulting from defective premises, 1194
§ 1333. Same — Same — Liability to tenant for failure to make
repairs 1196
CONTENTS. xliii
PAGE
§ 1323. Same— Same— Liability to lessee's servant for failure to
make repairs II97
§ 1324. Same— Same— Liability to stranger for failure to make
repairs II97
§ 1325. Same— Same— Repairing of unhealthy premises llfO
§ 1326. Same — By lessee 1201
§1327. Same— Same — Liability in damages for failure to repair. . 1201
Section XI.— Incidents of an Estate foe Years.
§ 1328. Introduction — General rights 1203
§ 1329. Alienation— Right of 1204
§ 1330. Accidental fire — Liability for 1204
§ 1331. Emblements — When tenant is entitled to 1203
§ 1332. Same — Lessee's title to crops 1207
§ 1333. Same — Same — Away-going crops 1208
§ 1334. Incumbrance on reversion 1211
§ 1335. Entailment: 1213
§ 1336. Estoppel to deny title 1212
§ 1337. Same — Foundation of doctrine 1215
§ 1338. Same — When estoppel arises 1216
§ 1339. Same — Against vrhom estoppel extends 1216
§ 1340. Same — Same — Lessee's assignee 1217
§ 1341. Same — Wliere lessee has not gone into possession under
lessor 1217
§ 1342. Same — Time during wliioh estoppel lasts 1218
§ 1343. Same— When may be invoked 1219
§ 1344. Same — Acquirement of outside title 1220
§ 1345. Same — Equitable title against landlord 1220
§ 1346. Same— Expiration of landlord's title 1220
§ 1347. Same — Demise of a franchise — Not within rule when 1230
§ 1348. Same — In lease witli joint lessors 1221
§ 1349. Same — Personal disability of lessor 1221
§ 1350. Same — Purchase of title by lessee 1221
§ 1351. Same— Title in state, etc .' 1233
§ 1352. Same — When doctrine does not apply 1223
§ 1353. Estovers— Right to take 1223
§ 1354. Fixtures— Right to remove 1224
§ 1355. Forfeiture 1224
§ 1356. Insurable interest 1224
§ 1357. Liability for debts 1224
§ 1358. Limitation for life with remainder over 1226
§ 1359. Merger 1226
§ 1360. Notice to quit 12J7
§ 1361. Rent 1227
§ 1362. Taxes 1227
§ 1363. Waste 1237
§ 1364. Same — " Without impeachment for waste " 1328
xliv CONTENTS.
Section XII.— Letting on Shakes.
PAGE
§ 1365. Nature of the contract— Where rent payable in share of
crop 1239
§ 1366. Same— Where land tilled for share of crop 1233
§ 1367. Same — Same — Where crop, or a part, to be consumed on
premises 1235
§ 1368. Same — Same — Where possession of crop to remain in
lessor 1236
§ 1369. Same — Same — Cropper's interest before division 1337
§ 1370. Same— Same— Landlord's lien for rent 1338
§ 1371. Same — Distinction between leasing and cropping on the
shares 1338
§ 1373. Same — Partnership between parties 1339
§1373. Same — Breach of contract of lease on shares — Damages.. 1345
§ 1374. Same— Same — Measure of damages 1247
Section XIIL— Descent op a Term for Years.
§ 1375. Common-law doctrine 1348
§ 1376. Disposition of term— By deed 1349
§ 1377. Same— By devise 1250
CHAPTER XXI.
ESTATES AT WILL.
Section I. Nature of the estate.
Section II. Incidents of the estate.
Section III. How the estate created.
Section IV. Between whom the estate may exist.
Section V. How estate terminated.
Section I. — Nature of the Estate.
g 1378. Definition of estate at will 1351
§ 1379. Nature of tenancy at will 1253
§ 1380. Distinguished from an estate at sufferance 1253
§ 1381. Distinguished from an estate from year to year 1354
§ 1383. Same — Judicial conversion of estates at will into estates
from year to year 1255
§ 1383. Kinds of tenancies at will 1356
§ 1384. When tenancy at vs^ill created 1357
§ 1385. Who a tenant at wiU 1357
§ 1386. When a term is a tenancy at w^ill 1260
Section II. — Incidents of the Estate.
§1387. Introductory... 1263
§ 1388. Assignment and sub-leasing 1366
CONTENTS. xlv
PAGE
§ 1389. Lessee's right to emblements 1267
§ 1390. Lessee's right to estovers 1268
§ 1391. Lessee estopped to deny lessor's title 1268
§ 1393. Improvements by lessee — No right in 1268
§ 1393. Ingress and egress— To remove crops, et3 1268
§ 1394. Notice to quit— Reasonable time to remove 1369
§ 1395. Rent— Necessity of and liability for 1275
§ 1396. Waste— Liability for 1277
Section III. — How Estate Created.
§ 1397. Methods of creation— 1. By contract and implication of
law 1278
§ 1398. Same— 2. By deed 1279
§ 1399. Words and acts of parties creating 1279
§ 1400. Same — By agreement 1280
§ 1401. Same— By entry under an agreement for a lease 1281
§ 1402. Same— By entry under an agreement to sell 1282
§ 1403. Same — By entry under a void deed or lease 1283
§ 1404. Same — By grantor's retaining possession 1284
§ 1405. Same — By holding over 128.")
§ 1408. Same— By parol gifts of lands 12SG
§ 1407. Same— By parol lease of lands 1286
Section IV.— Between Whom Estate may Exist.
§ 1408. Introductory 1287
§ 1409. Between master and servant 1287
§ 1410. Between vendor and vendee 1239
Section V.— How Terminated,
§ 1411. Inti'oduction — Common-law doctrine 1293
§ 1412. Demand and notice — Sufficiency of 1294
§ 1418. By act of lessor— Bankruptcy 1296
§ 1414. By act of the lessee — Abandonment 1296
CHAPTER XXII.
ESTATE FROM YEAR TO YEAR.
Section I. Nature and origin of the estate.
Section II. Incidents of the estate.
Section III. How the estate created.
Section IV. Periods of tenancy for less than a year.
Section V. Who may be tenants of the estate.
Section VI. How the estate terminated.
Section I.— Nature and Origin of the Estate.
§ 1415. Definition 1298
§ 1416. Origin of the estate 1299
xlvi CONTENTS.
PAGE
§ 1417. Nature of the estate 1300
§ 1418. Distinguished from term 1801
§ 1419. Distinguished from tenancy at will 1303
§ 1420. Reservation of rent necessary 1303
§ 1421. Judicial legislation touching 1303
§ 1422. Statutory regulation 1303
Section II. — Incidents of the Estate.
§ 1428. Introductoi-y 1305
§ 1424. Occupation of premises 1306
§ 1435. Eight to determine 1307
§ 1426. Notice to quit^When required 1307
§ 1427. Same— Time given in 1310
§ 1428. Same — Where term, less than a year 1311
Section III.— How the Estate Created.
§ 1429. Introductory — Various methods of creation 1313
§ 1430. By express agreement — A year or less 1314
§ 1431. By holding over — Landlord's assent 1315
§ 1433. By implication — Agricultural leases 1318
§ 1433. By lease or permissive occupancy for indefinite time 1319
§ 1434. By occupancy and payment of rent under a void lease. . . . 1331
§ 1435. By parol lease — Parol continuance of lease 1333
§ 1436. By rent reserved — Acceptance and demand 1334
Section IV.'— Periods op Tenancy Less than a Year.
§ 1437. Introductory— Periodical holding 1336
§ 1438. Quarterly letting— When yearly holding 1338
§ 1439. Monthly letting— Common-law doctrine 1328
§ 1440. Same— Holding over— Effect on term 1329
§ 1441. Weekly letting— Inference of law 1330
§ 1442. Statutory regulations — Enlargement of term 1331
Section V. — Who mat be Tenants of the Estate.
§ 1443. Generally— Corporations 1331
Section VI.— How the Estate Terminated.
§ 1444. Methods of determination — Notice 1332
§ 1445. Same — Insolvency of the lessor 1334
§ 1446. Same — Death of tenant 1334
§ 1447. Periodical tenancies 1334
§ 1448. Notice to quit — Parol consent 1336
§ 1449. Same — Tenancy from year to year 1337
§ 1450. Same — Tenancies for less than a year 1338
CONTENTS. xlvii
PAGE
§ 1451. Same— Same— Quarterly tenancy 1338
§ 1453. Same— Same— Monthly tenancy . 1339
§ 1458. Same — Same— Half -monthly tenancy 1340
§ 1454. Same— Same— Weekly tenancy 1341
§ 1455. Same — By tenant 1342
§ 1456. Same— Parol or in writing I343
§ 1457. Same — Service of notice of 1344
§ 1458. Same — Waiver of notice 1344
CHAPTER XXIII.
ESTATES AT SUFFERANCE.
Section I. Nature of the estate.
Section II. Incidents of the estate.
Section III. How estate created.
Section IV. How estate terminated.
Section I. — Nature of the Estate.
§ 1459. Definition 1346
§ 1460. Nature of the possession 1346
§ 1461. Tenure of the estate 1347
Section II. — Incidents of the Estate.
§ 1463. Introductory — Rights and liabilities of tenant 1347
§ 1463. Estoppel of tenant to deny owner's title 1348
§ 1464. Improvements by a tenant at sufferance 1349
§ 1465. Notice to quit— Service of 1350
§ 1466. Same — Time to remove 1351
§ 1467. Trespass and ejectment by tenant 1351
§ 1468. Liabihty and damages 1353
Section III. — How Estate Cheated.
§ 1469. By act of law 1353
§ 1470. By act of the parties 1353
§ 1471. By lawful entry 1353
§ 1473. Who are tenants at sufferance 1353
Section TV. — How Estate Terminated.
g 1473. Introductory 1356
§ 1474. Modes of entry 1356
xlviii
CO^'TENTS.
CHAPTER XXIV.
SEcnos
I.
Section
n.
Section
m.
Section
IV.
Section
T.
Section
XI.
Section
\ii.
Section
S III
ESTATES BY MARRIAGE.
Husband's estate in wife's realty.
Husband's estate jure uxoris.
Homestead exemption — Introductory.
Homestead exemption — ^Who entitled to.
Homestead exemption — ^Property subject to.
Homestead exemption — ^How acquired.
Homestead exemption — Termination.
Homestead exemption — Construction and procedure.
§ U"5.
§ liV6.
g U77.
g 147S.
§ 1479.
§ 1480.
g 1481.
§ 14S-3.
§ 1483.
§ 14S4.
g 14S5.
§ 14.S6.
§ 14S7.
§ 14SS.
§ 1489.
g 1490.
§ 1491.
§ 1492.
g 1493.
g 1494.
§ 1495.
§ 1496.
g 1497.
§ 1498.
§ 1499.
g 1500.
g 1501.
S 1502.
Section I. — Husband's Estate in "Wife's Realty.
FAGB
Introductory 1358
Estate during coverture — Effect of death or divorce 1359
Estate in wife's estate of inheritance 1359
Estate in wife's life estate 1360
Estate in wife's dower estate 1363
Section H. — Husband's Estate Juse Uxokis.
Introductory — Nature of tlie estate 1363
Distinguished from cxutesy initiate 1365
Incidents of the estate — Generally 1366
Same — 1. Right of alienation 1367
Same — 2. Right to maintain action 1367
Same— 3. Right to lease 1368
Same — 4. Right to rents and profits 1368
Same — 5. Right to the beneficial seisin 1369
Same — 6. LiabiUty for waste 1369
To what estates of wife attach 1370
How estate prevented from attaching 1370
Same — 1. By settlement 1371
Same — 2. By conveyance during coverture 1373
Same — Same — Xew Tork doctrine 1373
Same — Same — In Xew England states 1374
Same — Same — In other states 1375
Same — 3. By statutory enactment 1376
How estate barred 1377
Statutory changes 1377
Section HI. — ^Hoiiestead Exemption — ^Istroductoet.
definition 1378
Purpose and policy of 1379
Homesteads favored in law 1880
Nature and incidents of homestead estate 1381
CONTENTS. Xlix
FAQB
§ 1503. What constitutes a homestead 1383
§ 1504. Kinds of lioniesteads— 1. Rural and urban 1387
§ 1505. Same— 3. Mixed homesteads 1387
§ 1506. Same— 3. Business homesteads 1390
§ 1507. Title and tenure necessary to support liomestead 1393
Section IV. — Homestead Exemfhon — Who Entitled to.
§ 1508. Who may claim homestead exemption — Generally 1395
§ 1509. Same— Head of famUy 1396
§ 1510. Same — Same — Unmarried person 1400
§ 1511. Same — Same — A wife 1401
§ 1512. Same — Same — A widower or widow 1403
§ 1513. Executions ex delicto — Not affected by 1403
§ 1514. Effect of death or loss of family on 1403
§ 1515. Same — Marital survivor 1406
§ 1516. Wife's rights in homestead exemption 1407
§ 1517. Widow's right in homestead exemption 1409
§ 1518. Same — Non-resident widow 1410
§ 1519. Same — Effect on, of assignment of dower 1411
§ 1530. Same — Ante-nuptial contract and re-marriage 1413
§ 1531. Same — Actions affecting 1413
§ 1533. Children's rights in homestead exemption 1413
Section V. — Homestead Exemption — Property Subject to.
§ 1533. What property subject to homestead — Generally 1415
§ 1534. Same — Business property 1416
§ 1535. Same— Same— Use as a hotel 1417
§ 1536. Same — Community property 1418
§ 1537. Same — Contiguous premises 1418
§ 1538. Same— Double houses 1430
§ 1539. Same — Encumbered property 1421
§ 1530. Same— Equitable estates 1431
§1531. Same — Same — Possession under contract of purchase 1423
§ ir):;3. Same— Estates by the curtesy 1423
§ 1533. S:ime— Estates by the entirety 1423
§ 1534. Same— Estates for life and for years 1424
§ 1535. Same — Leasehold estates 1424
§ 1536. Same — Joint tenancies and tenancies in common 1434
§ 1537. Same— Land purchased witli pension money 1437
§ 1538. Same— Same— With proceeds of pension checli 1430
§ 1539. Same— Offices, shops, and store 1431
§ 1540. Same— Partnership realty 1433
§ 1541. Same— Same— In house built with partnersliip funds 1432
§ 1543. Same — Tenement houses 1433
§ 1543. Same— Wife's separate estate 1434
§ 1544. Amount and location of homestead — Introductory 1434
§ 1545. Same— Rural homesteads 1437
§ 1546. Same — Urban homesteads 1438
4
1 CONTENTS.
PAGE
§ 1547. Same — Contiguous parcels of land 1439
§ 1548. Same— Shifting homesteads 1440
Section VI. — Homestead Exemption — How Acquired.
§ 1549. How homestead acquired 1441
§ 1550. Same — 1. Occupancy and use 1441
§ 1551. Same — Same — Necessity for occupancy 1442
§ 1553. Same — Same — Same — Intention to occupy ^. . 1444
§ 1553. Same — Same — Nature of occupancy 1445
§ 1554. Same — Same — Same — Exclusive use as a home 1446
§ 1555. Same — 3. Declaration and election 1446
§ 1556. Same — 3. Dedication and appropriation 1447
§ 1557. Same — 4. Setting apart — Judicial proceedings , 1448
§ 1558. Eights of husband in and over homestead 1449
§ 1559. Eights of wife in and over homestead 1451
Section VII.— Homestead Exemption— Termination.
§ 1560. How homestead terminated 1453
§ 1561. Same — 1. By abandonment 1454
§ 1563. Same — Same — Temporary removal 1456
§ 1563. Same — Same — What amounts to an abandonment 1460
§ 1564. Same — Same — Intention to abandon 1461
§ 1565. Same — Same — Change of intention 1463
§ 1566. Same— Same— By husband 1463
§ 1567. Same— Same— By wife 1463
§ 1568. Same — Same — By widow 1464
§ 1569. Same — Same — By infant children 1464
g 1570. Same — Same — Evidence of abandonment 1465
§ 1571. Same — Same — Effect of abandonment 1486
§ 1573. Same— 3. By alienation 1467
§ 1573. Same— Same— By husband 1468
§ 1574. Same — Same — Same — Wliere homestead abandoned 1470
§1575. Same — Same — Same — Where wife insane or living apart. . 1471
§ 1576. Same— Same— Same— After wife's death 1473
§ 1577. Same— Same— By wife 1472
§ 1578. Same — Same — By husband and wife jointly 1473
§ 1579. Same — Same — Eelinquishment of homestead 1476
§ 1580. Same — Same — Eecord of instrument 1477
§ 1581. Same — Same — Forced alienation 1477
§ 1583. Same — Same— Form and sufficiency of instrument 1478
§ 1583. Same — Same — Fraudulent conveyance 1480
§ 1584. Same — Same — Eestraint upon alienation 1483
§ 1585. Same — Same — Same — Contract to convey — Specific per-
formance 1484
§ 1586. Same— Same — Same — Damages for failure to convey 1487
§ 1587. Same — 3. By incumbrance 1487
§ 1588. Same — Same — By husband 1489
§ 1589. Same — Same — By husband and wife 1490
CONTENTS. li
PAGE
§ 1590. Same — Same — Purchase-money mortgage and trust-deed, 1491
§ 1591. Same — Same — Sale under mortgage foreclosure 1493
§1592. Same— 4. By forfeiture 1495
§ 1593. Same — 5. By liabilitj' for claims of creditors 1496
§ 1594. Same — Same — Liability for purchase-money 1496
8 1595. Same — Same — Same — Wliat is purchase-money 1497
§ 1596. Same — Same — Same — Money used in purcliasing outstand-
* ing title 1498
§ 1597. Same — Same — On attachment 1499
§ 1598. Same — Same — On execution 1501
§ 1599. Same — Same — On judgment 1504
§ 1600. Same — 6. By waiver of homestead rights 1505
Section VIII. — Homestead Exemption— Construction aud Practice.
§ 1601. Inti'oductory — Constitutional and statutory provisions. . . . 1506
§ 1602. Constitutionality of statutes creating homesteads 1508
§ 1603. Same — Varying constitutional provision 1509
§ 1604. Same— Retroactive statute's 1509
§ 1605. Construction of homestead statutes 1513
§ 1606. Same — Retroactive construction 1516
§ 1607. Protection of homesteads — Mortgage not foreclosed when, 1518
§ 1608. Descent of homesteads — Disposition by will 1519
§ 1609. Actions affecting homestead — Pleadings 1522
§ 1610. Same— Wife as party to 1523
CHAPTER XXV
EQUITABLE ESTATES— USES.
Section I. Origin and history of uses.
Section II. Uses before the statute of uses.
Section III. Uses under the statute of uses.
Section IV. Modern docti-ine of uses.
Section I. — Origin and History of Uses.
§ 1611. Introduction of uses — Saving from attainders 1525
§ 1612. Same — Effect on system of conveyancing 1527
§ 1613. Same— Time of introduction. 1527
§ 1614. Derivation of uses — Fidei-commissum 1528
§ 1615. Reason for the fldei-comm,issum 1528
§ 1616. Hceres fiduciarius — Jusprecarium 1529
§ 1617. Fidei-commissa — Historical origin 1529
§ 1318. Cestui que use. — Clerical chancellors 1530
g 1619. Secret uses — Chancery could not enforce 1531.
§ 1620. Introduction of writ of subpoena 1531
§ 1621. Same — Checks upon the chancellors 1532
§ 1622. Same— Abuses of writ restrained 1533
lii CONTENTS.
Section II. — Uses Before the Statute of Uses.
PAGE
§ 1623. Definition — Rights and powers of trustee 1534
§ 1624. Distinction between uses and trusts 1535
§1625. How uses created — Separating beneficial use and seisin.. . 1535
§ 1626. Same— By declaration 1535
§ 1627. Same— By feoffment 1536
§ 1628. Same— By resulting use 1536
§ 1629. Same — Same — In what estates 1537
§ 1630. Same — Consideration to support 1537
§ 1631. Estates in uses — All common-law estates 1538
§ 1632. Who may be grantees to uses 1539
§ 1633. Same— Corporations 1539
§ 1634. What may be conveyed to uses 1541
§ 1635. Incidents of uses — Introductory 1541
§ 1636. Same— Alienation 1542
§ 1637. Same — Disposition by will 1543
§ 1638. Same— Forfeiture for attainder 1543
§ 1639. Enforcement of use 1544
§ 1640. Lost by forfeiture 1545
Section III.— Under the Statute of Uses.
§ 1641. History of the statute of uses 1546
§ 1642. Adoption of the statute in the United States 1548
§ 1643. Uses under the statute 1550
§ 1644. When statute operates 1551
§ 1645. What property may be conveyed to uses 1553
§ 1646. Who may be seized to uses 1554
§ 1647. Feoifee in esse requisite 1555
§ 1648. Feoffee and cestui que use same person — Merger 1556
§ 1649. Cestui que use in esse necessary 1556
§ 1650. Use in esse necessary 1557
§ 1651. Use upon use 1558
§ 1652. Active and passive uses 1559
§ 1653. Use to married women 1560
§ 1654. Words creating use — Limitations 1563
§ 1655. Constructions of uses 1563
§ 1656. Same — Rules of construction 1564
§ 1657. Uses executed wlien 1565
§ 1658. Extinguishment and supervision 1566
Section IV. — Modern Doctrine of Uses.
§ 1659. Contingent, etc., uses 1568
§ 1660. Contingent future uses — Scintilla juris 1567
§ 1661. Same— Meaning of term 1568
§ 1662. Same — Springing uses 1569
§ 1663. Same — Shifting or secondaiy use 1569
§ 1664. Same — In chattel interests — Future use in 1570
§ 1665. Same — Defeating springing and shifting uses 1570
§ 1666. Same— Incidents of spi-inging and shifting uses 1571
CONTENTS.
Hii
CHAPTER XXVI.
EQUITABLE ESTATES— TRUSTS.
Section
I.
Section
II.
Section
III.
Section
IV.
Section
V.
Section
VI.
Section
VII.
Section VIII.
Section
IX.
Section
X.
Section
XI.
Section
XII.
Section XIII.
Section XIV.
Section
XV.
Section
XVI.
Nature and origin.
Creation and extent of trust.
Delivery and acceptance of trusts.
Kinds of trusts.
Trustee — Appointment, resignation, and removal.
Trustee — Power of.
Who may be beneficiary.
Validity and construction of trusts.
How trusts established.
Jurisdiction over trusts.
Eights and liabilities under trusts.
Sale and assignment of trust property.
Adverse possession.
Renunciation of trust.
Revocation of trust.
Extinction and termination of trust.
§ 1667.
§ 1668.
§ 1669.
§ 1670.
§ 1671.
§ 1672.
S 1673.
§ 1674
§ 1675.
§ 1676.
§ 1677.
§ 1678.
§ 1679.
§ 1680.
§ 1681.
§ 1682.
§ 1683.
§ 1684.
§ 1685.
§ 1686.
§ 1687.
Section I. — Nature and Origin.
PAGE
Introductory — Definition 1573
Origin of ti-usts — Early English statute 1575
Incidents of trusts — Introductory 1576
Same— Right to title 1576
Same — Liability for debts 1579
Same — Merger 1579
In what estates trusts created 1581
Section II. — Creation and Extent op Trusts.
Introductory — At common law — First rule 1583
Same — Same — Second Rule 1583
Same — Same — Third rule 1584
Same— In United States 1584
Declaration of trust — Necessity for 1586
Same — Who may make 1587
Same — When made 1588
Same — How made 1588
Same — By instrument in writing 1589
Same— By will 1591
Same — Form of words 1591
Same— Words of limitation 1594
Estate taken by trustee 1595
Same — Remainder 1596
liv CONTENTS.
Section III.— Delivery and Acceptance.
FAQE
§ 1688. Delivery of instrument. 1597
§ 1689. Acceptance— By trustee 1598
§ 1690. Same— Same— Effect of declination 1599
§ 1691. Same — By cestui que trust 1600
Section IV. — Kinds of Trusts.
§ 1693. Introductory— Charitable trusts 1602
§ 1693. Active and passive trusts '. 1604
§ 1694. DiscretionaMry and dii-ectory 1608
§ 1695. Executed and executory 1608
§ 1696. Express trusts 1609
§ 1697. Same— In land 1610
§1698. Implied trusts— Definition 1611
§ 1699. Same— How created 1613
§ 1700. Same — Not within the statute of uses 1614
§ 1701. Same — Within statute of limitations 1615
§ 1702. Same — Constructive trusts 1615
§ 1703. Same— Same— Trusts de son tort 1618
§ 1704. Same — Same — Trusts ex malefacio 1619
§ 1705. Same — Same — Acquisition and disposition of property—
By trustee 1620
§ 1706. Same— Same— Same— Fraud in 1683
§ 1707. Same — ^Voluntary conveyance in fraud of creditors 1623
§ 1708. Same— Precatory trusts 1636
§ 1709. Same — Same — Words and expressions creating 1638
§ 1 710. Same — Same — American doctrine 1600
§ 1711. Same — Resulting trusts — Introductory 1633
§1713. Same— How created 1634
§ 1713. Same— Same— Exception to the rule 1686
§ 1714. Same — Same — ^Where part of trust only declared, etc 1636
§ 1715. Same — Same — By payment of purchase-money 1638
§ 1716. Same— Same— Same— Parol proof 1641
§ 1717. Same — Same — By purchase with funds of another 1643
§ 1718. Same — Same — Same — Requisites 1645
§ 1719. Same — Same — Same — Reason for the rule 1647
§ 1730. Same— Same— Same— Parol proof 1648
§ 1731. Same — Same — By agreement to purchase for another 1649
§ 1733. Same — Same — By payment of part of purchase price 1650
§ 1733. Same — Statutory provisions 1653
§ 1734. Same— When arises 1653
§ 1735. Same — Consideration requisite 1653
§ 1736. Same — How established — Parol evidence 1653
§ 1727. Passive trusts 1654
Section V.— Trustee— Appointment, Resignation, and Removal.
§ 1738. Who may be trustee 1655
CONTENTS. Iv
PAGE
§ 1739. Appointment and change 1659
§ 1730. Resignation of trustee 1660
§ 1731. Removal of trustee 1661
§ 1733. Survivoi-ship of trust 1663
Section VI. — Trustees — Duty and Powers of.
§ 1733. Duties of trustee 1663
§ 1734. Same— To furnisli support 1665
§ 1735. Same— To invest funds 1666
§ 1736. Powers of trustees 1666
§ 1737. Same — ^Delegation of personal trust 1667
§ 1738. Other powers 1667
Section VII. — Who may be Beneficiaeies.
§ 1739. Introductory 1670
§ 1740. Trusts for benefit of third persons 1671
§ 1741. Trusts for benefit of married women 1673
§ 1743. Same — Pennsylvania rule 1673
Section VIII. — Vaudity and Construction of Trusts.
§ 1743. Introductory 1674
§ 1744. Aliens— Trusts by and for 1679
§ 1745. Statutory regulations — New York statute 1680
§ 1746. Trusts to accumulate income 1680
§ 1747. Immoral trusts — Atheistical books 1681
§ 1748. Trusts violating rule against perpetuities 1681
§ 1749. Trusts void for uncertamty 1683
§ 1750. Public charities 1684
§ 1751. Trusts to religious uses 1686
§ 1753. Bequests to burying-grounds, etc 1686
§ 1753. Construction of trusts — Introductory 1689
§ 1754. Same — ^Rules of construction 1693
§ 1755. Same— Rule in Shelley's Case 1693
§ 1756. When executed by statute — Pennsylvania rule 1694
Section IX. — How Trusts Established.
§ 1757. Introductory — Burden of proof 1695
§ 1758. Proof of trust— Written instrument 1696
§ 1759. Same — Same— Consideration 1696
g 1760. Same— By parol 1699
§ 1761. Same— By declaration of trust 1703
§ 1763. Same — Same — Declarations of trustee 1703
Section X.— Jurisdiction of Trusts.
§ 1763. Equitable cognizance 1703
§ 1764. Reason for the rule 1704
Ivi CONTENTS.
Section XI. — Rights and Liabilities Under Trusts.
PAGE
§1765. Introductory 1706
§ 1766. Of trustee— In respect to beneficiary 1707
§ 1767. Same — In respect to trust property — Estate and title 1709
§ 1768. Same — Same — Continuance of estate 1711
§ 1769. Same — Same — At common law 1711
§ 1770. Same — Same — ^Right to maintain action 1712
§ 1771. Same — In management of estate 1713
§ 1773. Same — Same — General powers 1717
§ 1773. Same— Same— Investment 1718
§ 1774. Same — Same — Same — In name of trustee 1719
§ 1775. Same — Same — Same — How investment made 1720
§ 1776. Same — Same— Same — In what investment to be made 1721
§1777. Same- Same— Right to sue 1723
§ 1778. Same — Same — Liabilities for mismanagement 1723
§ 1779. Same — Same — Allowance for improvements 1735
§ 1780. Same — Accounting and discharge 1737
§ 1781. Of co-tenants — Nature of estate taken — Survivorship 1739
§ 1783. Sam&-Dutyof 1730
§ 1783. Same— Liability of —Generally : 1733
§ 1784. Same — Same — For acts of each other 1734
§ 178S. Of beneficiary- Mutual relations 1 735
§ 1786. Same— Title and interest of 1736
§1787. Same— Enforcement of trusts 1737
§ 1788. Same— Same— When enforced 1739
§ 1789. Same— Rights and powers of 1740
§ 1790. Same— Same— To call for legal title 1741
§ 1791. Same — Same — Same — When reconveyance presumed 1743
§ 1793. Same — Same — To maintain ejectment 1744
§ 1793. Same— Estoppel of 1745
§ 1794. Of third parties — Creditors of beneficiary 1746
§ 1795. Same — For performance of trust 1749
Section XII. — Sale and Assignment op Property.
§ 1796. When may be made— Generally 1750
§ 1797. Same — Upon demand of beneficiary 1753
§ 1798. Same — Power of trustee to sell 1754
§ 1799. Same — Same — Notice of sale under trust 1755
§ 1800. Same — Conveyance in contravention of trust 1756
§ 1801. Same — Same — Liability of trustee 1756
§ 1803. Same — Setting sale aside — Inadequacy of price 1757
§ 1803. Purchaser or assignee takes subject to trust 1759
§ 1804. Same — Following property 1759
§ 1805. Same — Purchaser without notice 1763
§ 1806. Same — Purchaser withnotice 1764
§ 1807. Purchase by trustee— Sale voidable 1766
§ 1808. Same — Legal or actual fiduciary relations 1769
§ 1809. Same — Purchase from cestui que trust 1772
CONTENTS. Ivii
PAGE
§ 1810. Same — Purchase at sale of co- trustee 1773
§ 1811. Same — Purchase at sherifiE's sale 1773
§ 1813. Same — Purchase through third person 1774
§ 1813. Same — Purchase voidable only 1775
y 1814. Same — Same — ^Who may applj' to set aside sale 1775
§ 1815. Same — Rights and title of purchaser 1776
Section XIII. — Adverse Possession.
§ 1816. Introductory 1779
§ 1817. In express trusts 1780
§ 1818. In implied trusts 1780
§ 1819. Statute of limitations — Express trusts 1780
§ 1830. Same— Constructive trusts 1783
§ 1821. Same — Running against trustee 1784
Section XIV.— Rentjncia.tion of Trust.
§ 1833. Introductory 1785
§ 1823. Renunciation by trustee 1787
§ 1834. Same— Effect of refusal to act 1787
§ 1835. Renunciation by beneficiary 1788
Section XV. — Revocation op Trust.
§ 1836. Voluntary trust — Power of revocation in deed 1789
§ 1837. Same — Revocation after acceptance 1790
§ 1838. Assignment for benefit of creditors 1793
Section XVI. — Extinction and Termination op Trust.
§ 1829. Introductory 1796
§ 1830. Condition for termination — Deed of married woman 1798
§ 1831. By surrender of trust 1799
§ 1833. By death of beneficiary 1800
§ 1833. By reconveyance of property 1800
§ 1834. By sale under will 1801
CHAPTER XXVII.
EQUITABLE ESTATES— POWERS.
§ 1835. Definition of power 1804
§ 1836. Kinds of powers 1804
§ 1837. Creation ot power— Form of words 1806
§ 1838. Same — Instrument creating 1807
§1839. Same— New York doctrine 1807
g 1840. Powers distinguished from estates 1810
§ 1841. Limitation of — Rule against perpetuities 1811
Iviii CONTENTS.
FAOE
§ 1843. Same— Same— Validity of appointment 1813
§ 1843. Construction of powers — Introductory 1813
§ 1844. Same— Enlarging estate 1814
§ 1845. Same — Life estate with power of sale 1815
§ 1846. Same — Power to sell and use proceeds 1816
§ 1847. Same — Personal confidence 1816
§ 1848. Same — Power to trustees " and their heirs " 1317
§ 1849. Same — Power to-a trustee "and his assigns" 1818
§ 1850. Powers of appointment 1819
§ 1851. Same— Extent of estate 1830
§ 1852. Same — Power of disposal 1831
§ 1853. Same— Power to appoint by will 1833
§ 1854. Same — Absolute estate vests when 1833
§ 1855. Liabilities of estates — For debt of donee 1834
§ 1856. Same— For debts of beneficiary 1836
§ 1857. Who may be donees 1836
§ 1858. Who may be appointees 1838
§ 1859. Who may execute powers 1829
§ 1860. How executed 1830
§ 1861. Same— Power to sell , 1831
§ 1863. Same — Same — Given to several of a class 1833
§ 1863. Power to married women 1836
§ 1864. Same— By implication 1836
§ 1865. Same — Excessive execution 1837
§ 1866. Same — Successive execution 1838
§ 1867. Same— Defective execution 1839
§ 1868. Non-execution of power 1840
§ 1869. Delegation on assignment of power 1841
§ 1870. Survival of powers 1843
§ 1871. Extinguishment and merger of power 1843
§ 1873. Suspension and destruction of power 1844
CHAPTER XXVIII.
CONDITIONAL ESTATES.
§ 1873. Introductory 1846
§ 1874. Definition of conditional estates 1847
§ 1875. Nature of conditional estates 1848
§ 1876. Same— Assignment , 1848
§ 1877. Distinguished from a trust 1850
§ 1878. Distinguished from conditional limitation 1851
§ 1879. Kinds of conditions 1851
§ 1880. Same — Express or in deed 1851
§ 1881. Same— Imphed or in law 1853
§ 1883. Same — Precedent condition 1853
§ 1883. Same — Same — Copulative condition 1853
S 1884. Same — Same — Particular estate 1854
CONTENTS. lix
PAGE
§ 1885. Same — Subsequent condition 1854
§ 1886. How created— Form of words 1855
§ 1887. At what time created — As to things executed 1856
§ 1888. Same — As to things executory 1857
§ 1889. To what estates annexed 1857
§ 1890. VaUd conditions — Conditions precedent 1837
§ 1891. Same — Conditions subsequent 1858
§ 1892. Void conditions — Conditions precedent 1859
§ 1893. Same — Conditions subsequent 1860
§ 1894. Failure to perform condition— EfiEect 1860
§ 1895. Same — Who may enter for breach 1861
§ 1896. Same — Same — After conveyance 1862
§ 1897. Same — Apportionment 1863
§1898. Performance of condition 1862
§ 1899. Same — Time of performance 1864
§ 1900. Same — Place of performance 1865
§ 1901. Forfeiture by non-performance 1866
§ 1903. Same— Waiver of 1867
§ 1903. Same — Excusing non-performance 1869
§ 1904. Same— Belief against 1869
§ 1905. Same— Who bound by 1873
CHAPTER XXIX.
JOINT ESTATES.
Section
I.
Estates in severalty.
Section
II.
Estates in joint tenancy.
Section
III.
Estates in common.
Section
IV.
Estates in coparcenary.
Section
V.
Estates in entirety. ^
Section
VI.
Estates in copartnership.
Section
VII.
Incidents common to joint estates
Section VIII.
Partition of joint estates.
Section I.— Estates in Severalty.
§ 1906. Introductory 1874
§ 1907. Holding in severalty 1874
§ 1908. Holding jointly 1874
Section II.— Estates in Joint Tenancy.
§ 1909. Definition 18"6
§ 1910. Nature of the estate 18^0
§ 1911. How created 18'''''
§ 1913. Same— ("ircumstances requisite 1878
§ 1913. Same— Unity of interest 18'''8
Ix CONTENTS.
PAOE
§ 1914. Same— Unity of title 1879
g 1915. Same— Unity of time 1880
§ 1916. Same — Unity of possession 1880
§ 1917. Incidents of joint tenancy — Survivorship 1881
g 1918. Same— Entry 1883
§ 1919. Same— Not favored in equity 1883
§ 1930. What may be held in joint tenancy 1883
§ 1931. Who may be joint tenants 1884
§ 1933. Same— Trustees 1884
§ 1933. Same— Mortgagees 1885
§ 1934. Same— Husband and wife 1886
§ 1935. Same— Infants 1887
§ 1936. Same — Executors and administrators 1887
§ 1937. Same— Corporations 1888
§ 1938. Obligations and liabilities 1888
§ 1939. Same — To contribute share of purcliase price 1889
§ 1930. Same — To contribute share of taxes 1889
§ 1981. Same — To contribute share of incumbrance 1890
§ 1933. Same — To contribute share of expenses for repairs 1891
§ 1933. Same — To contribute share of expenses for improvements. 1898
§ 1934. Same— To pay rent 1893
§ 1935. Same — To account for rents and profits 1895
§ 1936. Same — To share burdens and losses of common property. . 1896
§ 1937. Adverse possession of joint tenant — What constitutes 1897
§ 1938. Same— Ouster and disseisin 1898
§ 1939. Same— Same— Effect of ouster 1899
§ 1940. Same— Statute of limitations 1899
§ 1941. Actions by and against joint tenants — By tenants 1900
§ 1943. Same — Against tenants 1903
§ 1943. Actions betvreen joint tenants 1903
§ 1944. Same— At common lavsr 1903
§ 1945. Same— In equity 1905
Sbction III. — Estates in Common.
§ 1946. Definition 1907
§ 1947. Nature of the estate 1907
§ 1948. Same — Independence of interest 1908
§ 1949. Creation of the estate 1909
§ 1950. Incidents of the estate 1910
§ 1951. Possession by co-tenant 1913
§ 1953. Same— Ouster 1915
§ 1953. Joint estates — Tenancies in common vphen 1917
§ 1954. Tenancies in common between husband and wife 1919
§ 1955. Riglits and power of tenants in common 1931
§ 1956. Same — To enter into agreements concerning common
property 1931
§ 1957. Same — To occupy common property 1933
^ 1958. Same — To convey common property 1923
g 1959. Same — Same — Whole of property 1923
CONTENTS. Ixi
PAGE
§ 1960. Same— Same— Undivided part of property 1933
§ 1961. Same— Same— Specified part of property 1924
§ 1963. Same— To lease common property 1935
§ 1963. To license acts upon common property 1926
Section IV. — Estates in Coparcenary.
§ 1964. Definition 1926
§ 1965. When estate vests 1937
§ 1966. Distinguished from joint tenancies 1928
§ 1967. Incidents of estate 1928
Section V. — Estates in Entirety.
§ 1968. Definition and origin 1939
§ 1969. Distinguished from joint tenancies 1930
§ 1970. Common-law rule 1931
§ 1971. Same — In what states in force 1933
§ 1973. Same — In what states changed hy statute 1933
§ 1973. Tenants in common — Effect of marriage between 1938
§ 1974. Husband and wife — Holding by moieties 1938
§ 1975. Survivorship 1940
§ 1976. Same — Husband's control — Common-law doctrine 1941
§ 1977. Same— Modern rule 1943
§ 1978. Same — Lease by husband 1944
§ 1979. Same — Conveyance by husband 1945
g 1980. Same— Liability for husband's debts 1045
§ 1981. Same— Wife's Inchoate interests 1946
§ 1983. Community property — Origin of doctrine of 1946
§ 1983. Same— What constitutes 1946
§ 1984. Same — Same — Pi-operty purchased by husband 1947
§ 1985. Same — Same — Property purchased by wife 1948
§ 1986. Same— Liability for debts 1949
§ 1987. Same— Descent of 19.50
§ 1988. Effect of statute abolishing joint tenures 1950
§ 1989. Effect of married women enabling statutes 1951
§ 1990. Effect of divorce 1953
§ 1991. Effect of partition 1955
Section VI. — Estates in Copartnership.
§ 19P3. Definition 1956
% 1993. Nature of the estate 1957
§ 1994. When treated as personal property 1957
§ 1995. Interest of partners in 1959
§ 1996. Incidents of the estate— Alienation 1961
§ 1997. Same— Liability for debts 1963
§ 1998. Same— Liability to curtesy and partition 1963
§ 1999. Same— Descent of 1964
Ixii CONTENTS.
Section VII.— Incidents Common to Joint Estates.
PAEB
§ 2000. Incidents to the estate — The four unities 1965
§ 2001. Same — Action by and against tenants 1966
§ 2003. Same— Alienation by tenants 1967
§ 2003. Same— Lease by tenants 1967
§ 2004. Same — Livery of seisin 1967
§ 2005. Same— Right of survivorship 1968
§ 2006. Same— Same— How destroyed 1969
§ 2007. Same— Waste 1969
Section VIII. — Partition of Joint Estates.
§ 2008. Introductory 1970
§ 2009. Definition of partition 1971
§ 3010. Partition at common law 1973
§ 2011. Partition imder statute 1974
§ 2013. Kinds of partition 1975
§ 2013. Same— Voluntary partition 1976
§ 2014. Same — Same — By arbitrators 1976
§ 2015. Same — Involuntary partition 1977
§ 2016. Same— Parol partition 1977
§ 2017. Same— Partial partition 1978
§ 2018. Who may have partition 1979
§ 2019. Same— Seisin requisite 1981
§ 2020. What may be partitioned 1983
§ 3031. Parties in action for partition 1983
§ 2023. Pleadings and practice in action for partition 1985
§ 2033. Trial of title in action in partition 1985
§ 3034. Judgment or decree in action for partition 1986
§ 3025. Manner of allotment 1987
§ 2036. Same— Owelty 1988
§ 3037. Same— Sale of land for division 1989
§ 3028. WaiTanty in partition deeds 1989
§ 2039. Effect of partition 1990
CHAPTER XXX.
MORTGAGES.
Section I. Origin and history.
Section II. Nature and validity.
Section III. Rights and liabilities under.
Section IV. Rights and liabilities under — continued.
Section V. Remedies incident to.
Section I. — Origin and History.
g 2030. Definition 1993
§ 2031. Origin of mortgages— Civil-law doctrine 1994
CONTENTS. Ixiii
PAGE
§ 3033. Same— Common-law doctrine 1994
§ 3033. Same— Equity doctrine 1995
§ 2034. Same— Same— Equity of redemption 1995
§ 2035. Modern English mortgages 1996
§ 3036. Doctrine of mortgages in the United States 1997
§ 20.37. Kinds of mortgages 2000
§ 3038. Same — Common-law mortgages 2001
§ 3039. Same— Equitable mortgages 2001
§ 3040. Same— Same— Deposit of title-deeds 3003
§ 3041. Same— Same— Same— In this country 2003
§ 2043. Same— Vendor's lien 2004
§ 2043. Same — Same— Who may claim 2006
§ 3044. Same — Same— Discharge of 2007
§ 2045. Same — Vendee's lien 2008
§ 2046. Welsh mortgages 2009
Section II.— Nature and Validity.
8 2047. Who may make mortgage— Common-law doctrine 3011
§ 2048. Same — Married woman 2011
§ 3049. Same — Imbeciles and lunatics 3013
§ 3050. Same — Corporations 2013
§ 2051. Same— Guardians, etc 2013
§ 3053. Who may take a mortgage 3013
§ 3053. What may be mortgaged 2015
§ 3054. Same — Improvements 2016
§ 2055. Same — After-acquired property 2017
§ 3056. Same— Growing crops 3030
§ 3057. What mortgage carries 2030
§ 2058. Same — Essentials of mortgage — Introductory 2023
§ 2059. Same— Parties to mortgage 2033
§ 2060. Same— Property to be mortgaged 2023
§ 2061. Same— Consideration 2024
§ 2063. Same — Same — Payment of money 2036
§ 2063. Same — Same — Performance of condition 2031
§ 3064. Same— Execution and delivery 2033
g 2065. Same— Registration 2035
§ 2066. Form of mortgage 2036
§ 3067. Same— Defeasance clause 2038
§ 3068. Same— Same— Form of defeasance 3039
§ 3069. Same— Same— In equity 2043
§ 2070. Conditional sale or mortgage 2043
§ 3071. Same — Parol evidence to explain 2045
§ 2073. Contemporaneous agreements 2050
§ 3073. Same — Agreement to repurchase 3051
§ 3074. Subsequent agreements 3055
§ 2075. Validity and effect of mortgages 2055
g 2076. Invalidity of mortgages 3059
Ixiv CONTENTS.
Section III. — Rights and Liabilities undee.
PAGE
g 2077. Mortgagor — Interests and rights 2063
g 2078. Same — Same — Eight to maintain action 2063
§ 2079. Same— Same— Before condition broken 2063
§ 2080. Same— Same— Eight to lease 2064
§ 2081. Same — Same — Eight to rents and profits 2065
§ 2082. Same— Same— Eight to emblements 2007
§ 2083. Same — Same — Eight to impi'ove 2037
§ 2084. Same — Same — Eight to convey — Subject to mortgage 2068
i< 2085. Same — Same — Same — Assumption of mortgage 2069
§ 2086. Same— Same— Right to redemption 2073
§2087. Same— Same— Same— Loss of 2075
§ 2088. Same — Same — Same — Contiibution on redemption 2075
§ 2089. Same — Same — Eight to possession 2076
§ 2090. Same — Same — Same — Agreement respecting 3078
§ 2091. Same— Duties of— To pay taxes 3079
§ 2093. Same— Same— To protect title 2030
§ 2098. Same — Same — To preserve premises 2080
§ 2094. Same— Liability of— To action at law 2081
P 3095. Same — Same — To sell equity of redemption 2083
§ 2096. Mortgagee — Interests and rights of — At common law 2084
§ 2097. Same— Same— Under statutes 2084
§ 2098. Same— Same— Eight to rents and profits 2085
§ 2099. Same— Duty of— To pay taxes 2086
§ 2100. Same— Same— To make repairs 2086
§ 2101. Same — Liabilities of — To account for rents and profits. .. . 2087
§2102. Same — Allowance for improvements and disbursements. . 2088
§ 2108. Tenure under mortgage 2090
§ 2104. Same — Adverse possession 2003
§ 3105. Same— Same— "What constitutes 2094
§ 2106. Same— Merger of interests 2095
Section IV. — Rights and Liabilities undee — continued.
§ 2107. Assignment of mortgagee's interest — How made 2099
§ 3108. Same — Who may make 2101
§ 3109. Same — Under common-law theory 2103
§ 3110. Same — Under the lien theory 2104
§ 2111. Same — Equitable assignment 2105
§ 2113. Same — Consideration 3108
§ 3118. Same — Notice and record 3109
g 2114. Same — Construction of 3110
§ 2115. Assignment of mortgagor's interest 3113
§ 2110. Same — Notice to mortgagee 2113
§ 3117. Insurance of property — By mortgagor 3113
p 2118. Same — Same — Misrepresentations in application 2114
g 2119. Same — Same — Violation of condition against alienation. . . 3115
§ 2020. Same — By mortgages 3117
§ 3121. Same— Same— Provision requiring insurance for benefit of. 3118
CONTENTS. Ixv
FAOE
§ 2132. Registry and priority 3119
§ 3133. Same— Index to record 3133
§ 2134. Same— Priority of registry 2123
§ 2125. Payment— By mortgagor 2136
§ 2136. Same— Same— Before maturity 2137
§ 2137. Same— Same— At matuiity 2128
§ 2128. Same — Same — After condition broken 2128
§ 3139. Same — Same — After decree of foreclosure 3129
§ 2130. Same — Same — Directing application 2129
§ 2131. Same— By third party— Effect 2130
§ 2133. Tender of payment— On law day 3131
§ 3133. Same— After default 3131
§ 3134. Same — After foreclosure commenced 3181
§ 3135. Re-lease and discharge — Form and effect 3133
§ 2136. Same— Wliat acts amount to 2132
§ 2137. Same— Effect of '. 2134
Section V. — Remedies Incident.
§ 2138. Subrogating mortgagees 2135
§ 2189. Tacking mortgages 2138
§ 2140. Enforcing mortgages — Foreclosures 2140
§ 3141. Same — Same— Nature of foreclosure 3143
§ 2143. Same — Same — Methods of foreclosure 3142
§ 2143. Same — Same — Foreclosure by entry and possession 3143
§ 3144. Same— Same— Strict foreclosure 3148
§ 3145. Same — Same — Statutory foreclosure 2145
§ 3146. Same — Same— By action in equity 3145
§ 3147. Same — Same — Parties to foreclosure — Parties plaintiff 2146
§ 2148. Same — Same — Same — Parties defendant 2149
§ 2149. Same — Same — Decree of foreclosure 3152
§ 2150. Same— Same— Same— Effect upon the land 2155
§ 3151. Same— Same— Same— Effect upon the debt 2157
§ 2152. Same — Same— Sale of mortgaged premises— Under decree. 2158
§ 2153. Same— Same— Same— Under power 2159
§3154. Same— Same— Same— Same— Extinguishment of power. . 2161
§ 2155. Same— Same— Same— Rights of purchaser 2161
§ 2156. Same— Same— Same— Purchase by mortgagee 2162
§ 2157. Same— Same— Same— Application of proceeds of sale 2164
§ 3158. Same— Same— Judgment for deficiency 3164
§ 2159. Redemption— Definition and process 2167
§ 2160. Same — Who may redeem 2169
§ 2161. Same— When redemption may be made 2178
§ 3163. Same— When right barred 2173
§ 2168. Same— Same— How right of barred or lost 2174
§ 3164. Same— Contribution on redemption 3176
§ 3165. Same— Same— Between sureties of the mottgagors 3177
§ 3166. Same— Same— Between mortgagor and his grantees 2178
§ 2167. Same— Same— Between mortgagor's grantees 2179
5
IXvi "■ CONTENTS.
TAOS
§ 3168. Same — Same— Between mortgagor's personal property and
pledged estate 2181
§ 2169. Same — Same — Between mortgagor's devisees, heirs, and
widow 3182
§ 2170. Same — Same — Agreements affecting rights of 3183
§ 2171. Same — Accounting by mortgagee 2184
§2172. Waste— Action for damages 3185
§ 2173. Same — Injunction against 3187
BOOK IV.
INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTOBY.
§ 3174. Incorporeal hereditaments — Definition 3188
§ 2175. Same— Kinds 3188
§ 2176. Same— How created * 3189
§ 2177. Same— How lost 3189
CHAPTER II.
RIGHTS OF COMMON.
§ 3178. Definition 2190
§ 2179. Kindsof []][[ 2193
§ 2180. Common of pasture 2192
§ 3181. Same — Common appendant 2193
§ 2182. Same — Common appurtenant 2192
§ 2183. Same — Common of vicinage 2194
§ 3184. Same — Common in gross 3194
§ 2185. Common of estovers 2195
§ 2186. Same — Not severable or apportionable 2196
§ 2187. Common of turbary 2196
§ 2188. Common of piscary 2197
§ 2189. Divesting right of common , 2198
§ 2190. Apportionment of common gigg
§ 2191. Same — Common of pasture 2199
§ 2192. Same— Common of estovers and piscary 3200
CONTENTS Ixvii
§ 2193. Extinguishment of common— By release 3300
§ 2194. Same — By conveyance 3300
§ 3195. Same — Unity of possession 3201
§ 2196. Same— By severance 3301
CHAPTEE III.
WAYS.
§ 3197. Introductory— Ways of two kinds— Public and private. . . 2303
§ 3198. Kinds of ways 3304
§ 2199. How acquired 3205
§ 3300. Same— By prescription 3205
§ 3201. Same — By dedication and condemnation 2305
§ 3303. Same— By grant 3306
g 3303. Same— From necessity 2307
§ 3304. Divesting ways 3208
§ 2205. Repairing ways 3308
§ 3306. Extinguishing rightof way 3308
§ 3307. How revived 3309
CHAPTER IV.
EASEMENTS AND SERVITUDES.
§ 2208. Definition 2210
§ 3209. Distinguished from license 2313
§ 2310. Distinguished from profits a prendre 3313
§ 3311. Distinguished from covenants 2314
§ 3312. Nature and incidents of 3315
§ 3318. Kinds of easements — Introductory 3216
§ 3314. Same— Private ways 3217
§ 3315. Same— Same— By grant 2218
§ 3216. Same — Same — By prescription 3319
§3317. Same— Same— By necessity 3230
§ 2318. Same— Air and light 3223
g 3219. Same — Same — How acquired 3322
§ 2220. Same— In waters 2224
§ 2331. Same — Same— How acquired 3335
§ 3333. Same — Same — In natural water-course 3337
§ 3323. Same — Same — In artificial water-course 3238
§ 2334. Same— Same— Percolating waters and swamps 3339
g 2235. Same— To lateral support 2381
§ 2236. Same— Same— How acquired 2234
§ 3337. Same— Same— Implied grant of lateral support 3234
§ 3238. Same— Party walls 2234
Ixviii CONTENTS.
PAGE
§ 3339. Same— Mines and mining 2337
§ 2380. Same — Legalized nuisance 2339
§ 2331. How created 2340
§ 2333. How lost or extinguished 3343
§ 3333. Same— How merged 3344
§ 2334. Same— By act of parties 3245
§ 2335. Same— By release 2247
§ 2336. Rights and liabilities of parties 2247
CHAPTER V.
RENTS.
§ 2237. Definition 2249
§ 3338. Nature of the estate 3350
§ 3339. Kinds of rents 2253
§ 2340. How payable 3253
§ 3341. Wlien payable 3255
§ 3343. Where i)ayable 2256
§ 3343. To whom payable 3356
g 3344. Who liable for— The tenant 3359
§ 3345. Same — Parties continuing to occupy 3361
§ 3346. Same — Assignee of tenant 3361
§ 3347. Same — Assignee for benefit of creditors. 3365
§ 3348. Same— Surety 3266
§ 3349. Apportionment 2367
§ 2350. Remedies of landlord 2270
§ 2251. Same — Suit for use and occupation 3370
§ 3353. Same— Suit for rent 3271
§ 3353. Same— Distress for rent 3373
BOOK V.
TITLE.
CHAPTER I.
FOUNDATION OF TITLE.
§ 3254. Introductory 3375
§ 3355. Government grants 3376
§ 3356. Other sources of title 3377
CONTENTS. Ixix
CHAPTER II.
HOW ACQUIRED.
Section I. By descent.
Section II. By original acquisition.
Section III. By public grant.
Section IV. By private grant.
Section V. By involuntary alienation.
Section I.— By Descent.
PAGE
§ 3257. Introductory 3378
§ 3358. Rules of descent 3379
§ 3359. Same— To lineal descendants 3379
§ 3360. Same— Same— Posthumous children 3379
§ 3361. Same— Same— Illegitimate children 3380
§ 2263. Same— Same— Adopted children 3383
§ 3363. Same— To lineal ancestors 3383
§ 2364. Same— Same— To father 3383
§ 3365. Same— Same— To mother 3384
§ 2366. Same— Same— To brothers and sisters . 3385
§ 3267. Same— Same— Same— Of the whole and half-blood 3286
§ 2368. Law governing descent of real property 2388
§ 2269. Alienage as a bar 2289
Section II.— By Original Acqihsitipn.
§ 3270. Introductory 3390
§ 3371. By prescription 2290
§ 2273. By accretion 3293
§ 2273. By adverse possession 2294
§ 2274. By statute of limitations 2298
§ 2275. By estoppel 2800
§ 2276. By abandonment 3303
Section III.— By Pcblio Grant.
§ 3277. Introductory 2304
§ 3378. Methods by which acquired 3305
S 3279. Same— By pre-emption 3306
§ 3380. Same— By homestead entry 3308
§ 3381. Same— By timber culture entry 3309
§ 3383. Same— By desert land entry 2309
§ 3383. Same— By entry under bounty or military land warrants . 3310
§ 3384. Same- By purchase at public auction or private sale 3311
Section IV.— By Private Grant.
§3385. Introductory 3311
Ixx ■ CONTENTS.
PAQE
§ 2286. Common-law conveyances 3313
§ 2387. Same— By feoffment 2313
§ 2288. Same— By gift 2313
§ 2289. Same— By grant 2313
§ 2290. Same— By lease 2314
§ 2291. Under statiite of uses 2314
§ 2392. Same — Covenant to stand seized 2315
§ 2293. Same— Bargain and sale 2318
§ 2294. Same — Same — Limiting estate to commence infuturo. ... 3318
§ 2295. Same — Lease and re-lease 2320
§ 8296. Modem conveyances — By warranty deed 2320
§ 3397. Same— By quit-claim deed 3331
Section V.— By Involtjktaby Alienation.
§ 3298. Introductory 3323
§ 3399. Under exercise of eminent domain 3326
§ 2300. Where persons under disability 3328
§ 3301. Where title is defective 2330
§ 3302. Where owner dies intestate 2333
§ 3303. Where owner fails or refuses to pay just debts 3333
§ 3304. Where owner fails or refuses to pay taxes 3335
CHAPTER III.
DEEDS.
§ 2305. Introductory 2338
§ 3306. Essentials of deeds 3338
§ 3307. On what to be written 3339
§ 3308. Sufficiency of writing 2339
§ 3309. Same— Filling blanks 3340
§ 2310. Wlio may convey by deed 2341
§ 2311. Same— Persons blind, deaf, and dumb 2341
§ 2312. Same— Corporations 2341
§ 3313. Who may not execute deeds — Infants 3343
§ 3314. Same — Same— Female infants 2344
§ 2315. Same— Same— Male infants 2344
§ 2316. Same— Idiots and lunatics 2344
§ 2317. Same— Married women 3345
§ 2318. Same— Persons attainted 2346
§ 2319. Who may be grantees — Aliens , 2347
§ 2330. Same— The wife 2347
§ 2321. Same— Corporations 3348
§ 2322. Consideration for deed 3348
§ 3323. Description of property 2350
§ 2324 Orderly parts of deed 2351
§ 2325. Reading before signing 3351
CONTENTS. Ixxi
FAOE
§ 2336. Signing and sealing 2353
§ 3837. Delivery of deed 3353
§3338. Same— Mode of delivery 3353
§ 3339. Same— Delivery in escrow 2354
§ 2330. Attestation 2354
§ 3331. Formal parts of a deed 2355
§ 2332. Same— The date 3355
§ 2333. Same — The parties to the instrument 2355
§ 3334. Same — Same — Description of parties 2356
§ 2335. Same— The description of the property 2356
§ 3336. Same— The recital 2358
§2337. Same— Tlie consideration 3359
§3338. Same— The granting clause 3359
§3339. Same— The habendum 2360
§2340. Same— The reddendum 23G1
§ 2341. Same— The covenants 2361
§ 2348. Same— The testimonium clause 2363
§ 2343. Same— The acknowledgment 2363
§2344. Recording deeds 2365
TABLE OF OASES.
Keferences are to pages.
Aaron v. Bayne, 760, 761
Abbe V. Goodwin, 2173, 2128
V, Neuton, 1625
Abendroth v, Greenwich, 2216
Abbot V. American Hard Rubber Co., 176S
Abbott V. Abbott, 1919, 2298
V. Allen, 2061
V. Bagley, 2346
V. Berry, 1987
V. Bosworth, 977, 1249
V. Cromartie, 1382, 1502
V. Gatch, 1247, 1248
V. Godfrey, 2038
V. Hampden Ins. Co., 2116
V. Heard, 2348
V. Jenkins, 423
V. Kesson, 2130, 2131
V. Parsons, 1030, 103 1
V. Steams, 1173, 2266
V. Sworder, 1697
V. The Essex Co., 308, 320, 321, 335, 418
Abbott's Exr, v. Reeves, 1750
Abbott of Bury v. Bokenham, 521
Abby zf. Billups, 1068, 1098, 1107, 1108
Abdy, Doe d. v. Stevens, 1139, 1146
Abeel v. RadclifE, 1003, 1087, 1088, 1590, 1591
Abel V. Heathcote, 1669, 1670
Abell V. Douglass, 368, 2058, 2289
V. Lothrop, 1475
Abercrombie v. Baldwin, 211, 1914
V. Bradford, 1794
V. Redpath, 2260
V. Riddle, 746
Aberdeen v. Blackmar, iioi
Abemethy v. Society of Church of Puritans,
32, 367 37, 38, 39
Abington v. Boston, 1456
V. Inhabitants of North Bridgewater,
1456
Abraham v. Bubb, 559, 576
V. Buff, 544
V. Twig, 1564
Abrahams -v. Tappe, 1139
Abrams v. Winshup, 342
Abshire v. State, loig
Academy of Music v. Hackett, io6r, 1154, 1155
Acer &. Westcott, 1777, 2359
Acheson «/. Miller, 1517
Achilles v. Willis, 1439
Acker v. Acker, 2175
V. Trueland, 1445
Ackerly v. Dygert, 515
Ackerman v. Burrows, igog
V. Emott, 1721, 1722
V. Gorton, 1809
V. Hensicker, 2120
V. Horicon Co., 2248
Ackerman v. Hunsicker, 2030
V. Lyman, 2271
V. Smiley, 1164
Ackland v. Ackland, 340
V. Lutley, 515, 969, 1006, 1596, 1605
V. Pring, 975
Ackley v. Chamberlain, 1386, 1387, 1392, 1416,
1417, 1418, 1442, 1445, 1501, 1502,
1504, 151S
Ackroyd v. Smith, 2217, 2238
V. Smithson, 1638
Acocks V. Phillips, 1061, 1154
Acton V. Blundell, 2231
V. Woodgate, 1713, 1793, 1794
Adair z/. Adair, 2108
V. Bogle, 1245, 1246
V. Brimmer, 1721
V. Lott, 585, sg8, 600, 601, 603, 612, 624,
626, 629, 679, 6S2, 692, 693, 703
V. Shaw, 1764
V. Stone, 1290
Adams, Re, 1824
Adams z/. Adams, 486, 751, 752, 940, 1021, 1357,
1411, 1589, 1594, 1598, 1659, 1661,
1786, 1788, 1797, 2252, 2257
V. Ames Iron Co., 1975, 1981, 1982
V. Andrews, 2240
V. Angell, 2098
V. fearron, 852, 856
V. Beach, 1116, 1122, 1123
V. Beadle, 132
V. Beale, iig, 1408, 1451, 1452
V. Bean, 2267
V. Beekman, 781, 815, 820, 826, 889
V. Brackett, 647
V. Bradley, 2151
V. Brereton, 555, 569
v. Briggs Iron Co., 2237
V. Buchanan, 200S
V. Buckland, 1888
V. Bucklin, 1004
V. Carter, 1245
7J. Chaplin, 383
V. Corriston, iggg, 2030, 2078, 2187
V. Cowherd, 2007
V. Cruft, 434
V. Decker, 1319
V. French, 976
V. Frothingham, 1922, 2293
V. Gale, i7r5
V, Gay, 2061
V. Goddard, 1163
V. Guerard, 2g7, 1548, 1649, 1694, 1700
V. Hagger, 1301
V. Jenkins, 1419
V. Johnson, 2001
V. Logan, 601, 603, 692, 693, 703
V. Mackey, 1375
V. McKesson, 1234, 1237
Ixxiii
Ixxiy
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Adams v. McPartlin, 2138
V. Marshall, 64, 65, 507, 2241
V. Palmer, 905, go8, 1906, 2323, 232**,
2333
•V. Parker, 2102, 2103
•u. Pease, 68, 2198
V. Perry, 299, 1548, 1606
V. Rockwell, 2303
•u. Ross, 281, 2S4, 286, 531, 532
V. Savage, 1538, 1568, 1569
V. Smith, 53
V. Stevens, 2038
•u. Storey, 882, 919
V. Tanner, 2020
V. Taunton, 1788
•V. The Briggs Iron Co., 84, 88, 8g, 811,
1924, 1988
■u. Wadham, 2070
V. Wilson, 1701
Adams Ex. Co. v. McDonald, 1315
Adamson v. Armitage, 1371
V. Ayers, 708
Addison v. Bowie, 1806
V, Crow, 2152
V. Dawson, 1032, 1033
V. Hack, 2212, 2246
V. Leavy, 2088
Adriance v. Hafkemeyer, 1131
Adsit V. Adsit, 880, 917, 918, 919, 935, 940, 946,
952, 955
jEtna Fire Ins. Co. v. Resh, 1932
.^tna Life Ins. Co. v. Corn, 810
v. Tyler, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2118
Agar t/. Young, 1149
Agate V. Gignoux, 996
•u. Lowenbeiii, 564
Agee V. Agee, 1815
Ager V. Young, 114S
Agnew V. Johnson, 1247, 1904
V. Renwick, 2132
Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Barnard, 2159
V. Montague, 632
Agricultural, Mechanical, etc., Assoc, v. Brews-
ter, 164S
Aheam v. Freeman, 2138
Ah Hee v. Crippen, 88
Ah Lew V. Choate, 88
Ahrend z/. Odiorne, 2004, 2005
Aiken v. Aiken, 974
■V. Albany R. Co., 1070, 1075, 1078
V. Bridgeford, 2171
V. Bruen, 2153, 2180
V. Gale, 2180, 2181
•u. Milwaukee, 2155
V. Milwaukee & St. P. R. R. Co., 811
V, Morris, 2061
V. Smith, 1232, 1234, 1238, 1239, 1605,
1707, 1742, 1909
Aikman v, Harsell, 838, 847, 848
Aiiisworth v, Rit, 66, 1015, 1176
Airey v. Buchanan, 1431
Akeel v. Spraker, 2154
Akerly v. Vilas, 2025
Akin w. Jeiferson, 1894
Alabama G. L. I. Co. -u. Oliver, 2250, 2251,
2258
Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. South & North R.
Co., 2067
Albanany's Case, 1894
Albany Fire Ins. Co. v. Bay, 402, 447, 1832,
2152
Albany Saving Inst. v. Burdick, 2330, 2331
Albany Street, Re, 2328
Albatross v. Wayne, 1209
Albee v. Carpenter, 351, 415, 423, 436
Albergottie v. Chaplin, 1975
Albert v. Bleeker St., etc., R. Co., 1247
Albertson v. White, 2052
Albin V. Lord, 896, 1035
V. Riegel, 46
Albright V. Cobb, 2102
Alcorn v. Morgan, looi, 1271
Alden v. Gilmore, 212
V. Wilkins, 2090
Aldershaw v. Breach, 1313
Alderson v. Henderson, 856
V, Schulze, 1905
Aldred's Case, 2240
Aldrich v. Albee, 1865
V. Husband, 2021
V. Martin, 1919
V. Reynolds, 47
V. Thurston, 1440
Aldridge v. Tuscumbia C. & D. Ry., 671
Alexander ». Alexander, 651, 661, 1040, 1667,
1775, 1837, 183S
V. Bishop, 1245
V. Carew, 1294
V. Cunningham, 820, 821
•u. Dorsey, 1176
V. Ellison, 1891
V. Hamilton, 841
V. Hodges, 1141, 1156
V. Jackson, 141S, 1421, 1422
V. Kennedy, 1882, 1913, 1914, 1915
' V. Miller, 78
z/. Pendleton, 2299
•u. Polk, 501, 2298
•V. Rodriguez, 2055
V. Tams, 1646, 1653
V. Touhy, 1 138
V. Vennum, 1471
V, Walter, 517
V. Warrance, 586, 679, 680, 68g, 779,
1004, 1658
V. Williams, 1782
Alexander's Exrs. v. Bradley, 746
V. Selden, 876
Alford "u. Lehman, 1485
V. Vickery, 2252
Alger z;. Kennedy, 1128, 1166, 1168, 1169
Allan w. Smith, 823, 843
AUard v. Carleton, 1975
Allbyerz*. State, 671
Alleghany v. Ohio & P. R. Co., 2191
Alleghany Oil Co. v. Bradford, 272, 1867
Allen V. Allen, 525, 955
z/. Allen's Admrs., 767, 2166
z/. Anderson, 520
V. Ashley School Fund, 465
•u. Backhouse, 1832
V. Bartlett, 1316
V. Bennett, 998, 1043
•u. Berryhill, 986
V. Billings, 2345
V. Brown, 2147
V. Bryan, 2270
V. Caldwell, 1422
V. Calvert, 1039, 1040
V. Carpenter, 1350, 1351, 1354
V. Chase, 1443, 1445
•V. Chatfield, 2164
V. Clark, 2076, 2153, 2178, 2180
V. Craft, 302, 401, 1821
V. Culver, 984, 1084, 1085, 1099, 2267
V. Dent, 1 138
V. Elderkin, 2067
V. England, 1288
V. Everly, 1998, 2078
V. Gibson, 1909
V. Gomme, 2219, 2220
V. Hall, 757, 758, 759, 1897
V. Harley, 1513
V. Hawley, 1407, 1408, 1421, 1422
V. Henderson, 420
V. Hill, 1355
V. Holten, 210, 1877, 2296
V. Hooker, 1035
V. Hooper, 647, 1360, 1361, 1364, 1367,
1368
V. Howe, 1864
V. Hoyt, 1979
V. Imlet, 1707
V. Jaquish, 1126, 1160, 1162, 1310
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxv
Allen V. Kennedy, 130, 145
V. Lamden, 970, g8i
V. Lanier, 1225
V. Lathrop, 2030
V. Lee, 1 701
V. McCoy, 742, 776, 789, 806, 841, 842,
844
V. McCullougn, 771
V. Mansfield, 1280, 1283, 1286
V. Markle, 423
V. Parish, 2303
V. Paul, 1214
V. Peay, 935
V. Pegram, 42
V. Poole, 20II
V. Pray, 935
V. Reynolds, ooi, 911
V. Rhodebaugh's Admr., 1288
V. Sayer, 1785
V. Shackleton, 2061
•v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 1224
t'. Tate, 1919
V. Thayer, 211
V. Trustees of Ashley School, 418
•V. Van Houten, 2252, 2257, 2259
V. Van Meter, 315
V. Withrow, 1590
V. Woodward, 2021
V. Wooley, 1070
AUender's Lessee v. Sussan, 396, 974, 975,
1249
AUendorff v. Gaugengigl, 591
Alley V. Bay, 1450, 1475, 147S
V. Lawrence, 1831
Allie V. Schmitz, 1920
AUin V. Bunce, 448
Ailing zi. Chatfield, 916, 934, 955
Allis V. Billings, 757, 986, 1032
Allison V. Armstrong, 2079
V. Kurtz, 1700
V. McCune, 2086
V. Shilling, 1465, 1484, 1485, i486, 1495
V. Sutherlin, 2177
V. Wilson's Exrs., 1826, 1844
Allore V. Jewell, 1034
AUoway v. Barbineau, 757
AUwood z'. Heywood, 491
Allyn V. Mather, 211, 401, 447, 448
Alman v. Duke of St. Albans, 1034
Almond v. Bonnell, 1376, 1919
Almy V. Daniels, 1894, 1895
Alpass z'. Watkins, 424
Alpaugh V. Roberson, 1795
Alsberry v. Hawkins, 750, 774
Alston V. Alston, 2125, 2286
V. Grant, 1200
V. Ulman, 1395
Alsworth V. Cordtz, 1636
Altemasz/. Campbell, 208
Alten V. Jaynish, 1271
Altes V. Hinckler, 47
Altham v. Anglesea, 1538
Althan's Case, 408, 446
Althof V. Conheim, 1947
Althorf V. Wolfe, 568
Alton V. Pickering, 1292, 1293, 1296, 2251, 2260
Alvis V. Morrison, 2125
Alvord V. Lent, 1514
Alvord Carriage Manf. Co. v. Gleason, 104,
136
Alwood V. Mansfield, 1212, 1230, 1231, 1233
Ambler v. Bradley, '242
V Norton, 955, 956, 957, 961, 964, 966
V. Skinner, 1103, 1184
Ambrose v, Ambrose, 1590, i6go
V. Otty, 1590
Ambs V. Hill, 130
Amelong v. Dorneyer, 414, 4i6
American Buttonhole Co. v. The Burlington
Assoc, 2171
A-nerican Central Ins. Co. u. McLanathan,
632
American Emigrant Co. v. Wright County,
1765
American Print Works v. Lawrence, 5, 2326
American & Foreign Christian Union v. \ount,
720, 2057, 22S8
Ames, Ex Pa.rte, 146
V. Chew, 2346
V. Norman, 1024, 1920, 1931, 1933, 1938,
1941, 1942, 1945, 1954
V. Norton, 1423
V. Port Huron L. D. B. Co., 1707, 1769
V. Richardson, 2118, 2119
V. Schuesler, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1315, 1316
Amesbury v. Brown, 445, 509
Amherst Academy v. Cowls, 1541, 1670
Amick V. Biubaker, 1227
Amonett V. Amis, 2018
Amory -v. Kamnoffsky, 1161
V. Meredith, 1837
V. Reilly, 2005
Amphlett v. Hibbard, 1425, 1426, 1432, 1450,
1475. 1478
Amsby v. Woodward, 1107, 1124
Amsden v. Blaisdell, 1340
Amst V. Alexander, 1087
Anandale v. Anandale, 95
Ancona v. Waddell, 501
Audendreid v. Woodward, 2254
Anders v. Meredith, 1905, 1969
Andersoipe v. Bennett, 947
Anderson's Appeal, 938, 946, 948
Anderson v. Baumgartner, 1995, 2105, 2147
V. Buchanan, 2217
z'. Burwell, 1782
V. Carey, 499
V. Cary, 249, 259, 261
V. Chicago Ins. Co., 1174
V. Clanch, 1883, 1889, 1894, 1896
V. Comeau, 2259
V. Critcher, 1047
V. Culvert, 1476, 1484
V. Darby, 1023, 1213, 1215, 1217
V. Dawson, 318, 329, 1836
1). Dodd, 2298
D. Duckie, 1199
V. Dugeas, 2363
•v. Greble, 310, 1890
V. Hammond, 1228, 1591
V. Harold, 998, 1042
V. Harris, 1046
V. Herold, 1017
V. Hughes, 1986
V. Jackson, 471
ZI. Kent, 1465
V. Kryter, 1085, 1197, iigS
V. Layton, 2359
V. McGowan, 1752, 1814
■u. Mather, 1577, 1798
V. Midland Railway Co., 1258, 1275,
1282, 1292
V. Neff, 2127, 2128
V. Odell, 143 1
V. Oppenheimer, io8r
V. Prindle, gg6, 1257, 1282, 1327, 1335,
1340
V. Smith, 1159, 2258
V. Tannerhill, 1919, 1930, 1952
V. Taylor, 1274
V, Tydings, 588, 635
Anderson School Township v. Milroy Lodge
F. & A. M., 1983
Anding v. Davis, 1699, 2045
Andrae v. Haseltine, 2235
Andrew's Case, 1080, 1807
Andrew ik Newcomb, 2020
V. Roye, 1831
V. Wrigley, 1784
Andrew's Heirs v. Brown, 786, 787
Andrews zi. jEtna Life Ins. Co., 2300
V. Alcom, 1452
%i. Andrews, 718, 8y8, 954, 957, 964
V. Blumfield, 1814
Ixxvi
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Andrews v. Erumfield, 337, 536
V. Bruiiefield, 1837
V. D. B. Co., 1187
V. Fiske, 2083, 2107, 21x2, 2147, 2164
V. Gillispie, 2147
z/. Hagadou, 1419
V. Hart, 2014, 2016, 2105, 2107
V. Harriot, 367, 2288
V. Hobson, 1593
V. Jones, 959
V, Page, 595, 597
V. Paradise, 1166
V. Pearson, 2358
V. Pond, 2057
V. Scotton, 2157, 2158
7/. Senter, 1867, 1868
V, Sparhawk, 1749
V. Stella, 2150
V. Thayer, 2033, 2035
V. Torrey, 2056
■V Townsend, 2107, 2111
Androscoe-giii Bank v. Kimball, 2352
Angel V. Boner, 811
Angeil 1) Roseubury, 289, 290, 1594
Angier, Re, 8go, 891
Angier "V. Masterson, 2009
Ankeny -v. Pierce, 12 12
Anketel v. Converse, 2005
Annable v. Patch, 310, igio
Annapolis R. Co. v. Gantt, 1998
Annapolis & E. R. Co. -v. Gault, 2076, 2077
Anonymous Case, 53, 57, 260, 267, 319, 372,
442, 653, 769, 1729, 1732, 2152
Ansey v. Ansey, 661
Anstice v. Brown, 94, 218, 1612, 1781
Answorth zi. Johnson, 563
Anthony 7/. Anthony, 2045
V. Lapham, 2225, 2227
V. Rees, 299, 1606
V. Rogers, 2085, 2087, 2088
V. J!lmith, 2008
V. Wade, 1481
Antomarchi v. Russel, 2237
Antoni v. Belknap, 147, 1138, 1351, 1354
Antory v. Frieze, 1245
Apethorp v. Comstock, 2331
Apperson v. Moore, 2018, 2020
Apperson's Exrs. v. Bolton, 719, 720, 869, 955
Apple V. Apple, 776, 777, 778, 8j5, 819
Applegate v. Mason, 2133
Applcton u. Boyd, 1881, 1885, 1886, 2014, 2101
V. Rawley, 680, 684, 1372
V. Warner, 383
Apthrop V. Backus, 214, 672, 774
Arbuckle v. Nehms, 2272
•V. Ward, 2293
Archambau v. Green, 2038, 2133
Archdeacon v. Bowes, 2087
Archer's Case, 1570
Archer v. Deneale, 201, 202
V. Jones, 489, 214S
V. Phcenix, 2314
Archibald v. Scully, 2357
Arden v. PuUen, 1083, 1182, 1196
Ardesco Oil Co. v. North American Oil Co.,
2252, 2256
Areson v. Areson, 534
Arkwright v. Cell, 2229
Arlin v. Brown, 2005
Arls V. Cummings, 2325
Armfield v. Armfield
V. Moore, 2300
Armorers. Case, 327, 1948
Armory v. Fairbanks, 2157
Armour z/. Alexander, 1090, 1091, 1738
V. McMichael, 2056
Arms V. Ashley, 1589, 1592
V. Burt, 285, 1005
V. Lyman, 1979
Armstrong . Armstrong, 1878, 1884
V. Bach, 1135, 1316
V. Bicknell, 1229
Armstrong v. Caldwell, 88
V. Campbell, 1615, 1766, 1770, 1774, 1782
V. Cummings, 984
V. Kattenhorn, 994
V. Lawson, 55
V. Morrill, 1598, 1599, 1786
V. Pearce, 2363
■v. Risteau, 211, 2299
V. Ross, 2152
V. Schermerhour, 1166
V. Sovall, 2353
■u. Toler, 518
V. Wheeler, 1114, 1117, 1119, 1121, 2264
u. Wholesey, 1566
V. Wilson, 586, 633, 639, 669, 1367
Amett V. Munnerlyn, 1906
Arnold v. Arnold, 761, S15, 1930, 1932, 1942,
1952
V. Brown, 416, 577
V. Clark, mo
V. Cord, 1676
V. Cornham, 2245
V, Crowder, 105, 107, 131, 132, 2080
V. Elmore, 69
■V. Foot, 2228
V. Foote, 2225
-v. Gilbert, 75, 434, 1740, 1798
V. Gotshall, 1420, 1435
V. Green, 2173
z>. Hempstead, 943
V. Jack^s Exrs., 1882
V. Jones, 1424
•V, Lincoln, 308, 312
V. Mattison, 2047, 2048
u. Nash, 127?, 1294
V. Richmond Iron Works, 986, 1032, 2345
V. Ruggles, 42, 43, 817
V. Stearn, 2240
V, Stevens, 90, 2245, 2247
V. Wainwright, 786, 1963
V. Waltz, 1400
V. Woodard, 12 12
Amot V. Beadle, 1922
V. Post, 2129
V. Woodburn, 2177
Amsby v. Woodward, 1058, 1138, 1143, 1159
Amstett V. Amstett, 1951
Amwine v. Carroll, 253, 273
Arp V. Jacobs, 1406
Arques v. Wasson, 2020
Arrington v. Cherry, 1577, 1753
V. Liscom, 2175, 2297
Arrison v. Harstad, 195
Arrowsmith v. Burlingim, 2324
Arthur v. Broadnax, 2346
V. Homestead Fire Ins. Co., 2330
Arto V. Maydole, 1419
Artz V. Grove, 2047
Arundel v. Steere, 2196
Arundell v. Phipps, 647
Asay V. Hoover, 6Sg, 2062
Ash's Case, 756
Ash V. Bowen, 1656
V. Cummings, 197
Ashbaugh v. Ashbaugh, 1402
Ashbury v. Sanders, 522
Ashby V. Palmer, 75, 76
Ashcroft V. Eastern Ark. Co., 283
V. Eastern Railroad Co., 283, 2240,
2361 .
Ashe V. Cummins, 2327
V. De Rossett, 1247, 1248
Asherw. Mitchell, 1502, 2067
Ashfield V. Ashfield, 1030
Ashhurst's Appeal, 1748
Ashhurst v. Given, 1564, 1637, 1670, 1674
V. Potter, 77
Ashley v. Warner, 1027, 1274, 1275, 1281, 1289,
1297, 1851
Ashley's Admr. %>. Robinson, 1789, 1794
Ashmun v. Williams, 125, 140, 142
Ashton's Case, 958
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxvii
Ashton V. Ingle, 1434
z'. Langdale, 42
V. Wood, 1638
Ashley v. Ashley, 2295
Ashuelot R. Co. v. Elliott, 2331
Ashurst V. Given, 254, 273, 300, 500, 1552, 1556,
1557, 1606, 1675, 1748
Askew V. Dupree, 596, 752
Aslin, Doe d., v. Summersett, 1027
Aspden v. Seddon, 93
Astley V. Essex, 265
Aston V. Aston, 544, 559, 572
7/. Britland, loog
V. Smallman, 1882
Astor V. Hoyt, 6SS, Soo, 1117, 2000
V. L'Amoreux, 2264
V. Miller, 1071, 1072, 1075, 1112, 1117,
2000
Z'. Turner, 2066, 2162
Astrom z'. Hammond, 2304
Atchesoii z>. Atcheson, 1939
Atchinson v. McCulloch, 2303
V. Peterson, 2238
V. Surguine, 2148
V. Wheeler, 1465
Atherton v. Corliss, 946
V. Fowler, 2308, 2309
7'. Johnson, 212, 2295
Atkins V. Boardman, 2218,
V. Bordman, 2218
V. Byrnes, 2273
V. Chilson, 1151, 1157, 1866, 1870, 1871
V. Humphrey, 1343
V. Kinnan, 2335
V. Kron, 218, 520
V. Merrill, 781
V. Sleeper, 1005, 1006. 2256
V. Yeoman, 870, 876
Atkinson, Rey 1588, 1790
Atkinson v. Atkinson, 1405, 1407, 1410, 1412,
1413, 1462, 1463, r472, 1522
V. Baker, 527, 528, 784
V. Hewett, 2086
V. Hutchinson, 433, 437
V. Miller, 2059
V. Morrissy, 811
z'. Patterson, 2101
V. Stewart, 803
Atkyn's Lessee v. Horde, 651, 1039, 1040
Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 259, 267, 2G9,
2068, 2071
V. Libby, 267, 269
Atlantic & St. L. R. R. Co. v. State, 976
Atlin 7'. Bunce, 401, 405, 408, 411, 413
Attenborough v. Thompson, 265
AttersoU v. Stevens, 553, 1152, 1153, 1228
Attomey-at-law v. Andrew, 1347
Attorney-General v. Ailesbury, 1811
V. Andrews, 1872
V. Bishop of Chester, 1688
V. Brooks, loog, 1088
V. Chambers, 2293
V. Christ's Hospital, 267, 1660, 1784,
1872
V. Crispin, 314
V. Dixie, 1664
V. Exeter, 1782
V. Federal Street Meeting-house, 1796
V. Gill, 322, 324
V. Grasett, 1690
V. Griffiths, 1037
V. Hall, 344, 1684
V. Hamilton, 1670
V. Hinxman, 1604
V. Hungerford, 1037
V. Ironmongers' Co., 1685
V. Kent, 1456
V. Landersfield, 1540
V. Marlborough, 442, 443
V. Masters of Oath Hall, 258, i860
V. Mayor of Exeter, 1783
V. Merrimack Mfg. Co., 1850
Attorney-General v. Moses, 1019
V. Mylchrest, 83, 84
V. New Castle, 1555
V. Northumberland, 1685
V Owens, 1037, 103S
V. Proprietors Meeiing-house in Federal
Street, 31, 35, 36, 289, 1553, 1563,
IS94
V. Purmort, 2015
V. Putland, 1040
V, Rochester, 1037
V. Scott, 1559
V. Skinners' Co., 1540
V. Smith, looS, 1037
V. South Sea Co., 1037
V. Stawell, 557
V. Tudor Ice Co., 5
V, Utica Insurance Co,, 1540
V. Vigor, 2084
V. Windsor, 1638
Attwater v. Attwater, 249, 261, 262, 263, 1858
z'. Bodfish, 2219, 2244
V. Butler, 882, 907. 909
V. Manchester, 2170,2171
zi. Manchester Sav. Bank, 2073, 2169,
2170, 2171
V. Walker, 2056
Atwood V. Atwood, 711, 759, 760, 763, 819, 868
7/. Fisk, 2059
V. Norton, 998, 1013, 1323
%'. Vincent, 2005, 2177
Aubin V. Daly, 435, 790, 814, 819
Aubuchon v. Bender, 1791
Auburn & C. P. R. Co. z>. Douglass, 20, 2232
Auding V. Davis, 2175, 2176
Auer V. Penn, 1160
Aughinlaugh 7/. Coppenheffer, 1067
Aughtie V. Aughtie, 770
Augusta Ins. Co. v. Morton, 367, 720, 2057,
2288
Auld V. Butcher, 1511
AuU V. Lee, 2027, 2029
AuU Savings Bank v. AuU's Admr,, 1277, 1700
Aultman z>. Obermeyer, 646, 647, 895, 1938
Auriol V. Mills, 1069, 2263, 2265
Austen v. Halsey, 2008
Austin V. Ahearne, 1026
V. Austin, 835, 847, 861, 862, 2032
V. Burbank, 2105, 2142
V. Cambridge Parish, 1849, 1856, 1S61,
1867
V. Downer, 2040
V. Field, 1015, 1176
V. Grant, 2025
V. Hall, 1909
V. Hudson R. R. Co., 553, 2232
V. Huntsville Coal & Mining Co., 979,
983, 1002, 1017
V. Rutland, 202, 515, 1982
z'. Sawyer, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 104
V. Shaw, 1885, 2101
V. Stanley, 1378, 1445, 1454, 1457, 1460,
M99
V. Stevens, 489, 514, 564, 565, 1364
V. Swaun, 948
V. Taylor, i6og
V. Thompson, 1251, 1266, 1306
zj. Underwood, 1491, 1492, 1497, 1498
zi. Wilson, 1292
Auworth V. Johnson, 1067, 1068, 1153
Avans v. Everett, 1426
Aveling -v. Knife, 1876
Avelyn v. Ward, 1849
Averali v. Wade, 2155
Averill V. Guthrie, 2139
11. Taylor, 976, 2073, 2074, 2150,2169, 2172,
2173 ^
V. Wilson, 1580
Avery v. Chappel, 1648
V. Judd, 20S0, 2ogi
V. Payne, 1973
V. Ryerson, 2172
Ixxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Avery v. Scott, 1051
V. Stephens, 1490
Avon Mfg. Co. V. Andrews, 2226
Awdley v. Awdley, 77
Ayer v. Ayer, 1574, 1672, 1673
V. Emery, 1S56
V. Hawkes, 1291, 1479, 1506
V, Spring, 791, 822, 841, 842, 843, 845,
891
v. The Methodist Episcopal Church, 225,
1549
Ayers 7/ .Dixon, 2071
V. Waite, 2091
Aylesford's Case, 994
Aylett V. Ashton, 1034
Aylsworth v. Whitcomb, 1792
Aymer v. Bill, 2101, 2103, 2111
Aynsley v. Glover, 2246
V. Grover, 2248
V. Reed, 2173
Ayres v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 240
V. Husted, 2164
V. M. E. Church, 1555, 1603
•V Probasco, 1450, 1475, 1478
a*. Waite, 2095, 2175, 2174
B.
Babb V. Perley, 1363, 1364, 1365, 1368, 1369,
1370
Babbitt v. Day, 823
2/.Scroggin, 1931, 1932, 1935, 1938, 1940
Babcock v. Babcock, 794, 912, 913
V. Hoey, 1450, 1479, 1488
V. Kennedy, 1027, 1028, 2065
■v. Lisk, 2029, 2930
V. Montgomery Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 2223
z/. Scoville, 1 108, II 16
V. Wyman, 1676, 2175
Baca V. Ramos, 1962
Bache z*. Doscher, 2165, 2167
Eachino z/. Coste, 1947
Bachman v. Crawford, 1399
Back V. Andrews, 779, 1920, 1930, 1939, 1940
Backenstoss ». Stahler's Admr,, 46, 52
Backer v. Payne, 1045
Backhouse v. Bonomi, 2232
Backmanw. Crawford, 1403
Backus V. Shepherd, 2324
Bacon's Appeal, 1607, 1656, 1675
Bacon v. Bacon, 1180
V. Bowdin, 2169
V. Bowdoin, 971, 992, 1000, 1014, 2073,
2074, 2170, 2173
V. Brown, 1131, 1132, 1316, 1346, 1347
V. Cottrell, 2185
z/. Howell, 1292
V. Huntington, 1870, 1872
V. Mclntyre, 2093, 2094
V. Parker, 996, 2271
V. Rives, 1782, 1783
V. West Furniture Co., 1060, 1154, 1155
V. Woodward, 305, 308, 335
Badger v. Batavia Mfg. Co., 143
V. Holmes, 1026, 1027
■V. Keating, 15S0, 1654
Badgley v. Bruce, 868
V. Voltrain, 1612
Badlamz'. Tucker, 1820
Badon v. Brown, 2052
Baer v. Martin, 72
Baggett V. Meux, 251, 257, 1561
Bagley z*. Freeman, 1073, 1108, 1115, 1117, nzt
Bagnali v. Villar, 20S0
Bagot V. Bagot, 495
IJagshaw v. Spencer, 288, 289, 300, 373, 1583,
1595, 1606, 1693, 1856
Baher v. Harris, 1080
Bailey's Petition, 1730, 1842, 1843
Tailey v. Bailey, 291, 1662, 1699, 1798, 2050
Bailey v. Brown, 1752
V. Carten, 2075
V. Carter, 2175
V. Clark, 1242
». Comings, 1457
V. Duncan, 782, 820, 1363, 1368, 1369
V. Fillebrown, 1234, 1267
V. Gentry, 1217
V. Gould, 2103, 2111
V. Hobson, 1903, 1906
V. Hoppin, 2301
V. Kilburn, 1149
V. Metcaff, 2131
V. Miltenberger, 197
V. Mittenberger, 2326
V. Myrick, 2151, 2181
V. Ogden, 998, 1017, 1042, 1087
V. Richardson, 2097, 2098, 2262
V. Robinson, 1717, 1766
V. Rust, 1982
V. Sisson, 1975
v. Timberlake, 2171
V. Tyrrell, 984
V. Ward, 997, 1283, 1286
V. Wells, 1159, 1 161, 1164, 2263, 2264
V. West, 718
V. White, 2357
Bailie v McWhorler, 253
Bailis V. Gale, 335
Bailley v. Litten, 910
Bain z/. Clark, T172, 1205, 1210, 1218
Bainbridge v. Blair, 1600
V. Owen, 2184
V. Wilcocks, 2056
Baines v. Barnes, 1717
Bainton v. Ward, 1825
Bainway v. Cobb, 129, 146
Baird's Appeal, 1968
Baird v. Baird's Heirs, 1671, 1913, 1957
V. Jackson, 2067
V. McConkey, 2165, 2167
V. Rowan, 1810
V. Shipman, 1194, 1195
V. Stearne, 912, 913
Baken v. Harder, 2012
Baker v. Adams, 1337
V. Armstrong, 2102
V. Baker, 737, 740, 835, 847, 851, 868, 1647,
1652
V. Bank of Louisiana, 2024
V. Bishop, 2015
V. Bridge, 305, 330, 335, 340
V. Chase, 728, 794, 795, 912
u. Collins, 2059
V. Copenbarger, 75, 1750
V. Davis, 138
V. Dayton, 892, 1462
V. Dickson, 1288
"v. Evans, 1738
V. Fetters, 925
z*. Floumey, 1363
z*. Frick, 72
V. Greenhill, 1102
V. Hale, 1215
V. Harlan, 1795
V. Heiskell, 654, 656, 677, 679, 683,2286
V. Holtzpaffell, 1179
z'. Humphrey, 1585
z'. Hunt, 284
V. Jordan, 46, 654
V. Kennett, 1030, 1031
z'. Lamb, 1920
i>. Lewis, 54
"v. Massey, 2331
z'. Matcher, 2359
^. Mather, 1777
^. Mattocks, 149
z'. Nail, 679, 12 16
'V, Newton, 1371
"<■'. Oakwood, 702
"V. Pierson, 213b
o. Pratt, 1161
Keferences are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxix
Baker v. Ramey, 1497
V. Red, 1614
z;. Scott, 40S
V. Shepherd, 2147
V. Stewart, 1931, 1932, 1934, 1939, 1952,
1954
V, Swon, 2295
1}. Terrell, 2150, 2178
V. Thrasher, 1993, 2044, 2054
V. Vining, 1634, 1638, 1641, 1647, 1648,
1651, 1652, 1653, 1683, 1699
V. Wall, 380
V. Washington, 2366
V. Westcot, 217
V, Wheeler, 1926, 1962, 1963
v> Whiteside, 1044
V, Whiting, 1644, 1782
V. Willis, 3S9
V. Wind, 2038, 2039
Balder z/. Blackborn, 1023, 1024
Baldwin v. Allison, 1620, 1644
V, Bean, 353
V. Boyd, 2309
V. Breed, 113
V. Brown, 2298
V. Campfield, 1636
V. Carter, 1701
V. City ot Newark, 671, 1518
•V. Gray, 755
V. Hatchett, 2ior
V. Humphrey, 1587, 1592
V. Jenkins, 2039
V. Johnson, 1888
V. Peet, 1794
V. Porter, 1598, 1785
V. Raplee, 2023
V. Rees, 1151
•u, Reiss, 1158
V. Rogers, 1431
V, Stark, 2304
V. Thompson, 975
V. Timmins, 2101
V. United States Tel. Co., 1248
V. Van Vorst, 1157
V. Walker, 1027, 1028, 1046, 1071, 1120,
2064, 2249
V. Whiting, 1967
Baldy's Appeal, 1510
Bale z'. Newton, 1791
Balfe V. West, 1183, 1191
Balford v. Crane, 915
Balgrave v. Balgrave, 1596
V. Hancock, 1692
Balir v. Van Blarcum, 534
Balkum v. Wood, 1475
Ball V. Ball, 954
v. Covington, 2251
V. Cullimore, 1259, 1278, 1290, 1294
V. Deas, 1968
V. Dunsterville, 1044
V. First National Bank of CoWngton,
2251, 2257, 2258
V. Harris, 1832
V. Palmer, 1898
V. Payne, 416, 447, 472
V. Wyeth, 1181
Ballance v. Fortier, 1308, 1338
Ballard v. Ballard, 2063
V. Burgett, 1746
V. Dyson, 2219, 2220
V. Harrison, 2207
V. Nichols, 917
V. Perry, 2365
Ballentine v. Clark, 2331
V. Poyner, 495, 554
Ballet V. Sprainger, 510, 518
Ballew V. Clark, 1032
Bailey v. WelleS, 1070
Ballin v. Dillaye, 896
Ballou V. Hale, 1905, 1924
V. Jones, 117
Balls V. Darapman, 1822
Bally V, Wells, 1074
Balmam ?■. Sliore, 314
Baltimore v. Chester, 624
V. May, 1515
V. Porter, 1804
Baltimore Annual Conference v. Schell, 1504
Baltimore & O. K. Co. v. Polly, 1853
Bambaugh v. Bambaugh, 1S81, 18^3, 1910
Bancroft v. Cambridge, 4, 5
V. Consen, 214, 672, 1622
V. Wardell, 1276, 1283, 1291, 2271
V. White, 764
Bandy v. Cartwright, 2362
Bange v. Flint, 2107
Bangs V. Smith, 1836
Bank v. Anderson, 2109
V. Arnold, 800, 801
V. Carpenter, 2001
•v. Chamberlain, 201 1
V. Finch, 2033
V. Fordyce, 1699, 1702
V. Haskie, 1008
V. Houseman, 2316
V, May, 2314
Bank of America v. Banks, 1215, 2260
Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 224
Bank of Brighton v. Smith, 2014
Bank of Buffalo v. Hortwright, 2339
Bank of Columbia v. Okley, 2324
Bank of Commerce v. Lanahan, 2076
V. Owen, 803, 806. 813, 814, 817
Bank of England v. Tarleton, 1763
Bank of Greensboro v, Clapp, 2120
Bank of Indiana v. Anderson, 2104, 2106
Bank of Ithaca v. King, 1554
Bank of Lansinburgh v. Crary, 53, 54, 55, 2020
Bank of Louisville v. Hall, 1964
Bank of Metropolis v. Huttschlick, 782, 1600,
1601
Bank of Niagara v. Rosevelt, 2170
Bank of Ogdensburg v. Arnold, 1027, 2066,
2067
Bank of the Old Dominion v. McVeigh, 1512
Bank of Pennsylvania 7'. Wise, 46, 1120, 2259
Bank of Rochester v. Emerson, 2165, 2167
Bank of South Carolina v. Rose, 2133
Bank of United States v. Benning, 1777
V. Dandridge, 2014
V. Daniels, 2057
V. Donnally, 2057
V. Dunseth, 836, 874
•V. Housman, 1538, 1625
V. Huth, 1794
V. Peters, 2136, 2137
Bank of Utica v. Mersereau, 1027, n6o, 1221,
1888
Bank of Waltham v. Waltham, 42
Bank of Westminster v. Whyte, 2037
Banker z/. Braker, loog, 1088
Bankes v. Le Despencer, 1692, 1740
Bankhead v. Brown, 2327
Banks v. American Tract Society, 2213, 2223
V. Carter, 1262, 1274, 1329, 1335, 1340
V. Haskie^ 1009, 1091
V. Ogden, 2293
V. Poitiaux, 224
V. Sutton, 581, 705, 708, 714, 715, 840,
1575. i704> 1736
V. Walker, 2025
V. Wilkes, 1732, 1734
Banman v. James, 999
Banning &. Taylor, 2324
Bannon v. Angier, 2246
V. Bean, 1643
V. Brandon, 1355
V. State, 198
Banrfield, Doe ex d., v, Wetton, 424
Bansiat &. Murrin, 732
Banton v. Campbell, 1919
V. Shorey, 54
Banyster 7). Trussel, 625
Baptist Association v. Hart, 1684
Ixxx
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Baptist Church of Hartford v. Witherell, 32,
34. 40. I5S7
Barber v. Babel, 1450, 1475, 1478, 1934
V. Gary, iSoS, i8og
V. Harris, 1024, 1025, 1931, 1939, 1941,
1942, 1945, 2362
V. Root, 661, 662, 664, 771, gig, 1359,
1360, 1363, 1364, 1368, 1369, 1370
V. Rorabeck, 1500
V. Wilhams, 733, 838
Barbour v. Barbour, 721, 725, 771,783, 802,803,
919, 940
Barclay, Ex parte, 125
V. Cameron, 354
V. Hendrick, 1881, 1968
V. Pickles, 1 171
V. Wainwright, 121 1
Barcroft v. Snodgrass, 1965
Bard v. Elston, 996
Barden v. Grady, 2155
Bardish v. Schenck, 1229
Bardstown R. Co. v. Metcalfe, 1722
Bardswell v. Bardswell, 347, 1632
Bardwell v. Howe, 2060
Barford v. Street, 1825
Barger v. Hobbs, 501
Barheydt v. Barheydt, 332, 342, 533, 536
Barhydt v. Burgess, 2263, 2264
Baring v. Nash, 515, 1973, 1984
Barker, Re, 95
Barker v. Allen, 999
V. Barker, 675, 697, 1372, 1623
V. Bates, 99
V. Bell, 1997, 1998, 2119, 2126, 2133
V. Blake, 869, 870
V. Cobb, 1857
V, Crandall, 1605
V. Dale, 976,983, 1138, 1150
V. Dayton, 195, 1407, 1462, 1471
V. Flood, 2096
■V. Frye, 1691
V. Greenwood, 300, i553>i5S3» i597» 1606,
1607, 1797
V. Keate, 1566
V. Parker, 791, 815, 820, S26, 8gi, 927
V. Salmon, 2303
V. State ex rel. Mills, 2
•v. Taylor, 743
Barkley v. Lane's Exrs., 1592
Barksdale v. Finney, 42
V. Garret, 717, 871, 872, 930
Barksworth v. Young, 1691
Barlett v. Prescott, 2207
Barley v. Cook, 1883
Barlow v. Bateman, 265
V. Bell, 1310, 1350
V. Gaines, 2081
V. Lambert, 195
V. Rhodes, 2215, 2356
V. Salter, 322
V. Wainwright, 1014, 1264, 1295, 1300,
1301, 1303, 1312, 1313, 1322, 1325,
1326, 1337, 1342, 1343
Bam V. Clark, 538
Baniaby t'. Barnaby, 1030
Barnard v. Bailey, 348
V. Eaton, 2017
V. Edwards, 870, 873, 930, 931
V. Godcall, 2264
V. Jewett, 1635, 1653
•V. Norwich R. Co., 201S
V. Poor, 567
z'. Pope, 1913, 1982
V. Whipple, 31
Barnard's Heirs v. Ashley's Heirs, 2307
Bamardiston -v. Fane, 1870
Barnes 7* . Addy, 162 1, 1761
V. Allen, 2282
V. Barnes, 56, 2213
u, Boardman, 2100, 2:03, 2127, 2128
V. East London W. W. Co., 1038
V. Ehrman, 2159
Barnes v. Gay, 781, 804, 828, 1491, 149?
V. Grant, 1630
V. Gray, 777, 814
V. Huson, 234
z'. Irwin, 1829
v. Lee, 2084
V. Lloyd, 1919, 2242
V. Mawson, 88
V. Mott, 2154
V. Raester, 2155
V. Shinholster, 1281, 2261
V. Simms, 1702
V. Taylor, 1589
V, Underwood, 585, 670
V. White, 1444
Bamet v. Bamet, 836, 874, 876, gii
V. Dougherty, 1646, 1653
Barnett's Appeal, 254, 299, 500, 1560, 1605, 1606,
1607, 1655, 1656, 1674, 167s, 1682,
1748, 1753
Bamettz/. Barnes, 1044
V. Barnett, 2332
z/. French, 237
v. Gaines, 729
•u. Goings, 962
z/. Harshbarger, 646
V. Johnson, 20, 2223
V. Knight, 1513
V, Mendenhall, 1475, 1476, 1484
V. Nelson, 2184, 2185
V. Riser, 2004
Barney v. Baltimore, 1983
V. Frowner, 841, 842, 843
V. Gay, 1497
V. Keith, 1080, loSi
V. Keokuk, 69, 2294
V. Leeds, 1378, 1399, 1403
V. Little, 2366
V. Myers, 2181
V. Patterson, 1751
V. Saunders, 1665, 1720
V. Sutton, 2120, 2365
V. Trowner, 870
Barnfather v. Jordan, 2265
Banihart z>. Campbell, 1924
Barns V. Hatch, 1016
Bamum v. Barnum, 508, 509, 757, 1682,
16S3
V. Childs, 1700
v. Landon, 1026, 1046, 1922
V. Mayor of Baltimore, 265
Baron v. Sollivellos, 1425
Barr v. Doe ex d. Binford, 1225
V. Doe ex d, Burford, 975
V. Galloway, 600, 603, 613
V. Gratz, 206, 207, 209, 1917
V. Gratz's Heirs, 1752
V. Graves, 1225
v. Valanstine, 2176
Barr, Lessee of, z'. Galloway, 601, 602, 702
Barrage v. Merchants' Ex. Co., 2342
Barrell v. Barrell, 1894
V. Handrick, 1701
V. Joy, 1588, 1590, 1592, 1600, i6gr
Barren v. Barren, 1651, 1938
Barren Creek Ditching Co. v. Beck, 1944
Barrett's Appeal, 1584
Barrett v. Bamber, 1621, 1623
V. Bedford, 1102
V. Blackman, 2148
V. Blagrave, 1107
V. Buxton, 1033
V. Churchill, 890
z/. Failing, 770, 771, gig, 920
V. French, 1548, 2316, 2319
V. Gomesserra, 1758
V. Hinckley, 2106
V. Marsh, 1591, 1824
V. Richardson, 1510
V. Rockport Ice Co., 74
V. Sims, 1502, 1504, 151S
Barroilhet v. Battelle, 2002
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxxi
Barron v. Martin, 2095, 2174
V. Paulling, 2088
Barrow v. Barrow, 959
V. Isaacs, 1091, 1871
V. Richards, 267,268, 269, 1184, 2214
Barruso v. Wodan, 1854
Bany v. Adams, 2092
V. Edgenorth, 202
V. Glover, 1154
V. Lambert, 1700
V. Marriott, 1721
V. Nesham, 1242
V. Shelby, 535
Barteau v. West, 2206
Bartee v. Thompkius, S90
Bartels v, Creditore, 1164, 2263
Bartenback, Re, 8go
Barthe v. Lines, 899
Barthell v. Syverson, 2086
Bartholomew v. Edwards, 2296
•V. Hamilton, 143
v. Hook, 1408, 1409
V. West, 1415, 1421, 1422, 1424
Bartle's Case, 234
Bartles v. Nunan, 646
Bartlett v. Baker, 1300
V. Bartlett, 1537, 1589
V. Brake, 9S7
V. Downes, 1743
•u. Drake, 1365
V. Drew, 1760
V. Gouge, 760, 788, 831
V. Harlow, 1492, 1924, 1967
V. Jones, 1Z43, 1244
•V. Pickersgill, 2035
ZK Van Zandt, 726, 746
V. Wood, 133
Bartol v. Calvert, 969, 1006
Barton's Estate, 1721
Barton v. Barton, 271
V. Briscoe, 1844
V. Drake, 1475, 1476, 1482, 1484, i486
V. King, 225
V. Williams, 1246, 1247
Barziza v. Story, 1643
Bascom v. Albertaon, 1603
V. Smith, 520, 810, 1580, 2097
Bashaw v. State, 595
Bashford v. Pierson, 2339
Baskins* Appeal, 328
Baskins v. Giles, 645
Bass V. Edwards, 2220
V. Estill, 3366
V. Scott, 1550, 1560, 1577, 1672, 1673
Basse v. Gallegger, 2051
V. Mitchell, 2357
Basset v. Basset, 618, 646, 967, 2028, 2046
Bassett v. Bradley, 2166
V. Brown, 987
V. Mason, 810, 2096, 2157
V. Messner, 1388, 1390
Bastow, Doe ex d., a. Cox, 1256, 1265, 1275,
1278, 1294, 1295, 1318, 1326
Ba'tchelder z'. Batchelder, 1275, 1307, 134a
z/. Dean, 970, 971, 1003
■V. Sanborn, 2212
V. Sturgis, 730, 1095
Batcheler v. Middleton, 2171
Batchelor v. Macon, 346
V. Whitaker, 284
Bate V. Scales, 1733
Bateman v. Allen, 1024
V. Bateman, 1806
V. Hotchkin, 560
V. Pool, 1488
Baten's Case, 21
Bates 7/. Austin, 1146, 1309
V. Ball, 1033
£<. Bates, 7f I, 816, 826, 886, 1411, 1425,
1686, 1687
V. Coe, 1997
V. Conrow, 1222
Bates V, Dandy, 1360
V. Equitable F.& M. Ins. Co., 2116
V. Graves, 271
V. Hurd, 1589, 1592
V, Miller, 2146
V. NelUs, 2274
V. Norcross, 207, S84, 2365
V. Phinney, 2247, 2271
V. Ruddick, 2151, 2155, 2174, 2181
V. Seely, 1887, 1920, 1931, 1940, 1952
V. Shraeder, 629, 639, 640
•v. Sparrell, 31, 32
Batesville Institute v. Kauffmau, 1660, 2106
Bath V. Valdez, i8g8
Batin v. Bigelow, 522
Batstone Z7. tlater, 1581, 1647
Battersbee v. Farrington, 64S
Batterton v. Chiles, 1973
Batteste v. Maunsell, 1693
Battey v. Hopkins, 1569
V. Snook, 1996, 2040, 2050
Battin v. Woods, 1618
Battle V. Petway, 1577, 1578, 1741, 1742, 1753
Battle Square Church v. Grant, 324, 371
Batty V. Snook, 1996, 216S
Baugh V. Barrett, 1428
Baugher v. Merryman, 2047, 2052, 2055, 2:68
V. Nelson, 1517
V. Wilkins, 1079, 1081
Baughman v. Baughman, 408
Baum V. Baum, 759
V. Grisby, 2006, 2007
Baumgartner v. Guessfield, 1646
Bavington v. Clarke, 1671, 1699, 1978
Baxendale v. McMurray, 2238, 2240
Baxter v. Boyer, 965
V. Bradbury, 355
V. Browne, 993
V. Bush, 1030
V. Child, 2050
V. Dear, 2038, 2039
V. Dyer, 2063
V, Gilbert, 21 10
V. Knowles, 2073
?'. Lansing, 1140, 1872
V. Mclntire, 2027, 2029, 2133
V. Rodman, 1240 »
V. Taylor, 550, 553, 567
Bay V. Gage, 671
V. Williams, 2166
Bay City Gaslight Co. v. Industrial Works, 68
Bay State Bank v. Kiley, 127^
Bayard v, Colefax, 1756
tK Morshew, 883
Bayer z*. Cockrill, 1563
Bayles v. Baxter, 1651
Bayley ». Bailey, 2041, 2119
V. Fitzmaurice, 999, 1252
, V. Glenn, 2106
V. Gould, 2104
V. Greenleaf, 2005, 2006
V. Homan, 1869
V. Lawrence, 1168, 1178
V. McGraw, 2138
V. Mollard, 2281
V. Richardson, 1123
Baylies v. Payson, 1665, i68g, 1691
V. Peyton, 1690
V. San Antonio Nat. Bank, 1510
V. Sinex, 1211
Bayne v. United States, 1761
Baynton v. Finnall, 1024, 1033, 1364
Bazemore v. Davis, 1893, 1909
Beach v. Beach, 1595, 1707, 1713, 1742
V. Campbell, 1758
V. Child, 1905
zi. Parish, 1083, 1175, 1177
z). Frankenberger, 2206
V. Hollister, 1887, 1951
V. Miller, 587
V. Nixon, 1 138
c. Packard, 1698, 1702, 2349
Ixxxii
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Beach 71. Sliaw, 2169
Feachcroft v. Beachcroft, 307
Beal v. Miller, 918, 942
z'. Warren, 1625
Beale v. Bealc, 618
V. Holmes, 536
V. Knowles, 1364, 1366, 1367
Beall z/.. Holmes, 306^ 332
V. Wliite, 2018
V. Williamson, 2056
Bealor v. Hahn, 663, 664
Beals V. Providence Rubber Co., 1102
Beamish v. Beamish, 595
V. Cox, 1311, 1339
V. Hoyt, 585, 670
7/. Overseers, 689, 2062
Beau V. Boothby, 2096
V. Coleman, 72, 2361
7'. Dickerson, 1071, 1078
z/. Edge, 984, 2273
V. French, 281, 283, 284
z>. Mayo, 1094
V. Morgan, 2346
V. Murphy, 2231
V. Pettingill, 2302
V. Smith, 1481
V. Valle, 1607
V. Whitcomb, 2157
Bear v. Bitzer, 46, 52
V. Snyder, 712, 762, 819, 868
V Whisler, 15S8, 1852
Bearce v. Barstown, 2071
V. Jackson, 206
Beard v. Beard, 647
V. Blum, 1502
V. Federy, 217, 218
7/. Fitzgerald, 2153, 2178, 2180
V. Griggs, 961
V. Knowlton, 712
V. Knox, 711, 918, 943
V. Linthicum, 1649
z/. Murphy, 2231, 2232, 2233
71. Nuthall, 953, 966
V. State, 2020
Beardman z*. Wilson, 1057, iiti, in2, inS,
"59
Beardslee 7'. Beardslfie, 761, 7S0, 815, 820, 883,
884, 885
V. French, 57
V. TJnderhill, 730
Beardsley 7/. Knight iggi
V. Ontario Bank, 61, 113
z'. Selectmen of Bridgeport, 1604
Bears v. Ambler, 1201
V. Covilland, 1923
Bearss v. Ford, 2168
Beatson 7/. Beatson, 1791
Beattie v. Butler, 756
Beatty v. Gregory, 1280 ,
7/. Mason, 2296, 2297
z/. Wray, 1889
Beaty v. Bordwell, 1891, 1892
V. Gibbons, 82
71. Harkey, 1870
Beaufort v. Berty, 1021
z'. Collier, 1361
Beaumont's Case, 389, 756
Beaumont v. Thorpe, 1626
Beavnii ?'. Delahay, 540
7'. McDonnell, 987, 1034
7'. Speed, 1467
Heavans z'. Briscoe, 539, 540
Beaver 71. Lane, 1363, 1369
7'. Nutter, 2235
V. Snyder, 868
Beaver Falls Water Power Co. v. Wilson, 88g
Beavers 7'. Smith, 729, 814, 841, 844, 858
Bebb V. Crowe, 1436
Becar 7/. Fues, 971, 978, 997, mi, 2260
Berk's Estate, /?e, 221, 222
Beck V. Allison, 1083
V, McGillis, 216, 217
Beckw. Rebow, 109, 121, 127
V. Uhrich, 1638, 1642, 1643. 17631 1779
Becker z/. Becker, 1514
V. De Forest, 979, 993
V Werner, 1140, 1141, 1158
Beckerdite v. Arnold, 1231
Beckett 7t. Cordley, 2124
Beckford v. Beckford, 1647
V. Wade, 1783, 1784, 2176
Beckwith v. Boyce, 115, 122
7/. Howard, 1064
V. Windsor Mfg. Co., 2141
Beddingsford's Case, 864, 867
Bedell's Case, 1557
Bedell z/. Constable, 1021, 1022
V. McClellan, 2160
V. Shaw, 252, 489
Bedford v. Bedford, 628, 639
V. Kelley, 1213
V. McEtherron, 1271
V. McEtherrow, 1125, 1150, 1310
V. Terhune, 1073. 1077, 1109, 1112, 1118,
1H9, 1121, 1122, 1124, 1159, ii6i,
1 162
Bedill's Case, 2316
Bedingfield v. Onslow, 2248
Bedlow V. New York Floating Dry Dock Co.,
1306
Bedon v. Bedon, 3S3
Beebe v. Coleman, 2251
V. Griffing, 2279, 2286
V. State, 2328
Beech v. Miller, 588
Beecherz'. Baldy, 1475, 1502, 1503
7r. Buckingham, 1887
V. Hicks, 678, 6g8, 1372, 1709
V. Parmele, 1351
Beeder z/. Meeker, 2120
Beegle v. Wentz, 1634, 1650
Beekman v. Boiisor, 1603, 1604
7>. Frost, 2 1 19
7f. Hudson, 819
V. Lansing, 50
V. People, 1549, 1603
7/. Saratoga & S. R. Co., 197, 2327, 2328
Beekman Fire lus. Co. v. ist Meth. Church
2031
Beeler v. Dunn, 1727
Beeman's Appeal, 2279
Beenel v. Beenel, 1S94
Beer v. Beer, 1026
Beers zf. Beers, 553
V. Broome, 1016
z/. Haughton, 1517, 1518
z/. Lyons, 1573
V. St. John, 122, 145, 565
71. Strong, 740
V. Williams, J162
Beeston v. Weate, 2229
Beezeley z'. Burgett, 2251, 2258
Began v. O'Reilly, 2023
Begbie v. Crook, 1788, 1844
Behman v. barto, logi
Beidler 7/. Fish, 1160
BeiU 7;. Chesseu, 2251
Beinie v. Beinie, 675
Belch V. Harvey, 2176
Belcher, Ex parte, 132, 133
V. Belcher, 1754
■V. Butler, 2139
V. Costello, 2107
Belchier v. Parsons, 1713, 1714, 1723, 1728
Belden v. Meeker, 2109
V. Seymour, 1698, 1700
V. Shade, 2170
Beldiii; v. Cushing, 142
Belford v. Belford, 778
V. Crane, 670, 679, 792, 1638, 1640
Belfour v. Weston, 1179, 1181, 1182
Belk V. Massey, 2365
Belknap v. Trimble, 1988
Bell V. Adams, 2301
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxxiii
Bell ». Bell, 1782, 1783, 1784
7t. Deas, 1831
t/. Denson, 2298
V. Ellis' Heirs, 1291
7'. Farmers' Bank of Ky., 2035
V. Fleming, 2029, 2 113
z>. Gilmore, 2167
V. Hany, 1280
7'. Holford, 1795
V. Hartley, 2295
V. Josselyn, 1194, iig6
1'. Keefe, 2363
V. Kennedy, 1456
V. Lent, 2060
V. Mayor of New York, 783, 8cxd, 8ot,
802, 803, 945, 2000, 2075, 2c88, 2185,
2272, 2282
v. Morse, 2103, 2111
V. Nealy, 733,' 887, 892, 894, S95, 921
V. New York, 511, 925
V. Norfolk S. R. Co., 199
v. Norris, 1319
V, Ohio & P. R. Co., 2191,2192, 2194,
2201
V. Perkins, 671
V. Phyn, 1964 '
V. Pierce, 2034
z'. Red Rock, 2303
v. Scammon, 237, 307, 308,309,312, 322,
323. 332, 34O) 342i 470. 2315, 2316,
2318, 1.^19
V. Scannan, 2359
V. Schwarz, 1454
V. Shrock, 2148
v, Simpson, 2107
zf. Smith, 2303
z>. Tenny, 811
V. Thomas, 2126
V. Twilight, 744, 2301
V. Western Ins. Co., 2115
V. Wilson, 84, 94
V. Woodward, 810, 2097, 2212
Bell Co. V. Alexander, 303, 328, 335, 336
Bellamy v. Bellamy. 1620, 1794
v. Buckenden, 2089
V. Burrow, i6go
Bellas V. McCarthy, 278, 2365
Bellasis v. Burbirchie, 979
V. Burbrick^979
Bellerz*. Robinson, 994, 996
Bellias v. Ermine, 271
Bellinger z/. Shafer, 1726
BelHs v. Bellis, 2345
Belloc V. Davis, 1058, 2031
z*. Rogers, 2145, 2146, 2151;
.Bellow V, New York Floating Dry Dock Co.,
61
Bellows 7>. Burlington, C. & M. R. Co., 1028
7'. Sackett, 1199, 2232
V. Todd, 2342
7/. Wells, 52
Bells ?/. Gillispie, 416
Belmont zr. Cuman, 266, 2068, 2069, 2179, 2180
V. O'Brien, 1549, 1798, 1807, 1808, 1809,
2093, 2094
Belote 7'. Morrison, 2045
7'. White, 1709
Belt V. Ferguson, 794, 913
Belton V. Avery, 2040
Bemer z'. Call, 924
Bemis v. DriscoU, 1425
V. Leonard, 1005, 2256
V. Wilder, 1050, 1057, 1058
Benbow v. Townsend, 1649
Benden v. Manning, 1183
Bender 7/ . Fleurie, 411
Bendred v. Griffigh, logi
Benedict 7/. Bunnell, 1457
7'. Gaylord, 1883, 1934
7'. Gilman, 2088, 2171, 2185
7'. Howard, 1905
7/. Martin, 1194
Benedict 7/. Morse, 1294, 1296, 1350, 1354
V. Torrent, 1989
V. Webb, 1450, 1478
Benesch 7/. Clark, 317, 319, 320, 336,337,487,
536
Benett v. Costar, 2197
Benfey v. Congdon, 1131, 1136, 1278, 1285, 1351
Bengough v. Eldridge, 1693
Benham v. Rowe, 1755, 2088,2090, 2163
Benjamin z'. Ehnira R. Co., 2018, 2019
V. Heeney, 1083
Benkert v. Jacoby, 338
Benneck v. Whipple, 1297
Bennell v. Chancellor, 1032
Benner 7/. Evans, 877
Bennet z'. Bennet, 745
V. Eullock, 1903, 1904, 1917
V. Child, 1920, 1930, 1933, 1940, 1941, 1942,
1945. 1952. 1971
7'. Davis, 654, 656, 6S4, 699
V. Harms, 721, 750
Bennett, jE'jr/ar^^, 1771
V. Atherton, 1082
V. Austin, 1620, 1643, 1644, 2101
V. Bates, 2109
7'. Bennett, 1360, 1367
V. Bittle, 1128, 1168
v. CoUey, 1782, 1783
zf. Cutler, 1382
V. Davis, 6S0
V. Garlock, 1577, 1784
z/. Holbeck, 1888
Tf. Hudson, 1637
V. Mattingly, 2149
v. Pierce, 1320
7*. Plummer, 2064
V. Robinson, 271, 1274, 1282, 1284, 1347,
1350. 1355
V. Solomon, 2106, 2349
V. Tankerville, 426
V. Union Bank, 1992, 2014
V. Van Syckel, 1089
7'. Waller, 2301
zi. Williams, 1662
V. Womack, 1065
7'. Wyndham, 1817
Doe d., V. Long, 1309
Benning v. Benuing, 965
V. Nelson, 1794
Bennock v. Whipple, 1136, 1266, 1285, 1297,
1304. 2039
Benoist v. Mundin, 727
Bensell v. Chancellor, 986
Bensley 7/. Burdon, 2358
Benson v. Aitken, 1460
V. Miners' Bank, 89
V. Morrow, 69
V. Muuroe, 1180
V. Scott, 790
V. Suarez, 1199, 2232
Bent z/. Stamford, 76
7/. Weeks. 740
Eentham z/. Smith, 183 1
Bentley v. Barton, 976
V. Mackay, i6go
Zf. Oldfield, 2
7'. Phelps, 2046, 2048, 2049
V. Sill, 1128, 1166, 1168
z'. Vanderheyden, 2070
V. Whittlemore, 2134
Benton 7'. Fay, 1248
z/. Hatch, 2172
V. Kent, 2139
V. Shreeves, 2136, 2150
Benyon v. Madison, 314
Eepp V. Fox, 1961
Beppers' Will, 1837
Berberick z>. Fritz, 2047
Berdan v. Sedgwick, 2060
Berden v. Van Riper, 1729
Berg V. Ingalls, 1952, 1953
V. McLafferty, 1897
kxx
IV
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Bergen v. Bennett, 1805, 1806, i8ro, 1S26, 1832,
1834, 1835, 1842, 1843, 2120
Berger v. Duff, 1663, 1667, 1841, 2159
Bergner v. Palethrop, 992
Bergoyne v. Spurling, 2127
Berkeley v. Hardy, 1805
V. Rider, 347, 1600
Berley v. Rampacher, 1514
V. Taylor, 160D
Bemal v. Hovious, 1234, 1235, 1239
Bernhardt v, Lymbumer, 2153, 2154
Bernard's Case, 576
Bernard v. Bougard, 1653
V. MiushuU, 1627, 1628, 1633
Bemecker v. Miller, 1908, 1913
Bernstein, In re, 1787
V. Humes, 2083
Berrellz/. Sabine, 2052
Berridge v. Glassey, 969
Berrien v. Berrien, 1590
V. Conover, S73
V. McLane, 1662
Berrigan v. Fleming, 1920, 1933
Berringer 7/, Cobb, 1288
V. Schaefer, 26S
Berrington v. Casey, 1000
Berry 7/. Boggess, 1497
V. Bo wen, 1040
V. Dobson, 1386, 1394
V. Hall, 693, 694, 700
V. Liudley, 13 10, 1323
V. Mutual Ins. Co., 2003, 2036,2120, 2123,
2124
V. Rigler, 2358
V. Taunton, 1250
V. Waring, 1697
V. Whitney, 2069
V. Williamson, 1609
Berryman v. Potter, 2170
Berthelemy z/. Johnson, 517
Berthold v. Fox, 1993, 1999, 2076, 2078
V. Holman, 1999
Bertie v. Beaumont, 128S
V. Falkland, 1857, 1858
Bfertles z/. Nunan, 670, 1024, 1920, 1933, 1942,
1945, 1950, igsr, 1952, 1953
Bertram v. Cook, 1148, 1218, 1219
Bessell v. Landsberg, 1336, 1337
Bcsser v. Hawthron, Sii, 2000, 2077, 2078
Besson v. Cribble, 751
Best V. Allen, 1450, 1473, 1475, 1477
V. Gholson, 1479, 1506
V. Given, 2343
Bethellw. McCool, 1903, 1904
Bethlehem v. Annis, 1S49, 1S70, 2030, 2032
V. Perseverance Fire Co., 1505
Bettinger v. Baker, 539
Bettison v. Budd, 1214, 1220
Betts V. Brown, 2296
V. Lee, 62
V. Ratliff, 1234
V. Union Bank, 2349
V. Union Bank of Maryland, 1698
V. Wirt, 2279
V. Wise, 706, 711
Beusen v. Mayor of Albany, 2335
Bevan v. Hayden, 1483, 1514
V. Pope, 832
Bevans v. Briscoe, 1206
Beverly's Case, 1032, 2344
Beverly v. Burke, 212, 517, 2295
V. Lincoln Gas Light & Coke Co., 1332
Beverson's Estate, 759
Bevins v, Cline, 1938
Bewick V. Whitfield, 575
Bexwell v. Christie, 1770
Bibb V. Balser, 2126
V. Bibb, 447, 468
Bibby v. Carter, 2232
Bible Society v. Pendleton, 1685
Bicket V. Morris, 2228
Btc!;ford -v. Daniels, 2039
Bickley v. Biddle, 890
Bickuell v. Bicknell, 2004
iv, Byrnes, 2167
Biddel v. Brizzolara, 2178
Biddle iV. Hussman, 1127, J129, 1167, 1170, 1171,
2250, 2268
zi. Reed, 1182
Biddulph V. Biddulph, 94, 434
V. Lees, 417
Bierer's Appeal, 960
Bierne v. Bieme, 687
Bigden v. Vallier, 1878
Bigelow 7'. Bush, 2150
V. Cassidy, 2136
V. Collamore, 1099
V. Finch, 976
V. Forrest, 278
V. Foss, 2302
V. Hubbard, 729, 898, 1092, 1093
V. Jones, 211, 1915
V. Kinney, 1031, 2011
V. Littlefield, 1978
V. Pritcbard, 1510
V. Shaw, 68, 71
V. Striiigfellow, 2171
V. Topliff, 1030, 1923, 2001, 2037
V. Wilson, 1005, 2063, 2112, 2256
Biggers v. Bird, 2046
Biggs V. Brown, 1208
V. Farrell, 982
Doe d., V. White, 1039, 1040
Bigler z*. Furman, 1149, 1213
V. National Bank of Newburgh, 125
Rill V. Cureton, 1791
Billan v. Hercklebrath, 770, 771, 919
Billings, Re, 219
Billings V. Baker, 583, 587, 651, 660
V. Billings, 310
2'. Canney, 1314
V. Clinton, 1646, 1648
V. Hauver, 2014
V. Sprague, 2177
V. Taylor, 89, 494, 561, 742, 8u, 812, 853
V. Tucker, 983
Eillingsly v. Mersey, 982
Bills V. Mason, 1496, 1504
Bingham's Case, 432
Bingham v. Barley, 103 1
V. Clanmonis, 1788
V. Jones, 1S42
V. Jordan, 2125
Blnnerman v. Weaver, 271, 1858
Binney's Case, 44, 224
Binzel v. Grogan, 1385
Birch V. Wiight, 1121, 1300, 1308
Bircher z^. Parker, 147, 118S, 1315, 1316, 1348 *
Bird V. Bird, 883, 1895
V. Decker, 2062, 2063, 2064
V. Gardner, 805, 817, 830
V. Greville, 1055
V. Higginson, 2250
V. Keller, 2175
V. Kellow, 2075
V. Wilkinson, 2040
Birdsall v. Patterson, 2060
V. Tieman, 268
Birke v. Abbott, 2166
Birmingham v. Empire Ins. Co., 1224
V. Kirwan, 935, 956, 965
Bimey v. Wilson, 804, S26
Birt V. Barlow, 758
Birtwhistel, Doe ex d., v. Vardill, 36S, 369, 719,
2057, 2058
Bisbee's Lessee z/. Hall, 974, 976, 1225
Biscoe V. Perkins, 288, 299, 300, 1594, 1605,
T712
Bishop v. Bedford Charity, 1196, 1202 *
V. Bishop, 52,96, 103, 105, 119, 136, 567
V. Blair, 1363, 1370, 1376, 1904
V. Boyle, 7o8,-7i4, 744, 745, 789, 8S5, 891,
922, 923
V. Doty, 1233, 1235, 1239
References are
10 pages
TABLE OF CASES.
Ix
xxsv
Bishop V. Douglass, 2o6g
7'. Howard, 1265, 1317, 1324
7'. Hubbard. 1426, 1482, 1501, 1504
V. Lalouette's Heirs, 1212
) V. Schneider, 2119, 2123, 2125, 2364, 2366
V. Trustees, 1199
V. Wall, 1S36
Bishop of St. Albans v. Battersby, 1065
BisKind 7f. Hewett, 864,2006
Bismark Bldg. & Loan Assoc, u. Bolster, 974,
975. 976
Biss V. Smith, 417
Bissell V. Bissell, 596
V. Kellogg, 2060
V. Penrose, 2015
V. Taylor, 727
nitner v. Brough, 729, 1093 '
Bittin^er v. Baker, 45, 46, 1234 1
Bixby ZK Whitney, 1865
Bizzell v. Nix, 2004
Black's Appeal, 1964
Black 7/. Black, 1963
V. Cregg, 2002
V. Curran, 1381, 1477, 1515
ZK Dressell, 2013
V. Galway, 2152
I'. Gerichten, 2171
V, Gilmore, 1080
V. Hills, 1031
V. Kuhlmau, 715, 818
■V. Legion, 103 3
•V. Ligon, 1037
V. Lindsay, 1899, 1900
■u. Morse, 2179, 2180
Blackburn's Estate, 888
Blackburn v. Crawford, 596
z'. Gre^on, 2004
V. Knigbt, 1384
V. Randolph, 2331
7'. Stables, 1693
V. Warwick, 2051
Elackerby v. Holton, 2359
Blackford v. Christian, 1717
Blackinton v. Blackinton, 964
Blacklaw c. Lans, 1371
Blackledge v. Nelson, 2153
Blackman "v. Holms, 2327
V. Wheaton, 1514
Blackmer z/. Phillips, 1751
Blackmon t/. Blackman, 933
V. Blackmon, 956
Blackmore v. Broadman, 1008, 1075, 1076, 1088
V. Gregg, 1915
Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 239, 240, 246, 249,
256, 259, 263, 269, 273, 1857, 1S60
BJackwell v. Bamett, 1993
V. Wilkinson, 434
Blagge V. Miles, 202, 311, 1836, 1S37
Blagrave v. Blagrave, 1797
Elain v. Everett, 1317
V. Stewart, 2364
Blaine v, Harrison, 718, 733, 734, 735, 736, 741,
792, 793, 907
Blajr V. Bass, 2104, 2106
V. Claxton, 1167
V. March, 2 151
z>. Nugent, 1782
V. Smith, 2300
V. Thompson, 858
V. Ward, 2113
V. White, 2107
V. Williams, 1511
Blake, Re, 1562
Blake v. Anscombe, 738, 1605
V. Baker, 1102
V, Blake, 76, 1691
V. Clark, 1014
V. Coats, 1230, 1231
V. Colins, 297
V. Crowninshield, 2256
V. Everett, 2219
%'. Ferris, 1194, iigs
Blake v. Fish, 2355
V. Flatley, 1485, i486
V. Foster, 2174, 2301
V. Irwin, 1825
7'. Jones, 42, 1697
V. Nutter, 824, 1957
V. Peters, 231
V. Respass, 133
V. Sanderson, 1058, 1114, 1117, 1156,2262,
2265
1/. Williams, 367, 720, 2057, 2105, 2107,
2288
Blakely z/, Calder. 1980, 1982
Blakeman z/, Blakeman, 2331
Blakemore v. Tabor, 2024
Blakeuey w. Ferguson, 781, 831, 892
Blaker v. Anscombe. 542
Elakeslee ^', Mobile Ins. Co., 2300
Blakey v. Albert, 2159
Rlakley v. Smith, 999
Blamire v. Geldart, 314
Blanchard -j. Baker. 2225
V. Blanchard, 316, 1808
7'. Blood, 1371
7'. Bridges, 2222, 2247
7'. Coohdge, J242
7'. Kenton, 2047, 2131
V. Lampert, 596
7'. Moulton, 2296
&. Raines, 2272
■V. .Sheldon, 1594
V. '^ler. 23SS
Blanchard^ Factory cr. Warner, 234
Bland v. Bland, 347, 1627, 1632, 1684
V. Lipscombc, 2214
Blande zk Asher, 1463
Blandford v. Blandford, r88o
Blaney v. Pearce, 1998, 2062, 20■J^
Blaukard zk Galdy, 149
Blankeiiship zk Douglas, 1634
Blantin v. Whitaker, 1219
Blantou v, Taylor, 792
Blashford z'. Duncan, 13SC
Blasini v, Blasim, 596
Blatch V. Milder, 1614
Blatchford v. WooUey, 1826
Blatchley zk Coles, 1253
Blauvelt z). Ackermau, 1620
Bleakney •&. Farmers & Mechanics' Bank, 67a
Bleecker v. Hennerson, 737
z/. Hennion, 731
V. Smith, 1057, 1058, 115s, 1156
Blessing?;. House, 1911
Blethen v. Dwinal, 2093, 2146, 2173
ZT. Towle, 107, 108, 129
Blevins zi. Baker, 1902
V. Rogers, 2004
zf. Smith, 891
Biewett V. Coleman, 1922
Bligh V. Brent, 42, 43, 44, 45
Blight V. Banks, 2153
z'. Schenck, 1786
Blight's Lessee z'. Rochester, 216, 1160, 1214,
1222, 1241
Blish V. Harlow, 1274
Bliss V. American Bible Society, 1555
V. Brainard, 2056
V. Qark, 1504
zi. Collins, 2269
z}. Connecticut R. Co., 1032
ZK Greeley, 21
z/. Kennedy, 224S
7'. Matteson, 75, 1623
V. Sheldon, 967
ZK Smith, 1550, 1551, 1566
ZK Whitney, 129, 130, 145, 146, 1187
Bloch V. Isham, 2235, 2236
Blockley v. Fowler, 2163
l^lodget V. Brent, 834, 891
Blont z}. Winter, 939
Blood ». Blood, 703, 798, 815, 821, 851, 2364,
2366
Ixxx
VI
TABLE OF CASES.
References Eire
to pages
Blood V. Goodrich, 1026, 1042
Bloodgood V. Clark, 506
V. Mohawk & H. R. Co., 2327, 2328
Bloodworth v. Stevens, 2250, 2252, 2257, 2259
Eloom V. Gate, 2333
V. McGehee, 2272
V. Noggie, 2121
V. Van Renssellaer, 2160, 2164
V. Welsh, 40, 51
Bloomer's Appeal, 1662
Bloomer z^. Spittle, 2331
V. Waldrou, 1663, 1810, 1S32
Bloomingdale v. Barnard, 2138
V. Bowman, 21H
Blore V. Sutton, 999
Blossom V. Blossom, 785, igii, 1912
V. Milwaukee & C. R. Co., 2154, 2159
V. Van Court, 1P94
Blount V. Robeson, 1621, 1781
;'. Winter, 965
Bloutc. Blout, 2350, 2359
Blow 7j. Maynard, 762, S15
Blowar v. Murich, 937
Bludwerth v. Lake, 2151
Blue V. Blue, 1395, 1421, 1422, 1424, 1496
-Blum V. Carter, 1444
V. Robertson, 1271, 1278, 1282
V. Rogers, 1461
Blumbergz;. McNear, 2260
V. Mitchell, 2087
Biumenberg v, Myers, 1316, 13 17, 1326, 1327,
1329* 1330 .
Bliimenthal v. Bloomingdale, 996, 1324, 1325
Blumfield's Case, 498
Bluudell V. Dunn, 2282
Blunden v. Baugh, 210
Blunt iv. Aiken, 1199
V. Gee, 866, 916, 936, 947
V. Walker, 2014, 2016, 2107, 2111
BIy, Doe d., v. Colman, 1040
Blyer z>. Monholland, 2068, 2166
Blythe V. Dagiu, 14S5 •
7'. Dennett, 1058, 1345
Boalmans Savings Bank v. Grewe, 2107
Board of Commissioners v. Harman, 12S7, 2260,
2261
Board of Commissioners Tippecanoe County v.
B. L. & R. Co., 1019
V. L. M. & B. R. Co., 1019
Boardman v. Bourne, 2335
V. Catlett, 2169
v. Cattle, 2073
V. Florez, 1766
V. Gore, 2339
V, House, 1456
V. Larabee, 2071, 2072
V. Mosmau, 1733
V. Osbom, 1 167
V. Reed, 2304
Boatman v. Lasley, 2217, 221S
Boatwright v. Faust, 353
Bob z/. State, 752
Bobo V. Andrew, 2226
Kobst V. Brocks, 1998
Bockover v. Post, 1143
Boddam, Ex parte, 260, 272
Boddington 71. Robinson, 483, 531
Bodiue v. Gladine, 1872
Bodwell V, Webster, 2038, 2039, 2041
Boehm v. Engle, 149
Boester v. Byrne, 2156
Eogardus v. Parker, 732, 1893
z/. Trinity Church, 211, 225, 1148, 1898,
1899
Bogert V. Furmau, 94, 363
V. Hertell, 2101
Bogey If, Shute, 2148
Bogg V. Hargrave, 8go
Boggess -u. Meredith, 1924
Boggett V. Frier, 426
" sv. Black, 1271
V. Boggs, 1464J 1919
Boggs V. Fowler, 2149, 2151
Bogie 7j. Rutledge, 766, 826, 830
Bogy z>. Roberts, 597, 59S, 650, 652, 701
7J. Shoab, 2321, 2322
Bohall V. Dilla, 1586, 2306, 2307
Bohaunan v. Combs, 794
Bohannon z'. Sthreshley, 1781
Bohon V. Bohon, 2301
Boice V. Mich. L. Ins. Co., 2149
Bokee v. Hammersley, 2266
Boien -v. Crosby, 2099
Bollenbacker w. Fritts, 1316, 1328
Boiler V. Mayor of New York, 1029
BoUes V. Beach, 2971
Z-. Duff, 1036, 2144
V. State Trust Co., 1580, 1655, 1920, 1931
Boiling V. Boiling, 936
V. Petersburg, 2205
Bollinger 71. Chouteau, 2094
Bollo v. Navarro, 1975
Bolman v. Lohman, 1824
Bolster v. Cushman, 717, 764, 834, 875
Bolton V. Ballard, 791, 805, 845
V. Bolton, 661
zi Brewster, 2000
V. De Peyster, 1837
v. Duncan, 2273
z>. Grantham, 1039
•u. Hamilton, igi6
V. Johns, 1517, i6gg
•V. Landers, 1144, 1253, 1308
V. Nallard, 802
z'. Tomlin, 1313
Denn d., v. Bowne, 310
Boltz V. Stolz. 734
Bomar v. Mullins, 1920
Bomback v. Sykes, 1502
Bond, In re, 1684
Bond V. Bond, 986
V. Bunting, 1587
z'. Coke, 51, 104, 133, 2021
z'. Dolby, 2166
V. Hilton, 1903, 1921
V. Hopkins, 1644, 2139
V. Seymour, 1481
Bonds?/. Boardman, 2103
V. Smith, 1213
Bone V. Cooke, 1608, 1735
Bonham v. Galloway, 2101
Bonifant v. Greenfield, 1788
Bonuell v. Allen, 1184
V. Smith, 1405
Bonner v. Kennebeck Purchase, 1982
zj. Peterson, 813, 814
V. Petitioner, 1985
Bonnett zk Saddler, 564, 1185
Bonney v. Foss, 62, 123
V. Ridgard, 1784
Bonomi z>. Backhouse, 200, 2233
Bonorden z'. Kriz, 1490
Bonsall's Case, 1716
Bonsall v. Comly, 1399, 1432
Bonser v. Kinner, 1629
Bonyhuri v. Flummerfelt, 2212
Boody V. Boody, 661
z/. Davis, 1786, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2046
V. McKenny, 2343
V. Neece, 2295
Booker v. Bell, 730
V, Carlile, 1548
T. Jones, 2017, 2020
Bool V. Mix, 515, 905, 985, 986, 1032, 2343
Booley, Doe d., v. Roberts, 2
Boon V. Murphy, 200S
V. Pierpont, 2024, 2146
Boone v. Boone, 933, 941
V. Chiles, 1578, 1622,1662, 1782,2036,2123
V. Citizens' Savings Bank, 1655
V. Clark, 2133, 2140
V. Moore, 2356
z/, Pumell, 757
V. Stover, 970, 976
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxxvii
Boone v. Tipton, 722 '
Hooraem v. Wood, 2067
Booth ti. Adams, 1903
V. Ballimore Steam Packet Co., zo86,
20S7. 208S
z'. Bariium, 2027, 2029
V. Booth, 1715, 1733
V. Clark, 2365
V. Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2166
V. Cook, 2365
7'. Kehoe, 1047
V. Lambert, 855, 857
V. Small, 229S
7'. Stebbins, qi6, 935
Doe d.. 7'. Field, 1605
Boothby v. Baily, 30
V. Vernon, 649, 675, 689, 694. 697
liopp f. Fox, 7S7, S24
Borah v. Archers, 19SS
BoraLton's Case, 315, 1S48
Borden z>. Downey, 1821, 1822
V. Kin^bury, 448
Bordman r-. Osbom, 1171
Boreel v. Lawton, 1082, 1168
Borell z>. Dann, 1697
Borie V. Crissman, 49S
Borland's Appeal, 2264
Borland v. Dean, 1659
z>. Nichols, 949
V. Nicoll, 935
Borland's Lessee 7>. Marshall, 517, 598, 603, 604,
612, 614, 706
Borroughs V. White, 1513
Borst V. Boyd, 2075
V, Spelman, 681
}Joskowitz 7'. Davis, 1633
Bosler v. Kuhn, 5S, 59
Bosquett 2>. Hall, 1398, 1401
Bostick V. Keizer, 1751
Bostock V. Blakeny, 1726, 1727
Boston V. Binney, 1213, 1297
V. Richards. 2091
V. Richardson, 4, 2092
Boston Bank z'. Chamberlain, 2014, 2343
V. Reed, 2064, 2066
Boston, C. & M. R. Co. v. Gilmore, 98
Bosion Franklinite Co. z/. Condit, 1729, 1S12,
1843, 1924. 1983
Boston Iron Co. v. King, 21S5
Buston & L. R. Co. v. Boston & S. R. Co.,
2327
7'. Salem & L, R. Co., 3
Boston &. Roxbury Mills Co. v. Newman. 2316
Bosion & W. R. Corp. v. Haven, 2089, 2090
V. Sparhawk, 2092
Boston Water Power Co. v. Boston & W. R.
Co., 221 1, 2327
Bostwick TJ. Atkins, 1031
V. Beach, 839
V. Blades, 270, 271
v. Champion, 1240, 1244
7'. Dry Goods Bank, 1746
7'. Esiate of Dickson, 1783
V. Frankfield, 1163
V. Leach, 51, 52, 53, 143
7'. Williams, 729, 1094
Eoswell V. Buchanan, 2301
7', Dillon, 1609
Bosworth z'. Striskhart, 235S
v. Sturtevant, 2357
Botham V. Mclntier, 2015, 2144
Bothell, Doe d., v. Martyr, 1626
Botheroyd v. Woolley, i§oi, 1306
Eotsford 7'. Burr, 1613, 1633, 1634, 1635, 1642,
1646, 1651, 1653, 1696
V. McLean, 2330
Bott 7-. Perley, 2333
Bottoms z/. Carley, 588
V. Corley, 633, 1372
Bottorf V. Connor, 2009
Bouchard v. Bourassa, 1500
Boudette v. Pierce, 1308, 1325, 1335
Boudy 7'. Birdsall, 2.^47
Bouffam v. Green, 2354
Boughton 7/. Langley, 1607
Bouldin v. Alexander, 1661, 2260, 2261
Boulo V. New Orleans, M. & T. R. Co., 572
Boulton 7'. Lies, 918
Bourcier 7-, Edmondson, 2272
Bourdillon t/. Dalton, 2266
Bourn v. Gibbs, 1684
Bourne v. Bourne, 2063
V. Taylor, 84
Boutell V. Cowdin, 1671
Bovy's Case, Sir Ralph. 1626
Bowas 7'. Pioneer Tow Line, 1248
Bowditch 7'. Andrew, 1753
z'. Banuelos, 1662, 1787
Rowe's Case, 1328
Bowen r'. Beck, 2068,2072
7'. Bell, 1698
7'. Bowen, 947, 1401, 1402, 1851, 1862
V. Chase, 160^, 1661, 1671, 1672, 1680,
1737
V. Clark, 1 161
V. Collins, 760
7'. Conner, 282,285
zf. Dean, 317
V. Edwards, 1996
V. Prestou, 1914
7/. Proprietors of South Building, 1289,
1890
zf. Roach, 2257
zf. Scowcroft, 324
Zf. Team, 2211
V. Wood, 106
Bower 7/. Cooper, 1697
V. Hill, 2240
Bowers &. Bowers, 35, 754, 1709
7'. Higbee, 984
V. Johnson, 2111, 2112
7'. Keeseecker, 831, 2306
7'. Oyster, 2004
7'. Poraeroy, 974
7/. Porter, 533, 535
Bowes 7/. East London W. Co., 1037, 1040
Bowie V. Berry, 7S0, 7S2, 841, 1614
z>. Rrahe, 2291
V. O'Neale, 1751
zi. Stonestreet, 647
Bowker 7/. Collins. 1443
V. Walker, 1212
Bowler z'. Erhard, 2260
Bowles' Case, 64, 372, 507, 521, 568, 815, 821,
2186
Bowles 7*. Berrie, 2186
7/. Lyon, 1316, 1331, 1340
V. Poore, 820
V. Rogers, 2006
V. Stewart, 491
Bowling z>. Cook, 2120
Bowman 7'. Bailey, 1240
V. City of New Orleans, 2225
V. CockriU, 2336
V. Conn, 51
V. Foot, 1058, 1155
V, Kelemau, 2251
V. Lee, 2299
7/. Long, 1548, 2315
V. Manter, 2134
Zf. Middleton, 2324
Zf. Norton, 1382
V. Tallman, 1980
Bowne v. Potter, 764, 800, 870
Bowser ?'. Scott, 225a
Bowyer's Appeal, 1382
Bowyer z'. Anderson, 1244
V. Martin, 1210
Zf. Seymour, 1138, 1154
Denne d., zf. Judge, 1970, 1971
Boxheimer 7'. Gunn, 2133
Boyce v. Blakewell, 2266
7'. City of St. Louis, 1549
V. Coster, ig6i
Ixxxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Eoyce 7'. Grundy, i66g
z'. Kelbaugh, 2302
z'. Owens, 2346
V. Shiver, 2126
V. Waller, 485
z/. Washburn, 54, 55
Boyce's Exr. tj. Tabb, 1515
Koyd V. Allen, 2079, 2080
V. Baker, 2027
7/. Beck, 2ogi, 2093
V. Blankman, 1620
zf. Boyd, 1732
V. Brincken, 1622
V. Carlton, 789,841, 842, 843, S44, 857
V, Conklin, 19S
V. Croydon Railway Co., 1555
V. Cudderback, 240, 1382, 1434, 1467, 1479,
1506
V. De La Moutagnie, 647
V, Ellis, 1758, 2024
7/. England, 1654
V. Harris, 2093
zf. Harrison, 721, 725, 732
V. Hunter, 814, 816, 886
v. Martin, 804
V. McCombs, 2255
zf. McLean, 1538, 1613, 1615, 1642, 1646,
164S
V. Parker, 2027
V. ychlesinger, 1047
V. Sherrock, 120, 126
z/. Strahan, 339, 345
Boyd's Lessee v. Talbert, 1154
Boydell v. Drummond, 1087
z/. Golightly, 1693
Boyer z/. Cockerill, 2321
V. Dively, 595, 596
V. Smith, 1 160
V. Sweei, 118, 45S
Boyers v. Elliott, ig6i
7/. Newbank, 739, 847, 851
Boykin zf. Edwards, 1515
V. Pace's Exr., 1587
V. Rain, 66i, 663, 665
7/. Shaffer, 1019
Boyle V. Shulman, 1457
Boyleston v. Cordes, 1901
V. Carver, 2102
Boylston Insurance Co. t/. Sylvester, 191 1
Boyne v. Rogers, 1199
Boynton v. Bodwell, 1274, 1275, 1342, 1344
V. Dyer, 695
V. Hodgdon, 2298
V. Hubbard, 1770
V. Longley, igS
V. McNeal, 1481
Zf. Reynolds, 2363
V. Sawyer, 766, 783, 801, 826
Boyst V. Ayerst, 1000
Bozarth v. Largent, 588, 66g, 1359, 1363
Bozeman z>. Browning, 1723
Bozon V. Williams, 2002
Bracebridge v. Cooke, 1025
Bracken z'. Cooper, 1990
Brace v. Duchess of Marlborough, 2124, 2139
V. Yale, 2225
Bracenbridge v Cooke, 1025
Bracken v. Cooper, 1990
V. Jones, 2296, 2298
V. Martin, 2295
Brackenridge v. Holland, 1724, 1775
Bracket v. Norcross, 1914
Brackett v. Goddard, 54, 58, 137
V. Leighton, 707, 714, 776
v. Persons Unknown, 779, 807
V. Sears, 2030
V. Wait, 1623
Braddee v. Wiley, 2259
Braden v. Canon, 414, 415, 423
Bradenburg v. Reitheman, 1125
Bradfield v. Eylton Land Co., 1045
Bradford v. Belfield, 1778
Bradford v. Bradford, 267, 2330
v. Caldwell, 489, 513
z>. Kimberly, 1889
71. Limpus, 1758
z'. Marvin, 2004
z'. Patton, 1052
V. Randall, 501
7/. Street, 1814
Bradfords v. Kents, 938, 946, 947, 948
Bradish v. Gibbs, 1828, 1830
V. Schenck, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1239
Bradlee v. Christ's Hospital, 2236
Bradley v. Bailey, 498
V. Bosley, 2009
V. Boynton, 1921
zi. Chester Valley R. Co., 2142, 2157, 2160
V. Corel, 1134, 1136, 1285, 1307, 1315, 1337
V. Covel, 1255, 1299
V. De Goicouria, 1168
V. Dixon, 943
7>. D wight, 194
V. Fuller, 689, 1981, 1998, 2062, 2077
z/. George, 2178, 2180, 2181, 21S3
V. Holdsworth, 42, 43, 45, 817
V. Peixoto, 249, 252, 337, 486, 499, i860
z'. Rodelsperger, 1399
7'. WestCQOt, 339
V. Westcott, 319, 34S, 487, 1806, 1S16, 1S36
V. White, 1240, 1241
Bradley Fish Co. v. Dudley, 2244
Bradner v. Faulkner, 45, 724. 821
Bradshaw v, Callaghan, 732, 1982, 1984, 1989
V. Hurst, 1457, 1521
Bradstreet v. Clarke, 208, 261, 1060, 1855, 2291
V. Rogers, 2325
V. Supervisors of Oneida, 1657, 2014
Bradswell v. Bradswell, 1630
Bradwell 7/. Catchpole, 1733
Brady v. Banta, 1381, 1454, 1514, 1520
Zf. Brady, 1409
V. Ins. Co., 1173
V. Johnson, 2019
V. Parker, 1649
Zf. Peiper, 11 60
7'. Waldron, 2081, 2187
Bragg v. Beers, 2333
z>. Bragg, 779
V. Geddes, 1537
V. Ins. Co., 2114
V. Massie, 2047
V. Paulk, 1589, 1691
Zf. Tesseden, 2337
Brahe v. Eldridge, 1795
Brainard zf. Colchester, 784
Zf. Cooper, 2073, 2074, 2136, 2137, 2170
Brainerd z/. Arnold, 982
v. Brainerd, 2035, 2046
Brair zr. Robertson. 1013
Braithwaite v Hitchcock, 132S
Brake v. Ramsay, 985
Brakeley v. Sharp, 2208, 2245
Braker v. Devereaux, 1983
Braldish v. Gibbs, 1820, 1829
Bram v. Bram, 2150
Braman v. Dowse, 2068, 2069
V. Stiles, 253, 273
Bramble v. Billups, 416, 447, 472
Bramhall zf. Ferris, 246, 253, 260, 272, 1747
V. Flood, 2029, 2059
V. Hutchinson, 974, 975
Branch z>. Doane, 970, 2314
Zf. Jesup, 2018
V. Tomlinson, 1506
Branch Bank v. Fry, 2065
Brand v. Frumveller, 1008, 1140, 1141, 1158
Brands v. Grace, 1189
Brandies 7/. Cochrane, 1748
Brandon v. Aston, 260, 272
7;. Bannon, 1145
z/. Robinson, 246, 249, 252, 257, 260, 272,
273» 500, 1373, 1858, i860
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Brandt 7'. Clark, 2ior
Branford v. Braniord, 662, 1369
Brauger v, Maciet, 1066, loSi
Brannan v. Oliver, 1765
Bmnnin v. Womble, 1425
Brannon v. May, 1777
Branson v. Hill, 314, 315, 316
V. Labrot, igS
V. Yancey, 731, 744, 837
Brant v Gelston, 292, 319
V. Virginia Coal & Iron Co., 319, 338,
339. 351. 1S06, 2302
Brantom v. Griffiths, 46
Branton v. O'Briant, 1327, 132S, 1329, 1340
Krashear v. Williams, ig6
Brassey v. Chalmers, 1833, 1842
Brastow v. Rockport Ice Co., 71
Bratt V. Bratt, 975
V. Bratt's Admrs., 976, 1249
Bratton v. Clawson, 136
V. Massey, 1563
V. Mitchell, 1366, 1368, 1369, 1370
Brawner v. Staup, 1642, 1646
Braxon v. Bressler, 68, 1014
Braxton v. Coleman, 7S9, 790, S23
V. Lee, 794
Bray v. Lamb, 8Sg, 927, 949
V. Neill's Exrs., 936
V. West, 1788
Braybroke v. Inskip, 2083, 2084
Braye & Camoy's Peerage, Matter of, 233
Braythwayte v. Hitchcock, 1258, 1261, 1262,
1264, 1276, 1320, 1324, 1325
Brayton v. Jones, 2087
Brazee v. Lancaster Bank, 2140
Brazier v. Ansley, 1237
Brearley w. Cox, 142
Brearly -v. Brearly, 1810
Breckenridge ti. Auld, 2001, 2040
V. Brooks, 2085, 2087, 2088, 2070
V. Ormsby, 986, 2011,2129, 2244, 2345
Breckenridge 's Heirs v. Ormsby, 2132
Brecknock v. Pritchard, 1098, 1183
Bredell v. Collier, 315
Breed v. Judd, 2343
Breeden v. McLaurin, 1900
Breeding v. Davis, 588, 669, 670
Breese v. Bangs, 688
V. McCann, 1139
Brennan v. Wallace, 1461, 1465
V. Whitaker, 143
V. Wilson, 1786, 1800
Brent's Case, 1550, 1551, 1568
Brent z/. Best, 518
Brenton v. Cannon, 518
Bresee -u. Stiles, 1411
Bressler v. Kent, 2345
Brest V. Offley, 1629
Brett V. Carter, 2019
V. Cumberland, 3263
71. Rigden, 1571
Brevard v. Neely, 1598, 1795
Brevoort v. Brevoort, 1980
Brewer -v. Baxter, 236
V. Boston Theater, 1019
V. Connell, 728, 794, 795, 893, 913, 914)
1576
V. Craig, 1290
V. Dyer, 11 19, 2265
V. Hardy, 2316, 2317, 2319
V. Harris, 969, 1006
■V. Hill, 225, 475, 481, 969, 974, 1047
V. Hyndman, 2172
V. Keeler, 1212
V. Linnseus, 1456
V. Marshall, 2214
V. Maurer, 2166
V. Staples, 2150, 2179
■V. Thorp, 1315, 1316
V. Wall, 1408, 1414, i47Zj M73; 1474? i484»
1485, i486, 1487
Brewster &. Baker, 2044
Ixxxix
Brewster v. Carmes, 2109
V. De Fremery, 1196, 1197, 1200
V. Kitchell, 1869
V. Lime, 1746, 1765
V. Madden, 2059
V. Striker, 299, 1606
Briar v. Robertson, 1323
Brice's Estate, 596
Brice V. Randall, 2207. 2217
V. Stokes, 1608, 1732, 1733, 1735
Brick V. Getsinger, 2187
Brick Co. V. Pond, 983
Brick Presbyterian Church, Re. 38, 40
Brick Presbyterian Church v. New Y^-rk City,
40
Bricker v Hughes, 51
V. Whalley, 1939
Brickhouse r/. Sutton, 878
Bridge's Case, 958
Bridge V. Wellington, 281, 291
Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken L. & J. Co.,
1516
Bridgemans v. Wells, 1046
Bridgen v. Carhart, 2139
Bridgeport v. Bliun, 2073, 2169
V. Hubbell, 2332
V. Maxwell, 297, 889
Bridger v. Pierson, 2361
Bridges -v. Hitchcock, 1008
V. Potts, 1337
Bridgewater zk Bolton, 202, 309, 312
V. PZgerton, 60
Bridgford v. Riddel, 1376
Bridgham v. Smith, 2207
V. Tileston, 11 19, 2265
Bridgney v. Hitchcock, 1008
Briggs V. Austin, 1207
V. Davis, 1795, 1798, 2169
V. Earl of Oxford, 572
V. Fish, 1993
V. Hall, 1128, 1166
V. Kaupman, 2153
V. Morgan, 594
V. Morse, 1095
V. Partridge, 1042
V. Penny, 1627, 1630, 1633, 1683
V. Shaw, 307, 309, 312
7J. Titus, 641
Erigham v. Eveleth, 1896, 1967
z/. Potter, 2060
■u. Winchester, 1996
Bright V. Eynon, 518
V. McOuat, 1256, 1278, 1301, i3r4, 131%
1327, 1328
V. Pennywit, 2157
V. Walker, 2292
Brightman v. BriglUman, 418
Brightwell V. Mallory, 817
Brigland v. Shafter, 983
Briles v. Pace, 996
V. Paste, 995
Brimmer v. Proprietors Long Wharf, 2091, 2092
Brinckerhoff z*. Lansing, 2133
Brindemagle v. German Ref. Church, 2156
BringhofE v. Munzemaler, 103
Bringloe v' Goodson, 1820, 1844, 1845
Brinkerhoff v. Phelps, 1092, 2133
Briiikley v. Walcott, 1133
V. Willis, i78r
Brinkman v. Jones, 2085
Brinley v. Mann, 2013
V. Whiting, 2092
Brinton v. Datas, 2262
T. Hooks, 1919
T. Seevers, 2366
Brisbane v. Dates, 1180
V. Stoughton, 2159
Briscoe V. McElween, 2273
V. McGee, 1919, 2005, 2006
zi. Powers, 2176, 2 181
Bristol V. Carroll, 2298
V. Morgan, 2166
xc
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Bristow V. Warde, 1811, 1882, 1990
Krittain v. McKay, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52
Brittin v. Handy, 1618, 1619, 170S, 1770
Brittlebank v. Goodwin, 1782
Rritton's Appeal, 2126
Brittoni'. Twining, 437, 1693
V. Updyke, 2154, 2179, 2180
Broach v. Barfiald, 2046
Broadbeut v. Ramsbothatn, 2226
Broaddus v. Turner, 416, 417
Broadhurst v. Balgay, 1733
V. Morris, 324
Bioadman z/. Osborn, 1127
Broadrup v. Woodman, 1592
Broadwater v. Darne, 1033
Brobst V. Brock, 1993, 1997, 199S
Brock V. Eastman, 1914, 1982
V. Smith, 103, loS
Erocklehurst, 2095
Brockway v. Thomas, 996, 1295
Brodiev. Barry, 368, 719,2057, 2289
Brogden v. Walker, 463
Brograve v. Winder, 316
Brolaskey v. Lota, 1168
Brolasky v. Ferguson, 2270
V. Fury, 2263
V. Gaily's Exrs., 76
Bromfield, Ex parte, 95
Bromley v. Elliott, 1242, 1243
V. Jefferies, 1053, 1087
Brompton v. Aikis, 1968
Broncker v. Coke, 1571
Brondage v. Warner, 2236
Brone's Admrs. v. Bockover, 670
Bronson v. Coffin, 1069, 1092, 1093, 1094
V. Kinzie, 1507, 1510,1511, 1512
V. Newberry, 1518
V. Rodes, 2254
V. St. Peter's Church, 39
Brook V. -Briggs, 1148
V. Brook, 753
Brookbank v. Brookbank, 1791
Brooke's Appeal, 1690, 2121, 2122
Brooke v. Berry, 1735
V. Brooke, 707, 710, 752
Brookings v. White, 1514, 2031, 2040
Brookover v. Hurst, 1997
Brooks V. Avery, 2o5o
V. Brooks, 479, 497, 506, 1034
V. Cliatham, 1499
V. Cunningliam, 1248,^2255, 2273
•V. Curtis, 2235
7'. Dent, 161 1
V. Everett, 692, 703, 761, 762, 78S, 797, 798,
815
V. Fowle, 1646
V. Galster, 12 10
V. Hyde, 1284, 1394
V. Jones, 290
V. Marbury, 1605. 1712, 1794
V. Moody, 1094, 1095
V. Pearson, 1748
V. Shelton, 1633, 1646
V. White, 1701
V. Whitmore, 2124
V. Wilcox, 2255
Brookville & M. Hydraulic Co. -u. Butler, 68, 70,
7^ 72i 73
Broom v. Broom, 786, 825, 1957
V. Hore, 2263
Broome 71. Davis, 1385
Broomfield v. Smith, 13 13
Brophy v. Bellamy, 1740
Brophy Co. v. B. N. D. Co., 1047
Brossart v. Carlett, 2240
Brost V. Simpson, 1862
Brothers 7>. Cartwright, 76
V. Harrill, 2047
V. Hurdle, 47
V. McCurdy, 249
Brough V. Higgins, 506, 513
Broughton v. Broughton, 1791
Broughton v. Langley, 1703
V. Randall, 765
Brouwer v. Jones, 268, 1103
Brow V. Clack, 667
Browder v. Browder, 908
Brower v. Bowers, 769
Brown's Appeal, 1844
Brown v. Adams, 1248, igii, 2255
V. Alden, 411, 1050
V. Anderson, 415
V. Armistead, 1752
V. Ashbough, 1456
V. Austen, 1016
V. Bailey, 1925
V, Balen, 2331
V. Bates, 1886, 2147
7'. Beatty, 2326
V. Berry, 2221
7'. Best, 100
V. Bigg, 315
•V. Bowen, 2248
V. Boyd, 313
V. Bragg, 968, 969, 1280, 1327
V. Bronson, 727, 794, 912, 913
V. Brown, 71, 940, 987, 1398, 1400, 15S9,
1590, 1980, 1981, 1989, 2252, 2303, 2341
V. Budd, 2006
V. Burlingham, 2279
V. Caldwell, 956, 965, 1684, 1686
V. Cantrell, 947
V. Cayuga & S. R. Co., 1798
V, Chamberlain, 1795
IK Clark, 588, 672
V. Clifford, 204S
V. Coats, 1233
V. Cockrell, 2296
V. Cole, 2128, 2173
V. Collins, 710
V Combs, 1590, 1706, 2ogi
V. Coon, 1413, J443, 1449, 1450, 1455, 1467,
1468, 1469, 1478
V, Corey, 88
V. Ci-am, 1998. 2079
•v. Cramm, 1998
V, Crump, 79
•V. Dean, 2042, 2121
V. Delaney, 2147
V. Dewey, 2031, 2042, 2052, 2053, 2054
•u. Dillahunty, 1517
V. Doane, 1586, 1616, 1617
V. Duncan, 823, 826, 842. 844
V. Dwelley, 1612
V. Dwelly, 1614
V. Dysinger, 1149, 1213
V. East, 2008
V. Engel, 1280
V. Farran, 909
V. Fifield, 1514,1515
V. Fitz, 2312
V, Gale, 1367, 1920, 1945
z/. Gay, 211,2296
V. Gilman, 2005
V. Higginbotham, 1240
z>. Higgs, 1628
7/. Hodgdon, 98G
V. Holyoke, 2039
z'. Homan, 1990
7'. Illius, 2230
V. Jackson, 2263
V. Jaddrell, 1034
V. Johnson, 1716
V. Kayser, 995, 1134, 1274, 1316, 1318,
1326, 1336, 1337
a. Keller, 1159, 1214, 1308, 1393, 1394,
1410, 1424
V. Kirkman, 2123
V. Kite, 1123
V. Lapham, 728, S02, 803, 8og, 810, 2097,
2134
V. Leach, 2031, 2032, 2079
V. Leete, 2298
V. Leitch, 1050
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
XCl
Brown?'. Lillie, no, 113
V. Lindsay, 1025
V. Lunt, 2366
71. Lynch, 1586, 1621, 1645, 1770
V. Lyon, 17^4
V. AlcKinally, 1180
V. McKinney, 517, 2398
v, McMullin, 1985
V. Martin, 1378
V. Matthews, 1046
z'. Mauler, 2364
V, Meredith, 733, 735
V. Minturn, \-jc)^
7>. Morrill, 1956
V. National Bank, 2142
V. National Bank of Hamilton, 2S4
V. Nevitt, 2056, 2149
7'. Parson, 10S7, 1088, 1205, 1316
V. Peck, 269
V. Pecock, 270
%'. Penstz, 2337
V. Persons, 1290
V. Phillips, 2301
V. Porter, 234
c. Powell, nil, 1123
V. Raindle, 1970
V. Ramsden, 1605
7'. Ransey, 292
7'. Renshaw, 1843
V. Richards, 806
z>. Rickets, 695, 1715, 1716
z'. Robbins, 1242
V. Sanborn, 51
r'. Simon, 2089, 2090, 2153, 2180, 2183
7*. Simons, 2090
7'. Snell, 688,2062, 2063, 2147
V. Sprague, 216, 221, 222
V. Stanclift, 54
7'. State, 1401
7'. Stead, 2150, 2152
V. Stewart, 1998, 2077, 2079
7'. Storey, 1028
V. Thurston, 1267, 2067
V. Tigle, loog
7'. Trumper, 1007, 1314
7'. Turner, 1973, 1982
V. Tyler, 2016
V. Van Braam, 1516
V. Vandergrif t, 84, 100
7f. Van Horn, 1300, 1308, 1335, 1338
V. Vanlier, 2006
V. Weaver, 1776
V. Webster, 1711
V. Wellington, 1911
V. Wenham, 196
V. Werner, 2235, 2237
V. Westbrook, 660
V. Wever, 411, 412, 423, 447, 468, 671
V. Whiteway, 1608, 1797
V. Williams, S85, 886
7'. Williamson, 254, 273, 1675
V. Willis, 2167
V. Windsor, 2234
V. Wood, 305, 307, 308, 311, 312, 1913
V. Wright, 1577, 1720, 1721, 1722, 2336
Brown*s Admr. z>. Bragg, 1138, 1150
Brown*s Exrs. v. Higginbotliam, 1241, 1244
Browne v. Bockover, 592
V. Brockville, etc., 1194, 1195
V. Cavendish, 1794
V. Kennedy, loi
V. Potter, 764
V. Warner, 1313
V. Witt, 1398, 1400. 1401
Browne's Lessee v. Anderson, 426
Brownell zk Brownell, 291, 416, 423, 1975, 19S2
V. Welch, 1327, 1329, 1335, 1339
Browning 7/. Harris, 1381, 1476
Brownlee v. Allen, 1956
Browuson v. Gifford, 1984
V. Hull, 1920, 1931, 1932, 1933. 1940. 1951.
1952
Brownsville 7'. Basse, 1140
Broyles v. Nowlin, 1621, 1760
Brubaker v, Paul, 2292
Bruce, Ex parte^ 2002
Bruce 7'. Booney, 2102
V. Fulton National Bank, 1067, 1082,
2362
V. Luke, 2322, 2323
V. Schuyler, 1517
V. Strickland, 721
V. Wood, 591, 1365
Bruch zi. Landy, 2334
V, Lantz,27g, 1703
Brudenell v. Elwes, 1828
Bruorton's Case, 547
Brugman v, Noyes, 1103
Brumfield v. Carson, 3 1
; Brumfitt V. Roberts, 28, 30, 33, 36
Brumley v. Fanning, 2081
Brundage v. Brundage, 42, 43
Bvundred v. Walker, 2151
Brune, Doe d., 7'. Martyn, 1596
Bruner v. Briggs, 670
V. Meigs, 1808
Brunson v. Hunter, 1629
Bruntoii v. Hall, 2220
Brunswick r-. Litchfield, 597
Brunswick-Balke CoUander Co. v. R^es, 199
Brunswick Sav. Inst. z>. Com. Uniou Ins. Co.,
2116, 2119
Brush V. Kinsley, 2007
V. Ware, 1778, 2304, 2359
Bryan 7'. Atwater, 1915, 229S
V. Batcheller, 773, 774, 887, 894, 920, 921
V. Bradley, 208, 297, 1542, 1548, 1549,
1551. i558>23i5
7'. Butts, 2000, 2062
7'. Cowart, 2039, 2047
■V. Duncan, 1621
ZK Lawrence, 120, 137
V. Ramirez, 1890, 2364
7'. Weems, 1712, 1781, 1784, 1797
V. Wetherhead, 2216
V. Whistler, 29
Doe d., 7'. Bancks, 1058, 1138
Bryan's Exrs. v. Thompson's Exrs., 1887
Bryant v. Christian, 338
zi. Cowart, 2039
zi. Crosby, 51. 2047
V. Erskine, 1849, 2031, 2032
V. Hendricks, 1642, 1643, 1648
V. Hunter, 786, 824
V. Kinlaw, 1288
V. McCane, .707, 916, 935
7'. Pennell, 2020
V. Russell, 1600, 1671
V. Tucker, 1280, 1285
V. Woods, 1513
Brydges v. Brydges, 1580, 1591, 1693
Bryson v McCreary, 2250
7'. Rayner, 1770
Bubier v. Porter, 951
V. Roberts, 932, 955, 956
Buccleuch 7'. Wakefield, 90
Buchan v. James, 1782
V. Summer, 694, 1671, 1957, 1958, 1960,
1962, 1963
Buchana z'. Monroe, 2062
Buchanan's Estate, In re, 712, 918, 943, 1382,
1406
Buchanan z>. Buchanan, 963, 965
z>. Curtis, 2205, 2206
7'. Deshon, 750, 775
V, Duncan, 603, 608, 675, 687
V. Hamilton, 1600
V, International Bank, 2120, 2126
7'. King, 1990
V. Monroe, 2112, 2150, 2152
V. Schaffer, 788
V. Sheffer, 687, 780
V. Shiffer, 656
Bucheridge v. Ingram, 44, 710
xcu
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Buchill z'. Clary, 2343
Buck 71. Binninger, 489
7', Colbath, 1516
z/. Conlogue, 1462, 1463, 1464
V. Payue, iggS
7.: Pickweli, 54, 55
z!. Robinson, 794
■u. Seyiriour, 2018
7'. Spofford, 1894
V. Swazey, 161S, 1635, 1646, 1651J 1652,
1779
Buckelew 7/. Snedeker, 1904
Euckely 7/. Daley, 1998
Euckenridge v. Ingi-am, 42, 776,816
Buckeridge v. Ingram, 20
Buckingham v. Hanna, 2300
7/. Nelson, 1497
V. Smith, loi, 2328
Buckingham, Earl of, v. Drury, 923
Buckingham's Exrs. v. Reeve. 975
Buckinghamshire v. Drury, 951, 953, 955
Buckinghamshire, Earl of, v. Hobart, 510
Buckland v. Butterfield, 129
V. Hall, logi, 2263
V. Pappilian, 1008
Buckle V. Mitchell, 1626
Buckler's Case, 4S2, 530
Buckles zT. Lafferty's Legatees, 1716, 1766, 1770
Buckley v. Buckley, 61, 127, 138, 6c6, 607, 694,
1671, i960, 1964
v. Daley, iggS
v. Nightengale, 278
V. Taggart, 1222 '
V. Wheeler, 143 1
Bucklin 7/. Truell, 2226
Buckly V. Coles, 2208, 2215
Bucknall v. Story, 1180
Buckner 7/. Calcote, 1781
V, Jewell, 2266
V. Sessions, 2149
7/. Warren, 1137, 1140, 1150
Buckout V. Swift, 2021, 2022
Buckridge z>, Ingram, 779
Bucks V. Drury, 957
Bucksport V. Spofford, 236
Buckworth &. Thirkell, 581, 664, 690, 691,780,
815,820, 826, 827, 885, 1569
Budd 7/. Hiler, 724, 847
V. State, 2332
Buddie, Doe d., v. Lines, 1310
Budge 7/. Gummow, 1664
Buell 71. Buckingham, 1766, 1772, 1775
7/. Irwin, 2365
Buerger v. Boyd, 1015, 1176
Buffalo City Cemetery 7/. Buffalo, 40
Buffalo East Side R. Co. v. Buffalo St. R. Co.,
198
Buffalo R. Co. V. Braiuard, 2325, 2327
Bufferlow 7'. Newsom, 1216, 1217
Buffin 7/. Hutchinson, 281
Buffum v. Buffum, 7S6, 1963
V. Deane, 1115, 2251, 2257, 2259
V. Greene, 2349
7/. Hutchinson, 283, 284, 285, 532
Buford 7/. McKee, 2333
Buhl 7>. Kenyon, 974, 976, 1225
Buist 7'. Dawes, 383
Bulfer V. Willingrod, 945
Bulger v. Roche, 2299
7/. Woods, 1922
Bulkley v. Chapman, 211 1
7/. De Peyster, 1598
V. Dolbeare, 560
Bull 7'. Bull, 1630
7/. Conroe, 1388, 1513
V. Griswold, 45, 51, 135, 996, loio, 2259
V. Kentucky National Bank, 1677, 1679
V. Schuberth, 1244
7>. Sykes, 2015
Bullard v. Briggs, 708, 715, 726, 746, 878, 1698
V. Chandler, 1665
7/. Goffe, 202
Bullard v. Harrison, 2208
V. Johnson, 2251
V. Leach, 811, 2097
v. Powers, 766
Bullen V. Runnells, 2247
Doe d., V. Mills, 1148
BuUene 7'. Haitt, 1499
Buller v. Burt, 1830
Bullitt V. Musgrave, 1228
Bullock 7'. Dommitt, 563, 1068, logS, 1099, 1153,
1179, ii8r
V. Hayward, 1901
V. Thorne, 1845
Bulwer v. Bulwer, 48, 539, 1206, 1207, 1253, 1267
Bumgardner v. Circuit Court, 1518
Bunce v. Gallagher, 2291
7'. West, 2074, 2171, 2174
Bunch V. Hurst, 1758
Bundy z>. Iron Co., 2069
Bunker v. Locke, 1378, 1419, 1443, i44S» 2188
Bunn V. Channen, 2195
7/. Daly, 637
7/. Lindsay, 2138
7>. Winthrop, 1791
Bunnell z/. Evans, 533
Bunner z/. Storm, 1649
Bunny v. Wright, loig
Doe ex. d., v. Rout, 2
Bunting v. Ricks, 1759, 1765
Bunz v. Cornelius, 1485
Burbank v. Crooker, 1246
7'. Day, 867, 869
V. Dyer, 1020, 1021, 1135, 1304, 1315, 1316,
1342
v. Fay, 2291
7/. Warwick, 2111
V. Whitney, 1541
Burch 7/. Burch, 1849
V. Carter, 1777
zi, Newbury, 2324
Burchard v. Frazer, 2031
Burchfield 7/. N. Cent. R. Co., 2262
Burchman v. Wilson, 1176
Burckle 71. Eckhart, 1240, 1243, 1244
Eurd 7/. Den.sdale, 635, 636, 637
Burden v. Sheridan, 1642
7/. Tliayer, 1027, 1028, 1120, 1121, 1171,
1847, 2064, 2151
Burdeno t^. Amperse, 646, 895
V. Banterse, 1938
Burdet v. Hopegood, 618
Burdett7;. Clay, 2104, 2105, 2106
V. Doe d. Spilsbury, 1831
7/. Withers, 1228
Doe d., V, Wrighte, 1744
Burdge V. Bolin, 143 1
Burdick v. Briggs, 771, 919, 920
V. Jackson, 2001
V. Washburn, 1229, 1234
Burditt 7/. Colbum, 2035
Burette v. Briggs, 200S
Burey zi. Reese, 2318
Burford v. Rosenfield, 2158
Burgaine v. Spurling, 2128
Burge V. Smith, 901,911, 912
Burger v. Potter, 2007, 2009
Burges 7/. Curwin, 373
ZI. Mawbey, 491, 509
Burgess zj. Eve, 2030
V. Rice, 12 14
z'. Wheate, 157, 277, 299, 477, 1534, 1545,
1551* 1558, i57S» 1597. 1692, 1704,
1736, 2009
V. Wheaton, iSoo
7>. Wilson, 1349
Burgett V. Taliaferro, 1882, 1898
Burghardt v. Turner, 492, 1910
Burgher v. Humphrey, 9S3
Burgoyne z/. Spurling, 2127, 212S
Burhans v. Burhans, 1982, 1984
7^. Hutchens, 2096, 2 no
7/. Van Zandt, 1738, 1883
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
XCiU
Burk V. Chrisman, 2151;
Burk, E.V parte, v. Hamstead Free School,
1037
Burke v. Adaras, 220
V. Allen, 3126
7j. Bank of Tennessee, 2064
V. Barron, 731, 831, 835
V. Colbert, 65O) 657
V, Hale, 1212
V, Lynch, 2094
V. Miller, 2128
V. Smith, 1 581
V. State, 1243
V. Valentine, 585, 588, 653, 670, 687
Burkett v. Burkett, 1452
Biirkham v, Beaver,
Burks V. Burks, 1619, 1633, 1760
V. Mitchell, 2297
P'urland v. Kipp, 2099
Burleigh v. Clough, 320, 336, 487, 1815, 1820
V. Cluff, 487
V. Coffin, 1024, 1363, 1364, 1367, 136S
Burlen v. Shannon, 662
liurleson v. Burleson, 1899
Burling x*. King, 1697
Bumap V. Cook, 1409, 1473, 1474, 1475, 1484,
i4Q3i 1496, 1497. 1504. 1523
Burne, Doe d., v. Prideaux, 1040
r.urnes z/. Bryant, 973
TV. McCubbin, 1137, 1143, 1146, 11 50
Burnet v. Burnet, 720, 817, S18
V. Davis, 677, 1372
V. Deuniston, 415, 2097, 2136, 2139, 2x61
V. Pratt, 2125
Burnett v. Deunison, 2074
V. Denuiston. 2073
V. Lynch, 1073
V. Marshall, 1910
V. Pratt, 1886, 2102, 2125
V. Rich, 1217
V. Thompson, 974, 988, 1046
Bumham 7>, Kempton, 2248
Burns v. Bryant, 1274, 1278, 1280, 1291, 1344
V. Bums, 597
V. Cooper, 1230, 123 1, 2251
V. Gallagher, 2241
V. Harris, 1399
V. Jones, 1454
V. Lewis, 1952, 1953
V, Lynde, 727, 1044, 2339
V. O'Rourke, 1033
V. Phelps, 1 1 68
V. Thayer, 829
w. "Thompson, 1947
Burnside v. Merrick, 1963, 1964
V. Merritt, 786, 825
V. Terry, 1517, 1999, 2036, 2037
V. Twitchell, 131, 133, 2186
V. Wayman, 2038
z'. Weightman, 46
Bumson v. King, 1632
Burr V. Beers, 207a, 2071
V. (iraves, 976
V. Hutchinson, 2331
V. Mills, 2240
V. Phcenix Glass Co., 2342
V. Sim, 75, 522, 533
V. Smith, 1541
V. Spencer, 982
V. Stenton, 1080, 1082, 1125, ii6g
V. Veeder, 2089
Burrage v. Briggs, 2282
Burrell v. Bull, 1621, 1643
V. Burrell, 2298
Doe d., V. Perkins, 1309
Burridge v. Bradyl, 937
]?uiTill V. Sheil, 1599, 1663
Burris z'. Page, 697, 698, 820, 821
Burritt v. Saratoga M. F. Ins. Co., 2114
V. Silliman, 1598
Burrough v. Foster, 411, 414
V. Philcox, 16S5
P.urroi:ghs v. Nutting, 650, 657
z.. Richman, 1033
Burrow -v. Hensou, 2ib8
Burrowes v. Gradin, 1306
V. Lock, 1697, 1758
Bursen v. Goodspeed, 1411
Burson's Appeal, 1366
Bursou V. Fowler, 1449, 1454
V. Huntington, 2033, 2035
Burston v. Jackson, 2301
Burt V, Herron, 347, 1593
Burt V. Hulburt, 661, 1377
V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 2327
V. Ricker, 2085
V. Wilson, 1616, 2004
Burton v. Barclay, 1163
V, Baxter, 2100, 2102, 2104, 21Q&
V. Burton, 750
V. Hintrager, 2084
V. Holley, 1247
■u. Lies, 943, 2156
V. Marshall, 646
71. Martz, 2366
V. Muffitt, 2235
V. Murphy, 1899, 1900
V. Rohrbeck, 1079
V. Smith, 2083
7'. Wheeler, 2136, 217S
Burtt's Estate, Re, 1818
Burwell v. Anderson, 317, 319
V. Fauber, 1778
V. Hobson, 2241, 2248
Burwell's Exrs. v. Lumsden, 934
Bury V. Hartman, 1759
Burynham v. Grey Hospital, 1088
Busby 7'. Busby, 202, 302, 311, 331
V. Holthaus, 2231
V. Salter, 322,324
Busch V. Cooper, 2362
Bush's Appeal, 1561, 1576, 1579, 1597, 1674,
1736, 1747
Bush V. Bradley, 600, 601, 603, 604, 612, 614, 619
V. Bush, 1704, 1773
v. Cole, 1092
V. Cooper, 2059
7'. Hicks, 2331
V. Lathrop, 2109
V. Lester, 1512
V. Scott, 1497
V. Sherman, 2160
z'. Steinman, 1194
V. Sullivan, 2212
Bushby v. Dixon, 362
Buskirk v. Stridkland, 2233
Buss V. Dyer, 2242
Busse's Estate, Matter of, 1521
Bussman v. Ganster, 1001, 1002, 1098, 1178, 1182
Bustard's Case, 798, 819, iggi
Buswell V. Marshall, 2272
v. Peterson, 2144
Butcher v. Butcher, 1315, 1356
V. Rogers, 2322
Butler's Case, 821
Butler V. Birkey, 2177
V. Butler, 799, 975
V. Carter, 1782
V. Cheatham, 710, 759, 761, 815
7'. Godley. 1580
V. Haskell, 1745, 1757, 1758
XI. Heustis, 403, 408, 183 1, 1839
V. Kidder, 1176
V. Ladue, 2140
V. Little, 311, 330, 331, 332, 536
V. Mulinhill, 1032, 1034
V. Nelson, 1431
I'. Page, 97, 112, 130, 131, 133, 136, 142,
146, 1027, 2162
z'. Portarlington, i6gi
V. Rivers, 1225
V. Roys, 191 1, 1984
V. Seward, 808, 8og, 2130
V. Porter, 1691
XCIV
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pnges.
IjuU 7>. EUettj 1051, 2018, 2020
7'. Thomas, 417
Hutte Canal & D. Co. v. Vaugn, 223S, 2239
liuiterfield zf. Beall, 590, 1231, 13O4, 1367
V. Field, 665
V. Stanton, 959
2'. Wicks, 141 1
Butterick v. Holden, 1005
Butterworth v. Crawford, 2241
Buttlar V. Rosenblath, 1932, 1944, 1950, 1952
Buttrick v. Wentworth, 2164
Butts V. Broughtou, 1485, 2075, 2169, 2170,
V. Trice, 960, 963
71. Wood, 75
Euxton 7'. Dearborn, 1419. 1483, 1514, 1515
V. Inhabitants of Uxbridge, 402, 42S, 449
z'. Rust, 1000
Buzick V. Ruzick, 716, 726, 727, 746, 87S, 879
Byam v. Bickford, 1897
Byassee v. Reese, 54, 55
Byckman, ?'. Gills, go
1 yer v. Etnye, 882
E)'ers V. Byers, 102S, 1403, 1405
V. Danley, 1635
7'. Wackman, 1648, 1700
Byington 7>. Backwalter, 2169
Byng V. Byng, 60, 324
Bynum ?'. Bostwick, 184
Byrane v. Rogers, 1060, 1154
Byrd zt. McDaniel, 2175
Byrne v. Beeson, 1144
V. Byrne, 662
V. Van Hoesen, 1022
Byrnes 7/. Stillwell, 345
Caballero v. Henty, 1765
Cabeen v. Mulligan, 1386, 1442, 1443, 1459, 1460,
1 461
Cade V. Brownlee, 974, 976
Cadell V. Palmer, 323, 971
Cadmus 7'. Combes, 504
Cadogau t. Kennet, 1626
Doe d., 7/. Ewart, 300,315,322, 1553, 1557,
1597, 1605, 1606
Cadwalader v, Bailey, 2215, 2217
Cadwallader v. App, 1145
7>. Harris, 1515
Cady !•. Allen, iioi
V. Owen, 2302
7'. Shepherd, loiS
Caffney 7'. Hicks, 2041
Cage V. Acton, 660, 770
7/. Russell, 1157
Cagger I/. Lansing, 1139
Cahill V. Wilson, 1462
Cain V. Cain, 916
V. McGuire, 54, 55
Caines f. Grant, 1618
Cains v. Jones, 2359
Cairncross 7>. Lorimer, 2302
Cairns 7'. Chabert, 504, 505, 740
71. Colbum, 1537
Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Turner, 2324
Cairo & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co.,
1317
Calame v. Calame, 771, 772, 919, 920
Calbraith v. Green, 763
Calcraft zi. Roebuck, 202
Caldecot v. Smythies, 1205, 1208
Calder v. Bull, 885
Calderwood 7/. Tevis, 1441
Caldwall ?'. Baylis, 573
Caldwell V. Copeland, 88
V. Fulton, 88, 89, 2189
V. Furgeson, 306, 331, 334, 337
V. Harris, 1213
r'. Smith, 1212, 1219
V. Taggart, 2147
Caledonian R. Co. ?'. Sprot, 66, go, 92
Calhoun V. Atchison, 2255
7/. Calhoun, 1491, 1497, 1562
7'. Cook, 210, 533
7'. Curtis, 1905, igir
7'. Hays, 1977
z'. McLendon, 1400
7/. Williams, 1398, 1400
California Dry Dock Co. z*. Armstrong, 1153,
J228
Califoniia Tel. Co. 7: Alta. Tel. Co., 197
Calkins 7/. Calkins, 799, 2000
7>. Isbell, 2095
z>. Munsel, 2171
, Call 7>. Barker, 19S1, 1982, 1983
' Callahan 7>. Hawkes, 1120
7'. Robinson, 917
7'. Shaw, 2066
Callender 7j. Marsh, 2232
Callis V. Day, 2011
V. Kemp, 416, 447
V. Tolson, 17S1
Calloway 71. People's Bank, 2159, 2160
Calton 7/. Hilley, 990
Calus V. Harper, 818
Calver v. Harper, 885
Calvert v. Aldrich, 64, 65, 1891, 2234
V. Bradley, 11 17
7'. Eden, 1548, 1583
7'. Simpson, 996
v. Williams, 1517
Doe d., z/. Frowd, 1309
Calvin's Case, 673
Calvo V. Davies, 2150, 2071, 2072
Cambria Iron Co.'s Appeal, 2273
Cambridge Valley Bank ?'. Dilam, 2359
Camden Mut. Ins. Co. 7>. Jones, 966
Camel v. Portland Sugar Co., 1194
Cameron v. Irwin, 20S6, 2127, 2128, 2129, 2155,
2161, 21S5
7/. Lewis, 1643
V. Mason, 2005
Cameto v. Dupuy, 1426
Camley v. Stanfield, 1222
Camp 7'. Camp, 1148, 1348
7f. Chamberlain, 50
7'. Cleary, 254
7'. Homesley, 1903 '
V. Scott, 1139, 2257, 2274
7'. Smith, 2101
Campau z'. Barnard, 1990
V. Campau, igo8
ZI. Laffery, ggg
z>. Shaw, 1023
Campbell 71. Adair, 1380, 1457, i45g, 1460, 1461,
1466, 1483, 1514, 1515
Zi. Ayers, 1386, 1441, 1442
?'. Baldwin, 2008
V. Beaumont, 345, 352
V. Bemis, 2151
7'. Brown, 8go
z>. Campbell, 6g4, 786, 801, 817, 825, 1464,
1878, 1884, 1905
zf. Carson, 306, 331, 333, 338
7'. Crampton, 753, 754
7/, Dearborn, 2041, 2044, 2045, 2047, 2048,
2054
ZI. Elliott, 1502
7J. Evans, 2324
?/. Foster, 273; 1747, 1798
v. Gullatt, 596
z>. Hampton, 1214
V. Hunt, 976
V. Johnson, 2357
V. Johnston, 2155
V. Jones, 1440
v. Knight, 783, 803
V. Kulm, 2345
z/. Leach, 1039, 1838, 2014
7J. Lewis, 1074
?'. Lowe, 1979
I'. Macomb, 2185
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
xcv
Campbell v. McManus, 1387
V, Mesier, 65, 508, 757, 2236,2237
V, Miller, 1664, 1714, 1718, 1720, 1724
V. Morris, 7 82
1). Murphy, 802, 813, 841, S44, 866
V, Patterson, 2068
1). Proctor, 1252, 1266, 1291, 1305
V. Roach, 2009
V. Roddy, 112, 133
V. Sandys, 525, 52S
v. Shipley, 1139
IK Smith, 2072, 2226
V. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 2019
V. Tompkins, 201 1
V. Upshaw, 1699
V. Vedder, 811, 2098, 2110
V. Walker, 161 1, 1767.
V, Wallace, igoi, 1928
7'. Wenlock, 1056
V. Wilkinson, 2291
V. Wilson, 2242
V. Winson, 2219
Doa d., 1), Scott, 1339
Campfield v. Johnson, 1751
Campion v. Cotton, 959
Canal Commissioners, v. People, loi
Canal Co. v. Railroad Co., i860, 2188
Canby's Lessee v. Porter, 51/, 635, 636, 637,
1367
Cancey v. Strove, 1024
Candler v. Tillet, 1733
Candy v. Stradley, 1983
Canedv v. Haskins, 415
Canfield v Fairbanks, 2345
V. Ford, 23, 83, 88, 228, 19S0
V. Shear, 2017
Canfranque z'. Bumell, 2056
Caiinaughton x>. Sands, 1400
Cannel v. Buckel, 647
Canning v. Canning, 344
V. Piiikham, 2354
Cannon v. Apperson, 265
v. Cannon, 2353
1). Copeland, 123
V. Folsom, 1247
V. Hare, 740
V. Wilber, 1151;
7/. Trotuman, 1545, 157S, 1595, 1777
Cantagrel v. Van Lupin, 2298
Cantrell v. Fowler, iig6
Cape Fear Nav. Co. v. Wilcox, 1869
Capen v. Peckham, 106, in, 112, 113, 116, 1186
V. Richardson, 1538
Capner v. Flemingtou Mining Co., 1153, 2187
Cappell's Estate,' 975
Capper v. Sibley, 1020
Car V. Elliso'i. 376
Carberry v. Willis, 2207, 2242, 2245
Card V. Jaffray, 2049
V. Patterson, 908
Cardigan v. Armitage, 93
Cardington t>. Armitage, 90
Cardross's Settlement, 7??, 1827
Cardwell, Re, 1720
Care v. Keller, 930
Carell v. Cuddtngton, 433, 446
Carey v. Buntain, 731, 734, 741
V. Rawson, 2002, 2040, 2049
Cargile v. Wood, 751, 752, 789
Carin v. Carin, 967
Carithers v. Stuart, 2172
Carle v. Monkhouse, 1207
Carleston v. Rugg, 5
Carleton v. Byington, 2120
V. Cate, 2248
Carley v. Lewis, 2261, 2262, 2263, 2264
Carlies v. Howland, 2005, 2006
Carlin v. Chappel!, gr, 2233
V. Paul, 2218
•V. Ritter, m, 112, 145
Carlisle*s Appeal, 1021
Carlisle v. Cooper, 2242
Carll V. Butman, 783, 802, 803, 2074, 21S2
Carlton v. Buckner, 2007
V. Carleon, 3
V, Dorset, 794
V. Jackson, 805, 806, 808, 2134
Carlyle v. Cannon, 310
V. Patterson, 1923
Carlyon v. Loveriiig, 2227, 2238
Carmack v. Masterston, 998
Carmichael z<. Buck, 1746
V. Carmichael, 931
V, State, 595, 596, 752
Carnall z/. Duval, 2033, 2034
V. Wilson, 718, 733, 735, 736, 737, 739,
838, 881, 909
Can\es v. Pollt, 519, 746
Caro V. Metropolitan Elevated R. Co., 2, 3
Carondelet v. Lannon, 102S, 1158
V. St. Louis, 2192
V. Wolfert, 1151
Caroon v. Cooper, 801, 817
Carpenter v. Bowen, jggS
V. Canal Co., 1783
V. Carpenter, 1664, 1713, 1714, 1723, 1725,
1728, 1998, 2055
V. Collins, 1334
V. Davis, 652, 701
V. Denoon, 516, 517
V. Dexter, 2364
V. Garret, 593, 598, 599, 615
V. Griffin, 934
V. Herrington, 1514
V, Jones, 1267, 1297
V. Koons, 2154, 2179, 2180
V. Logan, 2108
V. McBride, 1740, 1764, 1777
V. Moores, 2125
V, Providence Washington Ins. Co., 2089,
2113, 2114, 2116, 2117
1). Robinson, 1757
zi. Thompson, 1148, 1218, 1348
V. United Srates, 1276, 1291, 1292, 2261
V. Walker, 122, 123
V. Weeks, 764, 766
V. Wescott, 1871
7'. Williamson, 2151
Carpentier v, Brenham, 2135, 2150
7'. Williamson, 2146, 2321, 2322
Carper v. Mumger, 2101
Carr, Petitilioner, 1981
Can- V. Allison, 1088
V. Brady, 722, 723
V. Caldwell, 1491, 1497, 1498
V. Carr, 779, 2045
V. Clough, 2343
V, Dodge, 1909
V. Ellison, 1009, 1088, 1089
V. Estill, 324, 325
7/. Givens, 585, 606, 612, 1911
V. Hobbs, 2004
V. Hodge, 2089
V. Holbrook, 2040
V. Hoxie, 2354
V. Ireland, 76
V. Rising, i459t 1465, 2044,2052, 2054
V. Wallace, 2191
Carradine v. Carradine, 1694
V. O'Connor, 2159
Carrick v. Errington, 1638
Carrier v. Perley, 1136
V. Sears, 986, 1032
Carrig V. Dee, 2223
Carrington v. Herrin, 1457
V. Herrion, 1398
V. Roots, 50, 51
Carroll v. Ballance, 1163, 1164, 3998, 2079
V. Carroll's Lessee, 940, 1516
V. Gallion, 2296, 2297
V. Hancock, 1568
V. Lee, 1561
•V. Newton, 80
V. Renick, 646, 1609
TXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Carroll v. Van Rennsselaer, 2004
Carruthers v. Humphrey, 1999
Carshore v. Murray, 960
Carskadon z'. Torreyson, 1685
Carson v, Rlakey, 1755
v. Burnet, 2295
?/. Carson, 1631
7'. Coleman, 2325
V. Crigler, 2250
zf. Foley, 1626
7'. Godley, 1054, 1066, 1202
v. Marshall, 1644
V. Murray, 905, 906, gio
Doe d., 7^. Baker, 1255, 1278
Carstairs v. Taylor, 1054
Carter 7'. Balfour, 706 ,
7'. Barnardiston, 970, 973, 987
V. Reals, 1920
z'. Bennett, 1781, 2103, 211O
V Burr, 21, 2268
7'. Cantrell, 651, 1366
z>. Carter, 1506, 2046
z>. Castleberry, 1624
V. Chadron, 2363
V. Crawley, 19
V. Dale, 588,656, 677, 678, 679, 680, 1372
7'. Denman, 729
V. Eveleigh, 1375
V. Goodin, 802, 928
z*. Goodman, 1468
V. Goodwm, 782, 901, 902
7>. Gregory, 2r2
V. Hammett, 1114, 1117, 2262, 2264
z/. McQuade, 1949
V. McMichael, 461
V. Montgomery, 1649
v. Murcot, 2ig8
V. Palmer, 1708
7f. Parker, S41
Tf. Peak, 1093
z>. Peun, i8go
7>. Reddish, 321
V. Rockett, 2114, 2118, 2119
V. Rolland, 1727
V. Taylor, 811, 1993, 2097, 2137
t>. Town of La Grange, 12 14
V. Tyler, 462
7'. Walker, 782
v. Walter, 2274
V. Warne, 1115
V. Warner, 11 14
V. Williams, 598, 599, 607, 608, 615
Cartwright v. Miller, 1891, 1S92
V. Pulney, 1973
7/. Wise, 1640
Caruthers v. Caruthers, 952, 955, 956
V. Humphrey, 2129, 2131
V. Wilson, 865
Carver v. Jackson ex d, Astor,_io48, 2300
7'. Pecks, 2082, 2083
7'. Richards, 1040
7'. Smith, 1919, 1932, 1944, 1952
Carwardine v. Carwardine, 1569
Carwin, District Township of, v. Moorhead, 995
Cary v. Cary, 1629
V. Daniels, 1092, 2211
2f. Folsom, 2154
z/. Willis, 1879
Casad 7/. Hughes, T083
Casamayos v. Strode, 2o8r
Casboard v. Ward, 1658
Casbume 7>. English, 2172
V. Tnglis, 689
7>. Scarfe, 509, 592, 599, 611, 1996, 2063,
2084, 2 1 68
Case 7>. Aniett, ic6
7'. Case, 751, 1801
v. Codding, 1633, 1634, 1646, 1651
7'. Erwin, 1777
7>. Gerrish, 1623
7'. James, 2124
7'. Heart, 1238
Case v. McCabe, 2002
Case of Private Road, 22 n
Casey v. Buttolph, 1580, 2319
t/. Buttulph, 237
7/. Casey, 1707, 1769
&. Gregory, 1169, 1170, 1222
V. Inloes, 1768, 1773, 2291
V. Rawson, 2357
Caskey v. Brewer, 415
Caslerz*. Shipmau, 2246
Cason V. Hubbard, 908
Casper v. Walker, 265
Casporus 7/ Jones, 870
Cass V. Martin, 511. 783, 802, 21S2
V Thompson, 797. 821, 940
Cass County Bank 7'. Webber. 1385, 1392
Cassanave v Brooke, 519
Cassell 7/. Coake, 536
z>. Cooke, 306, 309, 321, 331, 332, 333
V. Ross, 1407, 1409, 1413, 1451, 1454.
1498, 1499, T717, 1756, 1778
Casselman v. Packard, 1384, 1386, 1387, 1417,
1431, M33. i435» 1436, 1442
Cassidy v. LeFevre, 1248
Cassily 7f. Rhodes, 46, 49
Castle z'. Palmer, 1481, 1503
Castleman v. Beit, 2064
Castleton f. Langdon, 1850
Castner e'. Walrod, 588
Caston V. Caston, 872, 947
Castro 7'. Illes, 720
V. Tennent, 291
Caswell V. Crane, 1013
V. Districh, 1229, 1231, 1233, 1234, ^235,
1239
Cate 7>. Thayer, 2357
Cater v. Eveleigh, 1375
Catesby's Case, 13 11
Cathcart's Appeal, 2099
Cathcart 7>. Bowman, 1093
7>. Robinson, 1697
V. Turner, 2272
Cathedral Church, Matter of, 29
Catherwood v' Caslor, 595
7/. Catherwood, 1652
Catholic Mutual Benevolent Asso. v. Finiane,
2280
Cathorpe, Ex parte, 1721
Catlin -v. Hayden, 1306
V. Kidder, 1897, 1913
V. Milner, 1365
V. Munger, 151 1
V. Ware, 789, 791, 822, 840, 841, 845, 900,
902, 909
v. Washburn, 1309, 2363
Caton V. Caton, 998
Catskill Bank v. Gray, 1241, 1242
Catterall v, Sweetman, 597
Catterlin v. Armstrong, 2067, 2171
Cattley v Arnold, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1306, 1320,
132.S
Cauffman v. Cauffman, 942, 949
Caufman v. Presbyterian Congregation of Cedar
Springs, 490
V. Say re, 2144
Caujole V, Ferrie, 595, 596, 757, 759
Cauifield r'. Maguire, 509
Caulk V. Florida, 2319
71. Fox, 237
Caulkins 7'. Fry, 1033
Cavan 7>. Doe d. Pulteney, 942, 1039
Cavanaugh 71. Clinch, 1130, 1132
7/. Peterson, 2119
V. Smith, 1427
Cave 7'. Mackenzie, 1644
Cavender n. Cavender, 1661
V. Smith, 717, 885
Caw V. Robertson, 1S50
Ceanies v. Irving, 1707
Cecconi v. Redden, 1095
Cecil 71, Salisbury, 985
Center v. Pillinghurst, 2154
Keferences are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
XCVll
Center v. P. & M, Bank, 2103, 2106
Central Bank v. Copeland, 641, 2060
Central Branch R. Co. v. Fritz, 63, 139
Central Bridge Co. v. Lowell, 2327
Central Gold Min. Co. v. Piatt, 2327
Central Mills Co. v. Hart, 2270
Central Nat. Bank of Baltimore v. Connecticut
Mut. L. lus. Co., 1761
Central Park Extension, Matter of, 714, 796,
873
Central R. Co. zk Greely, 2327
V. Hetfield, 2325
w. Macon, loig
Central Trust Co v Wabash, St. L. & P. R.
Co., 2066
Centrill v. Risk, 915
Cesar w. Karutz, mo
Chadbom, Doe d., v. Green, 1303, 1314, 1333
Chadwick v Felt, 1612
7'. Island Beach Co., 2069
V. Moore, 1511
V. Parker, 1060, 1154, 1157
7/. Perkins, 1591
V. Woodward, 1054
Chaffee v. Dodge, 286
V. Franklin, 813
Chafron r'. Cassady, 2305
Chahoon v. HoUenback, 1773
Cliarne zk Wilson, 1456
Chaires v. Brady, 2046
Chalker v. Chalker, 1861, 1R67, 1868, 1869
Challefoux v. Ducharme, 1897, 1917, 1919
Challonerz'. Davies, 11 64
Chalmer v. Bradley, 1778, 1782, 17S3
Chalmers v. Wright, 2075
Chalmonally v, Clinton, 2303
Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 225, 596, 712, 757
V. Crane, 297, 1548, 2319, 2321
7}. Gardner, 2144
•u. Godfrey, 1016
V. Lyell, 1450, 1467
V. Marshall, 2304
■V. Neale, 2254
V. Sprague, 2363
•V. Steams, 1683
V. Taylor, 77, 1689
V. Thompson, 288, 300, 688, 1594, 1596,
1606, 1796, 1997, 1998, 2062, 2077
Chamberlin v. Donohne, 1269, 1293, 1295, 1296,
1297, 1309, 1322, 1326
Chambers v. Fox, 1471
V. Goldwin, 2051
z'. Handley, 589
V. Maudlin, 1712
V. Minchin, 1732, 1733
V. Pleak, 1915
V, Penland, 1449
V. Perry, 173 1
7j. Vignaud, 1297
Chambliss v. Jordan, 1512, 1513, 1517
Chambovet v. Cagney, 646
Champion v. Bostwick, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243,
1244
V. Spencer, 1977
Champlin v Foster, 2140
V. Laytin, 2061, 2130
V. Williams, 2150
Champney v. Coope, 520, 1580, 2097, 2098, 2127,
2134
Chance v. Hinman. 1102
Chancellor v. Poole, 2265
Chancy v. Strong, 1363, 1368, 1369
V. Chaney, 814
Chandler v, Cheney, 1930, 193 1> »938, 1942. i9S2
V. Dyer, 2073, 2139, 2140, 2170
V. Hollingsworth, 658, 794
V. Rowland, 1240, 1242, 1243
V. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct, 2245
V. Pocock, 76
•u. Price, 322
V. Ricker, 1898,1913
V. Rider, 1814
Chandler v. Temple, 2035
V. Thurston, 48, 538, 1231, 1235, 1263,
1268, 1297
V. White, 2301
& Hart V. Rossiter, 712
Chanery v. Stevens, 207
Chaney's Admrs. v. Chaney's Admrs., 813
Chanome v. Fowler, 920
Chapel V. Bull, 730, 1095, 2353
Chapin v. Broder, 2167
V. Chicopee University Soc, 2101
V. First Universalist Society, 299, 1607
'v. First Universalist Soc. of Chicopee,
286, 1659, 1S12, 1813
V. Foss, 2271
V. Hill, 934, 935, 941, 956
V. Schafer, 1031
V. School District, 1540, 1555, 1850, 1972
V, Wright. 2175
Chaplin V. Chaplin, 445, 611, 68g, 702, 781, 1566
V. Givens, 1660
V. Sawyer, 141 1
V. Simmon's Heirs, 736
V. Tillinghast, 181
Chapman v. Allen, 1947
V. Armistead, 731
V. Beardsley, 2005
V. BHssett, 1606, 1797
z'j Bluck, 1000
V. Brown, 1604
V. Chapman, 1952, 1953, 2002
V. County Commissioners of Douglass,
1633
7). Glassell, 1551, 1561
V. Gray, 28, 225, 969, 974, 975, 976, 1047,
1225
V. Harney, 1060, 1154, 1155, 2256
V. Holmes, 1093
V. Kendall, 1092
V. Kirby, 1060, 1151
V. I'Ong, 45
V. Martin, 2274
V. McGrew, 1044
V. Miller, 591
V. O'Brien, 2302
V. Porter, 2085, 2087, 2184
Vy Prickett, 2
V, Robertson, 367, 368, 720, 2057, 2058,
2288, 2289
V. Schroeder, 776, 806, 878, 931
V. Smith, 2088
V. Tanner, 2004
V. Towner, 1258, 1308, 1314
v. Turner, 2168
V. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co., no, 134,
137
V. West, 2152, 2154
V. Wright, 1061, 1154
Chappell V, Allen, 2107, 2147
V. Brewster, 401
V. Gregory, 1200
V. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 2240,
2241, 2242
Charles v. Andrews, 955
V. Charles, 645
•v. Dubose, 1620, 1768
Charles River Bridge Co. v. Warren Bridge
Co., 2291
Charless v, Lamberson, 1380, 1386, 1441, 1442,
1443, 1444, H45' ^4"^) H5^. 1483. i502r
1518
V. Rankin, 2231, 2232, 2233
Charlewood v. Bedford, 1042
Charlton v. Miller, 773
Charter v. Otis, gi6
V. Stevens, 2161
Chase's Case, 776, 778, 779, 790, 814, 816, 8.10,
844, 845, 848, 874, 875, 885, 902, 903,
2045
Chase v. Abbott, 1409, 1454, 1523, 1934, 207S,
2079
z'. Alley, 927, 951
XCVUl
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Chase v. Creed, 2034
V. Chase, 660, 1631
z/, Cheney, 34
V. Hazelton, 550, 552, 556, 558, 561
V. Lockerman, 1997, 20S5, 2103
7). McDonald, 2140 ,
V. McLellan, 2174
V. Peck, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2009
■u. Silverstone, 2230
V. Sutton Manuf. Co., 2244
V, Wingate, 78, 79, 106
V, Woodbury, 2076,2153,2176, 2178, 2181,
2183
Chasemore v. Richards, 2230
Chastain v. Smith, 1643
Chatfield v. Wilson, 2248
Chatard v. O'Donovau, 1287, 128S
Chatham v. Bradford, 2122
Chatterton v. Fox, 1092
Chattle 1). Pound, 1214
Qhavener v. Wood, 2172
Chaworth z*. Phillips, 1123, 1124
Cheatham v. Jones, 1421
Chedel v. Millard, 1028
Chedworth v. Edwards, 1783
Cheek v. Waldrou, 885, 940, 1363, 2160
Cheese, Doe d., v. Creed, 1309
Cheeseborough, Matter of, 5
V. Green, 64, 65, 507, 2234
V. Millard, 2137, 2164, 2176, 2177, 2178
Cheetham v. Hampson, 1068, 1198, 1201, 1202
Cheever v. Parsons, 1251
V. Pearson, 234, loig, 1257, 1260, 1263,
1280, 1281, 1282, 1296, 2212
V. Parley, 2095
V. Rutland, 207S
Chegan v. Young, 2264
Chellis V. Steams, 2077
Chelton v. Green, 2065
Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige, 69
Chenery 7'. Stevens, 1563, 1565, 2118,2316,2319,
2334
Cheney v. Arnold, 751, 752, 757
V. Bonnell, 1140
V. Pierce, 1362, 1370
V. White, 2309
Cherrington v. Abney Mill, 2222, 2247
Cherry v. Bowen, 2050, 216S
s/. Monro, 2124, 2150
•V. Stein, 2223, 2229
Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Paine, 43
Cheseldine v. Brewer, 751
Cheshire v. Payne, 654
Cheshire Nat. Bk. v. Jewett, 49, 51
Chesley v. Thompson, 1905, 1969
V. Welch, 538, 1205, 1285
Chesline v. Lewis, 1330
Chesline Lines Committee v. Lewis, 1341
Chess V. Chess, 1016
Chess-Charlye Co. v. Purtell, 293
Chesson -v. Chesson, 509
Chester v. Chester, 326
V. Dickerson, i960, 1961, 1962, 1964
•V. Wheelwiight, 2031
V. Willan, 1970
Chesterfield v. Jansen, 15S6, 1645
Chesterman v. Gardner, 1165
Chestnut v. Shane's Lessee, 904, 2332, 2333
Chestnut Hill Tumpipe Co. v. Piper, 2243
Chetham v, Williams, 2189
Chetwood v. Winston, 415, 416
Chew's Appeal, 267
Chew V. Bank of Baltimore, 986
V. Bamett, 2018
V. Barrett, 2019
V. Chew, 415, 449, 469, 708, 760, 762, 785,
788
7-. Commissioners of Southwark, 599,
603, 604, 611, 612, 68g, 699, 700
V. Farmers' Bank, 431, 938
V. Hyman, 2170
V. Morton, 2291
Chew V. Weems, 415
Chew's Admrs. v. Beall, 1373, 1562
Chicago V. Garrity, 2268
V. Larned, 2325
V. O'Brennan, 1201
V. Robbins, 1516
Chicago & Eastern 111. R. Co. o. Hay, 1781
Chicago & N. W. R. Co. -u. Borough of Ft.
Howard, 98
Chicago R. Land Co. -u. Peck, 2136
Chicago & Pacific R. Co. v. Stein, 1014
Chicago K. N. R. Co. %>. Ozark Township, 233
Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Howard, 1041
V. Kennedy, 1777
Chicago, T. & M. C. Ry. Co. z-. TitleringtoJi,
1469, 1474
Chicago, etc., Co. v, U. S. Coal & Iron Co.,
983.
Chick V. Rollins, 2093, 2094
z'. Willetts, 1999, 2063, 2076, 2079
Chickerley's Case, 1050
Chickering v, Faile, 1883, 2151
■V. Fullerton, 2152
Chidester v. Consolidated Ditch Company,
498
Chighizole v. Le Baron, 1020
Child V. Baylie, 433, 437
V. Chappell, 2211, 2240
•u. Gibson, 1715
V. Sampson, 987
V. Sand, 1902
V. Singleton, 1447
ChiJders zi. Bumgarher, 605, 607, 612, 630
V. Childers, 1691
V. Smith, 2250, 2251
Childress v. Cutter, 1922
Childs 7'. Childs, 689, 2062
V. Clark, 1108, nog, 2262, 2264
V. Dolan, 2067
V. Drake, 758
V. Jordan, 1615
V. Smith, 737, 739, 740, 743
V. Westcott,' 1024
Chiles y.Bartleson, 534
V. Coleman, 2359
V. Conley, 1916, 2338, 2352
Chilton V. Henderson, 441, 448
V. Lyons, 2005
V. Niblett, 1282
V. Wilson, 2299
Chinnary v. Blackman, 2066
Chinnubee v. Nicks, 831
Chinsley v. Langley, 260, 267, 268
Chipman t. Emeric, 1057, 1139, 1143, 1154
V. Tucker, 2033, 2035
Chirac v. Reinecker, 213, 359
Chisholm v. Chisholm, 141 1
V. Georgia, 195
Chissom v. Hawkins, 2272
Chittenden v. Berney, 2075
Cholmondeley v. Cholmondeley, 1630
V. Clinton, 473, 1545, 1577, 1736, 1741,
17S4, 1785, 2091, 2184
Chopin V. Runte, 1482
Choppell V. Gregory, 1054
Chorpenning's Appeal, 1724, 1766
Choteau v. Thompson, 976, 1225
Chouteau v. Eckhart, 2192
7/. Jones, 2366
Chowning v. Cox, 2037
Chretien v. Douey, 1320
Christ Church Hospital v. Fuchsel; 2254
Christ's Hospital v. Budgin, 1887
Christian v. Crocker, 1239
V. Dripps, 63, 138
V. Ellis, 1958
V. Newberry, 8ro
Christian Union v. Yount, 367
Christie's Appeals, 974, 1141
Christie, Succession of, 1397, 1407, 1410
Christie v. Gage, 489
V. Herrick, 2147
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
XCIX
• II73. II74
Christine v. Witherill. 1989
Christmas v. Mitchell, 1777
Christopher v. Austin, 11295
v. Sparke, 2174
V. Williams, 1479
Christy 2t. Alfred, 2299
V. Dyer, 1386, 1441, 1442, 1443, 1444,
1445, 1491, 1492. 1497
V. McBride, 1713, 1714, 1723, 172S
7'. Pridgeon, 15 16
Chritien ?/. Doney, 1006
Chudleigh's Case, 410, 1534, 1535, 1539, 1545,
1551, 1554, 1556, 1557. 1558, 15^4^ 1565.
1566, 156S, 1570, 1571
Church V. Brown, 257, 1096, 1097
T. Burghardt, 212, 2296, 2297
z'. Chapin, 1623
T. Ghurch, 814, 831, 1622
z'. Edwards, 454
v. Gilman, ioi6
7'. Griffith, 122, 1226
7'. Imperial Gas Light & Cobe Co-, 1332
7'. Mundy, 307
V. Ruland, 1701
7j. Schoonmaker, 1305
V. Seeley, 2262
v. Sterling, 1620, 1622, 1643
V. Wells, 31, 37, 38, 40, 83
Church of Avquakcanonk v. Ackerman's Exrs.,
938, 948
Churchill 7>. Dubben, 307
z'. Hudson, 635, 639
1'. Hulbert, 1356
V. Hunt, iioi, 2025, 2026
7'. Marks, 260, 272, 1677
Churchman v. City of Indianapolis, 1781
z'. Martin, 2325
Chure zk Seeley, 2268
Chute z>. Washburn, 1864
Chynoweth f. Tannery, 2213
Cibak 7'. Klekr, 2241
Cibel V. Hills, 1174
Cilley V. Huse, 1957
Cilly 7'. Hawkins, 1245, 2246
7'. Huse, 786
Cincinnati College v. Yeatman, 78, 976
Cissna v. Haynes, 2153
Citizens' Bank z>. Knapp^ 123
Citnerz*. McRea, 799
City 7'. City, 795
City Bank of Baltimore v. Smith, 1870, 1872
City of Brooklyn, 1248
City of Chicago z/. Laflin, 68
v. McGinn, 68
V. O'Brennan, iigg
City of Cleveland v. State Bank, 1832
City of Dubuque zf. Miller, 13 19
City of Logansport v. Justice, 1247
V. Seybold, 2325
City of London v, Greyme, 556, 562, 564
zj. Mitford, 1008, 1009
V. Nash, 1083
City of Philadelphie v. Girard's Heirs, 1604,
1675, 1676, 1680, 16S2
City of St. Louis v. Kamie, 1193
z/. Laclede Gas Light Co., 1923
City of Salem v. Eastern R. Co., 4
City of San Antonio v, French, 1133
City Council zf. Moorhead, 1182
City Council of Montgomery v. Montgomery &
W. Plank Road Co. ,982
City Nat. Bank z/. Hamilton, 1635
Claflin V. Boston & A, R. Co., 243, 2240, 2242
z/. Carpenter, 54, 55- 2213
Clagett z/. Hall, 2349
Claiborne v. Handerson, 781, 820, 1543
Claires z/. Brady, 2047
Clancey v. Onondago Pine Salt Mnfg. Co., 1020
z/. Stephens, 1448
Clancy z/. Byrne, 1083, 1198, 1199
Clanvickard v. Sidney, 1366, 1369, 1370
Clap :'. Draper, 56, 2357
Clapp V. Bromaghan,'i897, 1917, 1970, 1982, 2295
z*. Coble, ii6g, 1 170
z>. Inhabitants of Stoughton, 1359, 1360,
1363* 1364
z/. Maxwell, 2167
V. Noble, 1131, 1316, 1327, 1329
V Paine, 1310, 1315, 1334, 1351
V. Stoughton, 1024, 136S, 1369, 1849
Clare v. Appleby, 2108
V. Hunt, 923
7'. National, etc., 1194, 1195
Clark V. Akres, 2355
-71. Allen, 2340
V. Babcock, 1066
z'. Baker, 228, 416, 420, 423, 424, 2091,
2300, 2358,
77. Baltimore, 671
7'. Bancroft, 2164
zr. Barnes, 1004
z'. Battorf, 724, 7S9, S46
z/. Beach, 688, 1997, 2062, 2077
7'. Bell, 2009
7'. Brown, 2125
TJ. Burgh, 1360
zr. Caldwell, 1033
V. Christ's Church, 1138
z/. Clark, 517,, 5S5, 596, 653, 662, 664, 670,
680, 683, 769, 773, 810, 920, 1024, 1065,
1376, 1646, 1920, 1942, J951, 2222,
2270
V. Clark's Estate, 2260, 2261
V. Coudit, 2050, 2160
7'. Crego, 1S99, 1917
7'. Crownshaw, 125
V. Curtis, 2066
z>. Douglass, 1623
V. Dwelling-house, 632
7/. Eaton (Clark z'. Trust Co.), 1757, 1758
v. Eaton (Comr. of Friedman's Trust
Co.), 1658
■V. Everly, 1309
Zf. Farrington, 2014, 2016
z/. Field, 752
V. Foot, 568
7'. Fraley, 2273
z'. Graham, 368, 720, 2058, 2157, 228S, 2289,
2339. 2352
V. Griffin, 916, 934, 935, 955
V. Harvey, 120S, 1319, 1320, 1676
z/. Henry, 2037, 2039, 2042, 2050, 2168
7/. Herring, 977, iiii, 1249
V. Holden, 552, 557, 559, 560, 566, 1139
7'. Hornthaf, 1730, 1842
z'. Howland, 1134, 1317
z'. Hume, 2266
z>. Hunt, 2008, 2009
V. Jones, 105a. 1058, 1138, 1140
r'. Kelliher, 1356
7'. Koer.ig, 1474, 1485
V. Laughlin, 810
V. Lawrence, 2230
V. Livering, 1997
7'. Lott, 661, 662, 1359
V. Lyon, 2038
V. Mackin,2i36, 2172
z/. McClure, 209, 210, 2297
z/. Makenna, 1375
V. Martin, 268
z'. Munroe, 766, 783, 804, 829, 830
V. Muzzey, 847, 848
z/. New England Mut. F. Ins. Co.,2113
7'. Nolan, 1408, 1472, i486
7>. Ownes, 477
7'. Parker, 1979
7'. Prentice, 2149
7'. Redman, 903
7'. Reyburn, 2062, 2187
7'. Rhoades, 1003, 1330
7'. Richardson, 729, 863
7/. Riddle, 1754, 1755
z/. Robins, 2090
7/. Rochester, 2325
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Clark V. Scott, 2gi
V. Shannon, 1378, 1387, 1419, 1446, 1454,
1475
V. Sibley, 2184
V. Sidway, 1956
V. Slaughter, 661
V. Smith, 1039, 1256, 2088, 2090
-v. Swift, 729, 1092
V. Taintor, 1662
•u. Tennison, 271, 1165
V. Thompson. 192a
V. Tinker, 2194
V. Titcomb, 2342
V. Trawick, 1517
T). Troy, 2363
V. Wheelock, 1273, 1274, 1293, 1294
V. White, 2328
V. Williams, 197
V. Wilson, 2089, 2 1 18
V. Wright, 1087
Doe d., V. Smaridge, 1136, 1303, 1307,
1314, 1333, 1335
Clarke's Appeal, 638, 1369
Clarke's Estate, 500
Clarke v. City of Rochester, 2335
V. Clarke, 572, 1936
z>. Clarke's Admr., 1219, 1221
V. Cordis, 1910
V, Cummiugs, 557, 1141
V. Fuller, 999
V. Rowland, 1136, 1315
V. McCreary, 715, 2332
^. McClure, 2n
1). Merrill, 1052
V. Mikell, 309
V. Rannie, 1205
V. Reybuni, 2084
V. Royal Panopticon, 2159
V. Samson, 1989
V. Southwick, 2237
V. Swaile, 1775
V. Trawick, 1512
V, Wagner, 2298
V. Windham, 270
Clarkson v. Doddridge, 2105
Clary v. Fryer, 1810, 181 1
V. Owen, 112, 2096
Clason V. Corley, zo66, 2156, 2162 ]
V, Norris, 2177
Classen a. Carroll, 13 16
V. Classen, 595
Claussen v. Lafrenz, 1539
Clavering v. Clavering, 495, 561, 1791
V. Ellison, 1867
Clawson v. Hutchinson, 671
Clay V. Freeman, 786
V. Richardson, 1475
V. Sanders, 737
V. Wren, 2079
Clay, Heirs of, v. Clay, 216
Clayton's Case, 2256
Clayton v, Blakey, 981, 1013, 125S, 1264, 1322
7>. Cagle, 1781
V. Clayton, 302, 330
7'. Freet, 2331
V. Wardell, 751. 758, 759
Clearwater v. Rose, 531, 532, 2105, 2106
Cleary v. McDowell, 1365
Clegg V. Rowland, 1038
Clemence v. Steere, 506, 541, 542, 543, 556, 557,
561, 563, 564, 565. 566, 575, 577, 578,
"53
Clemens v. Broomfield, 1017, 1042
V. Clemens, 1548, 1603
Clement v. Bennett, 2038
&. Greenhouse, 2352
V. Hadlock, 1240, 1244
Clements v. Bostwick, 304
V. Broomfield, 998
V. Glass, 417
V. Lacey, 141 1, 1525
V. Lacy, 1407, 1457
Clements v. Welles, 1185, 177S
Clemm v. Wilcox, 12 18
Clemmins v. Gotshall, 2303
Clepper v. Livergood, 679, 6S0, 695, 701
Clere's Case, Sir Edw., 1538, 1566, 1805, 1844
Clere v. Brooks, 366
Clerk V. Clerk, 1033
Cleve V. Veer, 2154
Cleveland v. Boerum, 2152
V. Cohors, 21 XI
V. Crawford, 489
V. Flogg, 2296
V. Hallett, 280, 284, 287, 289, 290, 1555,
1563, 1592, 1594, 1597, 1710, 1796,
1813
7/. Martin, 2133
Cleves V. Willoughby, 1054, 1066, 1175, 1180,
I200
Clews V, Bathurst, 661
Cliff z'. Gibbons, 307
Clifford V. Hare, 2248
V. Watts, 1 168, 1 175
Cliftw. Clift, 312
V. White, Si I, 1580, 2098
Clifton V, Clifton, 1364
V. Lombe, 1629
Climie v. Wood, 106, 122, 127, 133
Clinan v. Cooke, 999
Cline V. Inlow, 2 151
7/. Upton, 1466
Clinefelter r. Ayers, 1810, 1842
Clinton v. Cox, 2175
V. Fly, 266
V. Myers, 69, 2225, 2227, 2228
V. Westbrook, 1997, 1998
Clinton National Bank v. Manwarring, 2083
Clinton Wire Cloth Co. v, Gardner, 1131, 1316,
1317
Clock V. Gilbert, 2299
Clore V. Lambert, 133, 135
Close V. Hunt, 745
Closs V. Boppe, 1636
Cloud V. Calhoun, 1599, 1786, 1788
Clough V. Bond, 1718, 1719, 1733
V. Elliott, 777, 802
V. Hosford, 1283, 1292
Clow V. Derby Coal Co., 2152
Clowdsley v. Pelham, 1630
Clowes V. Dickenson, 907, 2076, 2154, 2180
Cloyes V. Sweetser, 2357
Clubb V. Wise, 1479, 1506
Clun's Case, 497, 1172
Clun, Doe d., v. Clarke, 1309
Clure V. Commissioner, 693
Class's Case. 1051
Clute V. Bool, 1798
Clyat V. Batteson, 51S
Clymer v. Dawkins, 1914
Clyner v. Dawkins, 1913
Coakley v. Mahar, 1023, 1893
V. Perry, 1349
Coal Co. V. Fry, 1659
Coal Creek Mining Co. v. Ross, 2301
Coale V. Barney, 1981
V. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. Co., 1153
Coalter v. Hunter, 2213
Coan 7'. Mole, 1322, 1334
Coane v. Parmentier, 340
Coape V. Arnold, 1694
Coars V. Holderness, 1638
Coates' Appeal, 347, 1632
Coates 7'. Cheever, 89, 494, 495. 561, 712, 742,
803, Sio, 8ii, 812, 841'. 853
7'. Woodworth, 164S
Coats V. New York City, 40
Cobb V. Biddle, 60
V. Davenport, 2198
V. Dyer, 2069, 2136
7'. Kibb, 2260
V. Knight, 1792
7'. Lavelle, 1014
V. New England Ins. Co., 1051
Keferences are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CI
Cobb w. Stokes, 1310, 1333
v. Thornton, 2167
t: Webb, 1462
Cobbey v. Knapp, 1474
Cobble V. Tomliuson, 824
Cobel V. Cobel, 2252, 2259
Coble V. Nonemaker, 1777
Coburn v. Holies, 210
V. Palmer, 1149, 1213, 1266
Cochran t. Cochran, 506
V. Darcy, 1512, 1513
V. Goodell, 1S85, 2041, 2125
71. Guild, 1094
V. Kemey, igrg, 19^5, 1945
V. Ocean Dry Dock Co., 1014, 1015
z'. Utt, 2024
V. Van Surlay, 2323, 2324, 2327, 2329,
2330. 2332
Cochrane v. Libby, 757
V, Willis, 1697
Cock V. Goodfellow, 1715
Cocke V. BaiUey, 804, S32
V. Hanuum, 1464
Cocker's Exrs. ?'. Phillips, 762
Cockerell v. Dickens, 368, 719, 2057, 2289
Cockerill v. Armstrong, 762, 763, 800
Cocket f. Sheldon, 373
Cockran v. O'Hern, 654, 655, 681, 683, 684, 685,
6S7, 699, 1371, 1372, 1674
Cockrell v. Curtis, 1454
Cockrill V. Armstrong, 823, 928, 1592, 1593, 1630
V. Downey, 58
V. Morrey, 339
Cockson V. Cook, 1074
Coddiugton v. Dunham, 1079
Coder v. Huling, 1956, 1963
Codling v. Johnson, 2205, 2218
Codman v. Hall, 1026, 1925
V. Jenkins, 2271
V. Johnson, 505, 1102
V. Winslow, 1913
Codwise v. Taylor, 2009
Cody V. Quarterman, 996, 1212, 1283, 1293, 1294,
1299, 1306, 1319, 1334
Coe V. Bradley, 2304
V. Clay, 1065
V. Columbus, P. & Ind. R. Co., 98, 2038
V. Delaware & L, R. Co., 2018
v. Hobby, 996, 1162
V. McBrown, 98, 2019
V. Persons, 2322
V. Smith, 1381
V. Walcottville Manf. Co., 2292
V. Winters, 2121
V. Wolcottville, 591
Coffee V. Ruffin, 1717
Coffey V. Hunt, 2065
Coffin V. Argo, 19S9
v. Bramlitt, 1724
v. Coffin, 573
V. Heath, 1891
V. Loring, 2016
V. Lunt, 1270, 1271, 1274, 1285, 1304
Coffman v. Coffman, 780
z'. Huck, 1276, 2261
Cogan V. Cogan, 1569
Coggesgall, etc., Trustees of New Rochelle, v.
Pelton, 1659
Coggs V. Bernard, 1191
Coghil V. Freelove, 2263
Cogley V. Browne, 1157
z>. Cushman, 201 1
Cogreve v. Dehon, 1947
Cogswell V. Cogswell, 506, 508, 510, 511, 943
V. Lippet, 894
V. Stout, 2134
V. Tibbetts, 887, 895
Cohen v. Broughton, 2274
7>. Dry Dock, East Broadway & B, R.
Co., 1x95
t/. Dupont, ii66
V. Kyler, 120, 135, 136, 1727
Cohens v. Vir^ma, 1516
Cohier v. Trinity Church, 36
Cohi) V. Virginia Ins. Co., 632
Coit V. Comstock, 16S6, 1687
Cokerz/. Pearsall, 1027,2064
v. Smith, 2151
V, Whitlock, 2080
Colbum V. Hollis, 2297
v. Mason, 1912
r', Morrill, 1128, 1173, 1174
V. Morton, 1769
V. Richards, 2227
Colby V. Osgood, 1096
Colchester 7'. Roberts, 2220
Coldwell 71. Woods, 2040
Cole 7/. Cole, 757, 945, 986, 1407, 1410
V. Eastham, 2198
V. Gill, 1286, 1290, 1445, 1497, 1504
v. Laconia Savings Bank, 1443, i444r '445
7'. Lake Co., 1297, 1S49
V. Langley, 596, 757
V. McKey, 1197
V. Marple, 1514
V. O'Neil, 654
, V. Patterson, 2268
V. Pennoyer, 1031,2344
V. Rawlinsou, 309
zf. Robinson, 1033
V. Savage, 2071, 2112
V. Scott, 2006
V. Sewell, 1569
7'. Smith, 976
V. Sprowle, 2186, 2206
V. Stewart, 133, 2186
V. Terry, 1246
v. Van Riper, 587, 588, 633, 669, 896,
1362, 1377, 1514
v. Wade, 1663, 1731, 1778, 1816, 1817,
1818, 1833, 1841, 1842
V. Wolcottsville Mfg. Co., 1365
Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 96, 127, 145
Coleman's Appeal, 2244, 2247
Coleman's Estate, 204
Coleman 71. Anderson, 2335
V. Ballandi, 1509, 1513
7/. Beach, 1808, 1809
V. Billings, 2298
V. Chadwick, 92, 2233, 2237
V. Cocke, 1613, 1616
v. Coleman, 1883, 1972, 1973
V. De Wolf, 722, 723
V. Doe, 18
V. Duke of St. Albans, 2067, 2162
V. Grubb, 1973
V. Haight, 1084
V. Hutchenson, 1906
V. Lane, 1907
■V. Rensselaer, 2082
v. Satterfield. 588, 1364
V. Stearns Mfg. Co., 106, 133
z>. Walker, 1784
V. Whitney, 2140
V. Witherspoon, 2067
V. Wooley, 1375, 1562
Coles 7/. Allen, 1622, 1760
V. Appleby, 2154, 2179, 2180
V. Coles, 6S9, 783, 800, 1671, 1961, 1962,
igSo, igSi
V. Forrest, 2152
V. Ragiiet, 2060
V. Sims, 1778, 1872
V. Soulsby, 1700
V. Trecothick, 1621, 1697, 1707, 1758,
1772
V. Wooding, 1973, 1976
Colgan V. McKeown, 750
V. Pellens, 221
Colgate 7;. Colgate, 919, 955, 965
V. Owing's Case, 903
Colgrove v. Gallman, 2671
Colham v. Bradford, 2119
Collam V. Hocker, 2240
cu
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Collamer w, Hutchins, 1980
•u. Kelley, 1122, 1164
zr. Langdon, 2085, 2103
CoUard v. Hare, 1784
College Street, In re, 1102
CoUett V. Collett, 270
CoUey V. Merrill, 706
Collier's Case, 340, 343
Collier's Will, 1S37
Collier v. Blake, 1662
V. Brown, 1697, 1758
V, Collier's Exrs., 7
V. Corbett. 1901
V. McBeam, 1606
zi. Pierce, 2223,
z/. Slaughter, 270, 271
V. Walters, 1579, 1693
CoUingswood v. Pace, 2287
•D. Pays, 236
Collins' Appeal, 1509
Collins V. Barrow, 1168, 1200
V. Blantem, 2059
V. Canty, 1344
V. Carlisle's Heirs, 536, 820, 821, 1593,
1630, 1815
V. Chaman's Heir, 75
V. Champ's Heirs, 77, 95
V. Dickinson, 1980
z'. Forrey, 764
z'. Harding, 984, 2250
V. Hasbrouck, 1104, nog, 1112, - 1113,
1143, "55
V. Hoxie, 2281
V. Johnson, 12S3, 12S6
V. Larenburg, 1373, 1562
V. Many, 1280
V. Marcy, 268
•u. Prentice, 2085, 2220
u. Rowe, 2068
V. Smitlt, 1621, 1707, 1769
V. Tillou's Admr., 2046
V. Torrey, 783, 800, 803, 2062
V. Torry, 2094
V. Warren, S37, 1957, 1964, 1965
z/. Willdin, 1124
V. Wood, 939
Doe d., V. Weller, 1025, 1264, 1323
Collins Mfg. Co. v. Marcy, 259, 266, 269, 1972
V. Murray, 268
Collinson v. Lister, 1715
ColUs v. Kemp, 413
Colman w. Clements, 1913
If. Duke of St. Albans, 1027
Colony V. Dublin, 671
Colquhoun v. Atkinson, 2140, 2355
Colsten V- Chaudet, 1814
Colt V. Towle, 268
Colton V. Gorham, 2263
V. .^mith, 2091
Columbia National Bank v. Embree, 1949
Columbian Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 166S, 2113,
2114, 2117
Colville V. Miles, 1207
Colvin v. Worford, 974
Colwell V. Caper, 976
V, Carper, 1424
V. Woods, 2039
Colyear z;. Mulgrave, 2314
Coman -u. Lakey, 434, 1614
Comb's Case, 1043
Combs z/. Branch, 2250, 2252, 2258
V. Jordan, 2253
V. Young, 767, 801. 809
V. Young's Widow, 705, 744
Comby z^ McMichael, 1597, F796
Comer v. Chamberlain, 589, 592, 593, 623, 678
V. Sheehan, 2258
V. Shehan, 1028
Coming, Ex parte, 2002
Comins w. Comins, 211
Comly z". Strader, 72 r, 1376
Commercial Bank of Buffalo v. Warren, 2130
Commercial Bank v. Corbett, 1426
Commercial Bank of Lake Erie v. Western
Reserve Bank, 2154
Commercial Bank of Manchester v. Nolan,
.^554
Commercial Bulletin Co., In re, 2263, 2266
Commercial Ins. Co. t. Spankneble, 239, 2116
Commercial Real Estate Assoc v. Parker, 2171
Commissioners v. Harman, 1287
V. Smith, 890
V. Walker, 1573, 15S5, 1610, 1670, 1671,
1680, 1681
V. Withers, 2325
Commissioners of Pilots z>. Clark, 9S2
Commissioners of the Sinking Fund z'. Walker,
^555» i656» ^^57» 1658, 1712, 1714,
171S, 1719, 1722
Commissioners Tippecanoe County :•. L. M. &
B. R Co., 1019
Common v. Coupe, 2291
Commonwealth z>. Alger, 5, 194, 195, 198, igg,
200, 2323, 2325. 2328
z>. Blodgett, 4
V. Byrne, 2324
V. Carter, 4
V. Chapman, 149
z'. Charleston, 195
V. Cogan, 22
V. Cook, 1403
V. Cooley, 921
7'. Dennis, 921
zi. Eagle F. ins. Co., 1734
». Essex Co., 2327
V. Franklin Insurance Co., 1114, 1173
V. Godley, 22
V. Intoxicating liquors, 4
ZI. Kennedy, 1919
V. Kensey, 1357
V. Knowlton, iiS, 149^ 458
z/. Lane, 753, 754, 755
V. Lay, 1403
V. Leach, 149
V. Lodge, 707
v. McAllister, 1719
z". McCaughey, 22
V. Marshall, 921
V. Martin's Exrs., 76
v. Mateer, 1788
V. Moltz, 1781
V. Munson, 595, 752
V. Phcenix Bank, r554
•V. Reading Savings Bank, 2041
•u. Richardson, 1029
V. Sheriff, 1003
w. Stauffer, 271, 1S58
V. Stremback, 50
V. Stump. 596, 752, 757, 759
V. Tewkesbury, 4, ,198
V. Thompson, 522
V. Tiffany, 9S2, 1036
z. Vincent, 71, 982, 1036
V. Walker, 1456
V. Weatherhead, 982
V. Wise, 22, 1036
V. York, 118, 458
Comparel v. Randall, ic20
Compton's Petition, 2206
Compton V. Allen, 1099
V. Oxenden, 1580, 2098
Comstock V. Comstock, 1452, 1524
V. Drohan, 2071, 2166
V. Hitt, 2068, 2070
ZI. Scales, 2020
V. Van Dusen, 2220
Comulet Co. zk Russell, 2364
Conant v. Brackett, 121 1
7'. Little, 739, 740,851, 852, 854
V. Smith, 1983, 1988
Conboy V. Kansas City &: S. W. R. Co., 1469,
M73i 1474
Concord Bank z*. Bellis, 2345
Concord R. Co. v. Greeley, 232S
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cm
Conde v. Shepherd, 2152
Condict, Executors of, v. King, 415, 418
Condit V. Neighbor, 2251, 2257
Condon v. Barr, 13 iS, 1326
Cone V. Dunham, 1581
V, Hasmilton, 2083
1'. Niagara F. Ins. Co., 2117
V. Woodward, 1154
Conger t^. Duryee. 1143, 11 56
V, Ring, 1769
V. Weaver, 1092
Congleton v. Pattison, 1071, 107S, 1079
Congregational Church v. Morris, 218, 219, 774
Congregational Society v. Fleming, 108, 112,
116
V. Morris, 750
V. Stack, 1850
Conkey v. Everett, 1666
v. Hart, 1511, 1517
Conkliu 7'. Conkliu, 322, 323, 1893
V. Egerton, 1752, 1835
V. Foster, 565, 976, 1415, 1424, 1502, 1519
V. Hinds, 2125
7'. Parsons, 104
V. White, 1342
Conkling v. King, 1058
Connally v. Hardwick, 1409
Connaughton v. Sands, 1398, 1483, i5i4( 1515
Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Eldredge,
1765
Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. -a. Crawford, 2170
Connell v. Connell, 909
1'. Lamb, 2253
V. Mayer, 2972
Connelly v. Belt, 2159
Connelly, 753
Conner v. Banks, 2106
V. Gerrard, 1792
T. Hawkes, 143 1
T'. Nichols, 1479, 1506
V. Shepherd, 552, 776, 807, 833
I'. Whitmore, 2091, 2103
ConnoU v. Todd, 2358
Connolly v. Branster, 928
V. Smith, 712
Connor, In re, 1465
Connor z/. Bradley, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1154
V. Clark, 135
V. Coffin, 45> 78. io3> 106, 13s
V. Lewis, 1614
V. McMurray, 1382, 1450, 145S. H^?,
M79
V. Shepherd, 707
V. Squiers, 135
V. Stephen, 777
V. Whitmore, 2084
Conover v. Conover, 2260
V. Hobart, 2069, 2071
V. Hoffman, 1806
V. Mutual Ins. Co., 239, 2115, 2116
V. Porter, 8g6
V. Warren, 2008
Conrad v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 688, 1992, 1993
V. Harrison, 2153, 2155, 2164
V. Long, 269
V. Saginaw Mining Co., 122, 123, 129,
130
V. Smith, 2262, 2263
V. Starr, 1893
Conroe v. Birdsall, 2343
Conroy v. Sullivan, 1449, 1504
Constable v. Bull, 1627
Constant v. Abell, 1315, 1316
Constantine v. Wake, 1109, 1122, 2262
Continental Nat. Bank v. Weems, 1762, 1763
Converse v. Blumrich, 2009
V. Citizens' Ins. Co., 1957
V. Ferre, 1892
Conway, Ex parte, 1794, i795
Conway 7/. Alexander, 2037, 2043, 2044, 2052,
2053, 2054, 2055
V. Cutting, 1690
Conway v. Hale, 1658
V. Kinsworthy, 1665, 1690
V. Starkweather, 1130, 1134, 1136, 1318,
1353
V. Taylor's Exr., 1516
Conwell V. Clifford, 2025, 2059
V. Evill, 2045
V Kuykendall, 2772
V. McCowan, 2150
Conyers sv. Kenan, 2296
Cooch z/. Gen7, 1998
V. Goodman, 1925
Coogan V. Burling Mills, 2022, 2024
V. Parker, 1083, 1084, 1177, 1179, 2269
Cook V. Allen, 1974, 1977, 1983
V. Babcock, 2296, 2297
V. Bartholomew, 2031, 2032, 2141
V. Bisbee, 521
V. Brightley, 1071, igor
V. Brown, 237, 2319
V. Champlain Transportation Company,
123, 553, 554. 1153. 1228
V. Cholmondeley, 563
V. Clinton, 1899
V. Colyer, 2047
z>. Cook, 541, 542, 545. 546, 547. 557. 727.
743, 1212, 1296
V. Cooper, 2085, 2100
V. Corthell, 2018
V. Creswell, 1337
7'. Dillon, 1779
V. Ellington, 1582, 1591, 1593, 1630
V. Famam, 890
V. Finkler, 2175
V. Fisk, 853
V. Fountain, 161 1, 1612
V. Hammond, 194
V. Holmes, 329, 342
V. Hull, 72, 2227
V. Johnson, 2258
V. Klink, 1523
V. McChristian, 1378, 1379, 1380, 1448,
1465, 1502, 1510
V. Newman, 1504
V. Norton, 1353
V. Parham, 2102
V. Parker, 1032
V. Patrick, 1639
V. Steams, 2212, 2213
V. Tullis, 1586, 1617, 1661
V. Walker, 317, 319, 785
V. Wardens of St. Paul's Church, 1853,
1855
V. Webb, T026, 1903
V. Whiting, 58
V. Winford, 967
z'. Wood, 1723
County V. Railroad Co.
Cook's Exrs. v. Cook's Admrs., 855, 858
Cooke, Ex parte, 1761
Cooke V. Bremond, 1947
V. Clayworth, 1032, 1034
V. Crawford, 1817
V. Culbertson, 2045
z>. Husbands, 1373, 1562
V. Lamotte, 1790, 1801
z\ Loxley, 1214
V. Neilsun, 1254, 1327, 1328, 1343
V. Soltan, 1743
V. Turner. 267
Cookson V. Cookson, 1964
V. Richardson, 1620, 1760 4
Cooles V. Wooding, 1928
Cooley V. Dewey. 2281
V. Hobart, 2026
Coolidge V. Learned, 1913,2197, 2290, 2291,2292
V. Melvin, 2334
Coolingwood v. Pace, 2287
Coombe, Ex parte, 2003
Coombs V. Anderson, 465
V. Beaumont, 125
V. Jackson, 1023
CIV
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Coombs IP Jordan, 22, 47, 49, 51, 61, i44> 183,
485,1225, 2140
zi. Read, 1376
V. Young, 927
Coombe v. Clements, 93S
Coomlerw. Hefner, 1304, 1316, 1327, 1328, 1331,
1334, 1546
Coon V. Bean, 1858
V Brickitt, 1154, 1861, 186S
Cooney v. Cooney, 1503
V. Hayes, iiii
V. Woodbuni, 1372
Coope V. Eyer, 1241, 1242
Cooper V. Adams, 62, 63, 479, 514, 1266, 1273,
1277, 1294, 1296, 1297
V. Barber, 2245
V, Bigley, 2024, 2153
V. Cedar Rapids, 1983
V. Cole, T050, 1236, 2067
V. Cooper, 440, 1024, 1398, 1404, 1405,
1580, 1689, 1919, 1934, 1942, 1951
V. Coursey, 411, 412
V. Davis, 688, 2062, 2080, 2187
V. Fields, 1251
V. First Presbyterian Church, 40
V. Foss, 206S
V. Galbraith, 1758
V. Jackson, 2079
V. Johnson, 122, 123, 147
V. Kynock, 344, 1693, 1796
V. Lloyd, 774, S94
V. Martin, 2151, 2172
V. McClun, 1598, 1738
V. McDonald, 656, 679, 680. 684, 1372
V. McGrew, 1234
V. Newland, 2099, 2101, 2111
V. Presbyterian Church, 32
V. Rankin, 1042
V. Smith, 1213, 1216, 1217, 2226
V. Slower, 1256, 126S, 1272
V. Tabor, 890
■V. Whitney, 788, 832, 1560, 2168
V. Williams, 2328
V. Wolf, 2018, 2019
V. Wyatt, 260, 272, 1113, 1677
V. Young, 1247
Coosa River Steamboat Co. v. Barclay, 1517,
1 5 18
Cootee V. Richardson, iiii
Coots V. Lambert, 849
Coover's Appeal, 1964
Cope V. Cope, 2188.
V. Marshall, 57
V. Wheeler, 2056, 2164, 2071
Copeland v. Barron, 352, 534, 1815
V. Copeland, 42, 816, 817, 2126
V. Sauls, 216, 217, 673, 1349
V. Stephens, 11 15
V. Stevens, 1114
V. Yoakum, 2039
Copely V. Riddle, 2305
Copis V. Middleton, 2137
Copp z'. Hersey, 802, 955
V, Norwich, 1583
Coppage V. Alexander s Heirs, 1851, 1858
Copper Mining Co. v. Beach, 1008
Coppiii V. Coppin, 368, 719, 2057, 2289
V. Gunner, 625
V. Pennyhough, 1778
Coray t. Eyre, 2036
Corbet's Case, 1559, 1564, 2194
Coibst V. Waterman, 5072
Corbett v, Corbett, 249, 252, 499
Corbin v. Cannom, 1914
7'. Dale, 2240
V. Healy, 287, 401, 402, 408, 410, 446, 449,
,450
V. Jackson, 1976
7>. Minchin, 1473, 1480
Corbitt V. Clenny, 1777
Cord 71. Hirsch, 2152
Cordes v. Miller, 1172, 1173
Core 7>. Faupel, 2296, 2297, 2298
Coreill w. Ham, 935
Corey v. Bisliop, 80
V. People, 834, 836
Corinth V. Emery, 1945
Corlass, /?/ re, 61S
Corlies v, Corlies. 1721
Corliss V. McLagin, 103, 133, 138, 2067
Gorman v. Herritt, 2335
Cormerais v. Genella, 2159, 2167
V. Wesselhoeft, 1640
Cormick v. Taylor, 860
Corn Exchange Ins. Co. v. Babcock, 646, 2012
Cornelius v. Ivins, 265, 266, 1849, 1851, 1972
V. Smith, 1589, 1590
Cornell v, t)ean, 1231
V. Hall, 2043, 2052, 2053
V. Hichens, 2014, 2016
V. Lamb, 194. 2253, 2273
V. Molton, 1005
V. Prescott, 2112, 2150, 2166
V. Vanartsdaien, 1202
Comellison v. Cornellison, 1334
Cornfoot v. Fowke, 1039, 11 10
Corning v. Gould, 1174, 2243, 2247
V. Murray, 2109
V. Troy Iron & Nail Works, 1145, 1222
V. Troy Nail Co., 224S
Cornish v. Frees, 1427
V. Mew, 51S
V. Stubbs, 1312
Cornwall v. Hoyt, 647
Doe d., V. Matthews, 1310
Corp V. Chandler, 287
Corpman v. Baccastow, 2038
Corporation of Hastings v. Ivall, 1351
Corriel v. Ham, 917, 955
Corrigan v. City of Chicago, 11 71
V. Trenton, 2257
V. Trenton Del. Tails Co., 1019
V. Woods, 1276
Corry v. Lamb, 949
Corse V. Leggett, 161 7
Cortleyou v. Hathaway, 2066
7). Van Brundt, 2201
Corven's Case, 121
Corwin v. Corwin, 2318
V. Cowan, 133
z/. Davison, 1914
Corwithe v. Griffing, 1985
Corxall's Lessee v. Sherrerd, 452
Cory V. Eyre, 2124
Cost V. Rose, 1984
Costabadie v. Costabadie, 1740
Costar V. Clarke, 788, 827, 157S
V. Lorillard, 761, 763, 788, 832, 1682, 1876,
1877
Coster V. Murray, 1781
Costigan v. Gould, 2355
Cotes V. The City of Davenport, 1261
zi. Woodson, 1032
Cottee V. Richardson, 1164
Gotten zK Willoughby, 2020
Cottenham, Succession of, 1481
Cotter 7K Bettner, 1241
7), Layer, 1840
Cotterell v. Long, 2036, 2037, 2046, 2052
Cottinger ?'. Fletcher, 1637
Cottingham, Succession of, 1481
Cottiiigton V. Fletcher, i6gi
Cottman v. Grace, 1658
Cotton, Ex parte, 125, 133
Cotton V. McKee, 2039
V. Pocassett Mfg. Co., 2219
V. Wood, 1382
Cottrell's Appeal, 2177
Cottrell V. Adams, 2102, 2105
Couch V. Anderson, 292
V. Burke, 1280
7'. Stratton, 881, 918, 944, 951, 952
Coudert », Cohen, 1013
Coulson V. Whiting, 1054
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CV
Coulter V. Holland, 853, 856
V. Robertson, 1553, 1710, 1711, 1727
Coults r'. Walker, 1579
Council V. Page, 1047
Countess of Shrewsbury's Case, 1228, 1297
County of Henry z*. Bradshaw, 2355
County of Shrewbury u. Earl of Slirewbury,
510
Couutz V. Markling, gio
Coursey v. Davis, 324
Coursey Oil Co, zk Oilbreck & A R Co., loig
Courthope ?'. Mapplesden, 577
Courtiass ?'. Vanlore, 7S0
Courtney v. Carr, 1999, 2076
w. Taylor, 1063
Courtots V, Carpenter, 2056
Cousins V. Allen, 2169
Coutant V. Servoss, 1S32, 2133
Coutts V. Acworth, 1793
Cove V. Cather, 744, 840
Covendale v. Aldricb, 1^25
Covender v. Culteel, 1962
Coventry v. Coventry, 963
Covert V. Hertzog, 888
Covey z/. Pittsburgh, F. \V. & C. R. Co., 98,
142
Covilland v. Tanner, igoo
Cowan V. Iowa St. Ins. Co., 2115
V. Wheeler, 1610, 1616
Cowart V. Cowart, 108
Cowden*s Estate, 2179, 2180
Cowdry v. Cowdrey, 141 1
V. Day, 2051
Cowell V. Colorado Springs Co., 259, 26S
V. Lammei-s, 230S
V. Lumley, 10S3, 1084, 10S6, 1126, 1175,
1177
Cowen V. Alsop, 1623
Goweta Falls Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 1247
Cowgell V. Warrington, 1484, 1487
Cowie V. Goodwin, 1177, 1200, 2269
Cowing v. Howard, 1715
Cowl V. Vamum, 2007
Cowles V. Kendall, 2213
V. Kidder, 2227
Cowley V. Lumley, 2269
V. Shelby, 2135
Cowley's Heirs v. Chiles, 1213
Cowling V. Higginson, 2220
Cowman v. Hall, 761, 763, 788, 827, 831
V. Harrison, 1684
Cowper V. Cowper, 1692, 2287
•u. Fletcher, 1021
Cowton V. Wickersham, 2262
Cox v. Bent, 1264, 1275, izgg, J313, 1324, 1325
■V. Cox, 771
V. Fonblanque, 501
V. Garst, 802
V. Grant, 163S
V. Jagger, 718, 736, 739, 744, 838
V. Joiner, 2334
V. McBurney, 1956, 1963
V. Shropshire, 1481
V. Stafford, 1398
V. United States, 2057
z>. Vickers, 2149
V. Walker, 1595
•V. Wells, 901
7). Wheeler, 2137, 2150, 2178, 2179
V. Wilder, 792, 915, 1481
Doe d., V. Day, 1040
Coxall V. Sherrerd, 298
Coxe V. Blanden, 1756
v. Higbee, 841
7J. Higher. 844
Coy V. Coy, 1777
V. Downie, iioo
Coyle V. Wilkins, 2175
Cozens v. Long, S83
V. Stevenson, 1079
Cozine v. Graham. 1592
Cozzens v. Jaslin, 2279
Crabb v. Pratt, 781
Craddock v. Riddlesbarger, 49, 50, 51, 52
Craft V. Webster, 2105
V. Wilcox, igig, 1950, 1952
Crafts V. Aspinwall, 2154, 2179, 2180
V. Crafts, 826, 1921, 198S, 2029, 2172
Craig V. Craig, 1754, 1755
V. Firet Presbyterian Church, 33, 35, 36,
39
7'. Leslie, 218, 434, 673, 1560
V. Merime, 2255
z'. Parkis, 2099
T'. Pinson, 2320
V. Radford, 673
z>. Somers, 1048
V. Tappan, 2306
V. Taylor, 1876
z/. Watt, 485
V. Wells, 259, 266, 269
Craig's Heirs v. Walthall, 947, 964
Grain v. Cavaua, 773, 8g8, Sgg, g2o, 954, 956,
960
V. Fox, 2245
V. McGoon, 2127, 2128
V, Wright, 1824
Cram v. Burnham, 597, 752, 757, 759
Cramer v. Hoose, 1634, 1651
Crane %>. Bonnell, 2039, 2045, 2052, 2053
V. Brigham, 117, 146
T. Buchanan, 2045
V. Caldwell, 2006
V. Deming, 2027, 2029, 2030
V. Linneus, 1428, 1429
V. March, 2107, zio8
V. Marshall, 212
1'. Meginnis, 772, 2331
V. O'Conner, 971, 975, 978, 1017
z>. O'Reilley, 1290
V. Palmer, 777, 804, 814, 832, 2005
V. Reader, 2354
V. Reeder, 220,2014, 2347
z'. Turner, 2110, 2120
V. Waggoner, 1434, 1894
Cranson v. Cranson, 727, 794, 795, 912
Cranstone z>. Crane, 2 161
Cranz v. White, 1427, 1428
Crary v. Goodman, 984, 1917, 2298
Crashaw ?'. Maule, S25
V Sumner, 2237
Craske v. Christian Union Pub. Co., 996, 1264,
13 19, 1322
Crassen v. Swoveland, 2038
Craufurd v. Hunter, 1668
Craven z>. Brady, 271, 274, 501
V. Craven, 917, 947
z;. Winter, 722
Graver v. Wilson, 2060
Crawford's Appeal, 1739, 2313
Crawford zl Chapman, 1071
V. Crawford, 17S3
V. Edwards, 2072
V. Ellis, 2068
V. Forshaw, 1816
V. Hazelrigg, 2133
V. Jones, 2256
V. Kirksey, 1623, 1624, 1625
V. Lockwood, 1506
V. Longstreet, 1331, 13^3
V. Morris, 13 14
V. Scovell,2345
V. Taylor, 2094, 2174, 2175
V. Thompson, 270
V. Wheeler, 1083
V. Wick, 994
Crawley's Case, 1352, i553
Cray v. Willis, 1968
Craythorne v. Swinburne, 2137
Creager z*. Creager, 1383, 1443, 1607
Crecelius zk Hurst, 727, 826, 913
Creech v. Crockett, 1027, 1297
Creekmur v. Creekmur, 2296, 2297, 2298
Creel v. Kirkham, 1231, 1233
cvi
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Cregan 7/. Cullen, 11S5
Cregonin R. Co. v. Railway & Nav. Co., loig
Creiger, Matter of, 675, 6S6, 692, 703, 762, 777,
7qS
Creiger v. Braun, 1327
Creigh v. Henson, 1782
Creightou 7/. McKee, 10S8
V. Pringle, 1553
V. Sanders, 1327, 1329, 1339, 1340
Crenshaw v. Tliackston, 2150, 2072
Cresiiiger v. Welch, gS6
Cressman's Appeal, 1665, i6go, 1790
Cresson v. Stout, 104, 105, 108, no, 126
Crest T/. Jack, iSgi, 1892
Crevelingw. Fritts, 1578
V. West End Iron Co., 1151
Crewe v. Dicken, 1778, 1818
Crews V. pi^ndleion, 46, 47
V. Threadgill, 2047, 2054
Cribb V. Rogers, 282
Crickmere 7/. Patterson, 1S47, 1848, 1856
Cridland's Estate, 500, 1673
Criley v. Chamberlain, 414
Crim z'. Nelms, 1212
Crine V. Tif ts, 49
Crippen V. Baums, 2331
V. Morrison, 146, 2063
V. Morse, 1923
Cripps V. Jee, 2049
V. Wolcott, 316
Crisfield v. Storr, 1927
Crisp V. Martin, 29
V. Miller, 2018
Doe d., V. Barber, 1352
Critchfield v. Ramaley, 1315, 1318, 1333, 1335,
1337
Crittenden v. Johnson, 764, 803,827,831,887,
927
V. Woodruff, 734, 764, 838, 888, 889, 927
Crittenton -v. Alger, 2226
Croade v, Ingraham, 734, 838, 984, 2262
Croan tj. Joyce, 1935, 1940, 1950
Croclieron v. Jaques, 1599
Crocker v. Carson, 1S84, r8g7
V. Crocker, 1642, 1645, i74S< 174*^1 '^7^'i>
1765
V. Fox, 847, 861, 873, 885
V. Higgins, 1600
V. Jewell, 2IOI
V. Tiffany, 1924
Crockett v. Crockett, 534, 544, 555, 566, 740,
776, S87
Crockford v. Alexander, 577
Croft T. Biinster, 2033, 2100, 2107, 2108
V Lumley, 1056, 1057, J105
ti. Slee, 4S6
V. Wilbar, 1364
Doe d., V. Tidbury, 1215, 1306
Croghan, Estate of, 1520, 1521
Cromie v. Hoover, 141, 145, 1224
V. Louisville, etc., Soc, 1659
V. Ti-ustecs Wabash & Erie Canal Co.,
73
Crommelin v. Thiess, 994, 1104, mi, 1112,
iri8, 1123, 1133, 1168, 1254, 1255,
1283, 1295, 1297, i3iS>!i3i6j 1317, i3'8
Crompe v. Barrow, 1838
Crompton 7'. Oxenden, 1164
Cromwell's Case, 2340, 2349
Cromwell V. Bank of Pittsburgh, 2161
V. Brooklyn. 211Q
V. Brooklyn F. Ins. Co., 21 18
V. Delany, 450
V. Tate, 2-i,(->T,
•V. Wiichesier, 284, 285
Cronin v. HaSwUine, 2101
Cronklute 71. Cronklute, 2240
Crook V. Crooking, i6gi
V. Glenn, 2175
7/. Ingoldsby, 1786
V. Watts, 2287
Crooke v. County of Kings, 1798, 1808, 1809
Crooke v. De Vandes, 322
V. Frazier, 2083
V. O'Higgins, 2149, 2150, 2151
Crocker v. Jewell, 2103, 2147
Crookes v. Wliitworth, 1878, 1884, 1974
Croom V. Herring, 76
V. Talbot, 2250
Crop V. Morton, 491
V. Newton, 1700
V. Norton, 1587, i6go
Cropsey v. Ogden, 753, 754
Crosby 7-. Allyn, igii
7'. Berger, 2056
V. Dodds, 310
7'. Farmers' Bank of Andrew Co., 1946
V. Hanover, 197
V. Harlow, 1295
V. Leavitt, 2085, 2128
V. Loop, 2250, 2251, 2256, Z258, 2268
7'. Wadsworth, 53, 54
Croskey v. Chapman, 1777
Cross, Re, 1037, 1450, 1467, 1488
Cross's Appeal, 1645
Cross 7', De Valle, 215, 216
v. Carson, 1849, 1861, 1873
V. Carter, 1866
V. Everts, 1450, 1462, 1474, 1485
V. Hudson, 1844
V. Marston, 135, 139
V. Robinson, 1915, 1993, 2128
V. Tome, 2250, 2253
V. Upson, 1119, 1281
Crossley 7j. Lightowler, 220S, 2228, 2245
Crossling v. Crossling, 1840
Crpssman v. Field, 2, 305, 308, 335
Croswell V. Crane, 1013
Crotty V. Collins, 47
Crouch 7/. Briles, 2270
V. Fowle, 1054
V. Puryear, 494, 495, 552, 553, 867, 742,
Sir, 812
7/. Shepherd, 2241
V. Tregonning, 2265
7/. Wabash, 11 56
Crouse v. Derbyshire, 1234
V. Holman, g86
Crow V. Brown, 1427, 1428, 1429
V. Knightingler, 1165
V. Mark, igo5, igo6
V. Vance, 2007, 2104, 2106
Crowder v. Shackelford, 1021
Crowe V. Wilson, g74
Crowell V. Hospital of St. Barnabas, 2072
V. Woodbury, igSS
Crowey, /k re, 1379
Crowher v. Rowlandson, 1032
Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board, 57, igg
Crowie 7'. Hoover, 1188
Crowther v. Crowther, 1785
Croxall V. Sherrerd, 401, 402, 447, 453, 454,
, 459, 470, 473» 155S, 1559/ 173^
Crozier s Appeal, 941
Cruger t/. Douglas, 1798
V, Halliday, 1599, 1660, 1661, 1778, 1787
z>. Haywood, 310
71. McLaury, 1139, 1862,2258
V. McLawry, 2268
Cruikshank v. Duffin, 2159
Crum 71. Moore, 1713
Crumb v. Davis, 832 '
V. Sawyer, 910
Crumbaugh v. Kugler, 1623
Crumley v. Deake, 687, 6go
Crummen v. Bennett, 1481
Crump V. Norwood, 815
7/. Redd, 1633
Crutchfield v. Coke, 2165
Cruwys 71. Colman, 1629
Cubberly v. Yager, 2166
Cubbins v. Ayers, 130
Cubitt V. Porter, 1904, 2235, 2236
Cudleigh's Case, 1525, 1528
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cvu
Cudlip V. Randall, 1261
Cuddworth v. Scott, 2020
Cueman v. Broadnax, 298. 155S
Curfee V. Milk, 415, 423, 466
Culbevtsoii's Appeal, 1605, 1753
Culbertson v. Duly, 30S
V. Luckey, 1626
CuUen V. Sprigg, 1863, 1S64
Culley V. Doe d. Taylersoii, 607
Culling w. Tuffnail, 124, 127
CuUom V. Erwiii, 2106
Cullough V. Norwood, g2o
CuUum V. Branch Bank at Mobile, 2136
CuUwick V, Swindell, 133
Culow V. Rhodes, i8gS
Culver V. Harper, 800
•u. Rhodes, 1S99, ^Q^Si »9i6. 1917,2296
Cumber ». Oilman, 2086
Cumberland v. Codrington, 1672, 21S1
V. Washington County Court 671
Cumberland C. & I. Co. v. Sherman, 1768
Cumming ?'. Camming. 2155, 21S0
V. Williamson, 1832
Cummi:igs v. Barrett, 68, 71, 73
V. Freer, 2331
V. Long, 1504, 1505
z*. McCullough, 1624
V. Mills, 1241
V. Powell, 2344
V. Shaw, 3/7, 31S
i>. Show, 536
V. Wyman, 2295
Cunnea v. Williams, 2273
Cunningham z/. Ashley, 2107
V. Bell, 1646
V. Bloodgood, 1509
V. Cambridge Savings Bank, 128S
V. Cunningham, 184, 657, 757, 759, 772
V. Freeborn, 1794
V. Gray, 1376
V. Hawkins, 2095
V. Horton, 1253, 1266, 1274, 1279, 1353
V. Knight, 766, goS
■V. McKi.idley, 1781
V. Moody, 61 1
V. Pattee, looS, 1026, 1087, 1088
V. Shannon, 916, 934, 956, 965
(7unynghame v. Tliurlow, 1844
Cure V. Crawford, 1314
Curell V. Miss., M. &. F. Ins. Co. 2115
Curl V. Lowell, 1274, i2g5, i2g6, 1356
Curlin v. Hendricks, 1697
Currant v. Jags, 1647
Curren v. Finn, 774
Currie V. White, 1665, 1690
Currier z/. Barker, 1013, 1274, 1335, 1338, 1341
z/. Earl, 1 144, 1269, 1271, 1274, 1284,
1285, 1293, 1295, 1Z97
V. Gale, 2085, 2ogi, 2128, 22g2,
V, Jordan, 1274, 1281
7'. Parley, 1254, 1257, 1270, 1273, 1274,
i27g, 1300, 1305, 1307, 1337, 1342
V. Sutherland, 1382, 1481
Currin %>. P'inn, 221
Curry v. Bott, 635, 659, 1362
V. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 2 113, 2 115,
2117
V. Curry, 898, 899, 958
V. Lyles, 2348, 2349
Curtinf'. Patton, 2344
Curtis V. Board of Education, 1864
V. Brownell. 2345
V. Buckley, 2002
V. Deering, 1094
V. Des Jardins, 1464
V. Fox. 681
V. Francis, 2244
V. Galpin, 2212
V. Galvin, 1252, 1266, 1293, 1294, 1296,
1354
V. Gardner, 283, 285, 290, 1710
V. Gooding, 2151
Curtis?/. Goodnow, 2142
V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 1195
V. Grost, 62
V. Hall, 1033
V. Hewin, 2279
V. Hitchcock, 2152
V. Hobart, S35, 851, 852, S61, 920, 1376
V. Hoyt, 63, 1252, 2206
V. Hunton, 2289
V. Hutton, 368, 369, 2057, 2058, 2289
V. Keesler, 1913
V. King, 1S97
7'. Leavitt, 671
V. Le Grande Hydraulic Water Co.,
2243
V. Longstreth, 414, 415, 447, 472
7). Lyman, 2iig
I'. Mason, 1733
V. Miller, iisg, 1161, 1164
z<. O'Brien, 1050, 1506
V. Pierce, 1102
V. Price, 300, 344, 1606, 1797
V. Riddle, 139, 142
V, Kippon, 347, 1632
V. Root, 1491, 1497, 2015
V. Swearingen, 1921
V. Wheeler, 1306
Cusack v. While, 2346
Gushing v. Adams, 1252
V. Ayer, 2180
V. Blake, 611, 654, 655, 669, 677, 678, 679,
680, 682, 683, 1548, 1574, 1576, 1584,
1609, 1692, 1694
V. Hurd, 20S3
Cushman v. Bailey, 1241
V. Luther, 2031
V. Smith, 5, 2327
Cusic V. Douglass, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510
Cuson V. Bla2er, 6g
Cuthbert %>. Chauvet, 1797
1'. Kuhn, 1117, 1170, 2253, 226S, 2269
V. Lawton, 2226
Cutler V. Currier, 1894
V. Dickinson, 2043
V. Lincoln, 2014
V. Pope, 51,54, 55
V. Tuttle, 1634, 1636, 1653
V. Winsor, 1240
V. Wright, 920
Cutter V. Davenport, 367, 720, 2057, 2058, 2288
V. Doughty, 1637
Cutting V. Cutting, 1807, 1808, 1809, 1810, 1820,
1825
Cutts V. York. Mfg. Co., 2015, 2016, 2071
Cuylere/. Bradt, i6gi
z'. Ensworth, 2177
Cyr V. Madore, 2243
D.
Dabney v. Bailey, 938, 948
V. Manning, 1605
Dacre v. Gorges, 845
Dade v. Irwin, i66g
Dadmun v. Lamson, 2og2, 2101, 2102
Daggett V. Rankin, 2001, 2038, 2087, 2125
Doe d., V. Snowden, 1308
Dahm v. Barlow, 12 12
Daidge v. Bowers, 1301, 1325
Dailey v. Grimes, 2257, 2273
V. Moor, 2339
Daily v. Abbott, 2087
Dairs v. The State Bank, 2332
Dakin %>. Allen, 1290
V. Cope, 1 138
Dakins v. Berisford, 1372
Dald V. Geiger, 1024
Dale V. Hamilton, 787, 1644
%i. McEvers, 2089, 2090, 2138
V. Robinson, 2013
V. Thurlow, 2364
CVUl
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Dall r;. Confidence Silver Mining Co., 8g
iJ'Almaine v. Moseley, 307
Tlalrymple v. Dalrymple, 594, 595, 751, 753
Dalton V. Angus, 66, 2233
V. Dalton, 546, 547
V. Landahn, 2270
Daly V. Burchell, 2150
Dalzell V. Lynch, 1225
Damainville v. Man, ito8, 1116,2269
Damb v. Hoffman, 2263, 2264
Dame v. Dame, 63, 116, 123, 1254, 1278, 1295,
1296
Damon v. Damon, 597
V. Granby, 2360
Damrell v. Hartt, 1815
Dana v. Binney, 2133
V. Coombs, 201 1
V. Farrington, 1755
V, Jackson, 1977, 1986
V. Petersliam. 974
V. Valentine, 2239, 2245
Dand v. Kingscote, 90, 93
Dane v. Kirkwall, 987, 1034
Danforth v. Beattue, 1425, 1481
V. Lowry, 1576
V. Sargeant, 13 10
V. Smith, 806, S65
V. Talbot, 315
Daniel v. Coker, 2087
V. Day, 1723
V. Grace, 2254
V. Leitch, 784, 940
V. Thompson, 419, 469
V. Wood, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 83
Daniels v. Alvord, 2035
V. Bailey, 54
V. Bowe, 132
v. Brown, 1234
V. Daniels, igoi
V. Davison, 999, 1296
V. Eisenbord, Z031, 2032
V. Flower Brook Mfg. Co., 2127
V. Newton, 1173
V. Pond, 78, 79, 103, J06, 566, 567, 1153,
11S4, 1277, 1297
V. Richardson, 1024, 1074, 1077
Danks t'. Quackenbush, 1510, 1511, 1518
Dann v. Spurrier, 1007, ioo3
Dansey zk Griffith, 322
.Dansville, Town of, v. Pace, 671
Danvers v. Dorrity, 1979
D'Aquin v. Armant, 2262
Darby V. Callaghan, 976, 2313
z'. Darby, 1961, 1980
V. Dixon, 1419
V. Mayer, 2057, 2058, 2289
Darby's Lessee v. Mayer, 367, 368, 720
Darcy v. Askwith, 565
V. Askworth, 563
D'Arcy v. Blake, 798, 819, 1576
Darden v. Cowper, igo8
Dark v. Johnson, 84, 2211, 2212, 2213
Darke v. Martyn, 1720
Darke, Doe d., v. Bowditch, 1150
Darling v. Chapman, 2131
V. Kelly, 1230
V. Pulteney, 1806, 1831, 1840
V. Rogers, 1682
Darlington's Appropriation, 641, 1978
Darlington v. Bond, 1140, 1146
V, Ulph, 1 152
Darrill v. Stephens, 1317
Darrow v. Kelly, 2126
Darst V. Roth, 1805
Dart V. Barbour, 2331
V. Dart, 405, 414, 2301, 2323
zi. Hercules, 123
Dartmouth College v. Clough, 1107, 1124, 2257
V. Woodward, 235, 2324
Darvill v. Roper, 83
Dash 7/. Vonkleek, 671
Dashiell v. Attorney-General, 1637
Dashiel v Collier. 841, 844
Dater v. Bank of United States, 2342
Daub V. Englebach, 206S
Daubenspeck v. Piatt, 2054
Dauchy v. Bennett, 2137, 2170
Dand v. Kingscote, 223S
Daugliaday v. Paine, 2006
Daiigherty v. Daugherty, 945
V. Deardorf, 215 1
V. Matthews, 1143
Davall V. New River Co., 42
Davenish, Doe d., v. Moffatt, 13 10
Davenkill n. Fletcher, 937
Davenport v Buckman, iigg
V. Coltman, 309, 1638
V. Farrar, 2306
V. Ferrar, 767, 781, 831
V. Haynie, 2256
V. Lawson, 2220
V. Reg, 1138
V. Tyrrell, 2299, 2301
V. Young, 2332
Davey z>. Durant, 2160
David V. Beelman, 2268
V. Ryan, 1105
Davidson v. Allen, 2005
V. Chalmers, 499
V. Cooper, 2239
V. Cowan, 21 19, 2126
V. Coxe, 1999
V. Ernest, 1289
V. Ellmaker, 1214
V. Foley, 1637
V. Graves, 915
V. Isham, 198
V. Jones, 2349
V. Lawrence, 2175
V. Little, 1697
V. New Orleans, 2324
V. Sillman, 2302
V. Thompson, 1S94
V. Westchester Gas Light Co., 132
v. Whittlesey, 733, 734, 741, 838
Davie z*. Briggs, 523
Davies, Ex parte, 321
Davies v. Cannop, 1205
V. Connop, 1207
V. Mayor of New York, 1029
V. Moreton, 1157, 1158
V. Otty, 1590
V. Ridge, 1669
V. Speed, 1568
V. Warner, 370
Davies, Doe d., v. Davies, 486, 1594, 1597
V. Gatacre, 461
V. Thomas, 1334, 177S
Daviess v. Meyers, 490, 511
Davila v. Davila, 954
Davis V. Alden, 1152, 1227
V. Anderson, 1999, 2078
V. Andrews, 1451
ZI. Angel, 270
z>. Ball, 1698
V. Barrett, 2098
V. Bartholomew, 7S5, 900, 909
V. Bawcum, 305
V. Bean, 1094, 2089, 2090
V. Bechstein, 2108, 2109
V. Benton, 2305
V. Bowmar, 2296
V. Brandon, 501
V. Brocklebank, 1251, 1269, 1271
V. Brown, 724
V. Buffum, 115, 128, 135, 145, 1204
V. Burrell, 1357
V. Central Vt. R. Co., 199
V. Christian, 786, 825, 1749
V. Cincinnati, 976
V. Clark, 1919, 1931, 1932, 1944, 1952
V. Coburn, 1781
V. Collier, 2272
V. Connop, 538
Keferences are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CIS
Davis z'. Cook, 2135
V. Cristian, 1957, 1961, 1965
V. Darron, 764
t'. Darrow, 712, Soo, 870
•V. Davis, 596, 707, 794, 795, 8g6, 914,946,
1402, ig'S, 2302
V. Demming, 2168
•V. Dendy, 2090
V. Dudley, 201 1
V. Easley, 62, 545
V. Elkins, 202
V. Eyton, 539, 11 13, 1206
V. Garret, 1579
V. Getchell, 222S, 2229
V. Gilliam, 555, 1370
V, Givens, 1882
1}. Gray, 1089
V. Hayden, 402, 403, 411, 438, 449
V. Henson, 1403, 1503
V. Hulett, 2166
V. Hunt, 8S9
V. Jones, 145
V. Kelly, 1456, 1460, 1465, 1466
V. King, 1990
V. Lassiter, 2087
V. Lennen, 1986
V. Logan, 763, 824
V. Loundes, 265
x>. McDonald, 801, 896, 908, 909
V. McFarlane, 51
V. Mailey, 34S
V. Mason, 208, 598, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604,
605, 611, 613, 679, 680, 689, 695
V. Maynard, 2133
V. Miller, 334
%'. Morris, 1107, 1122, 1124
V. Moss, 115, 145, 146, 115s, 1158
V. Murray. 889,. 1773
V. Murphy, 1027, 1273
v. Newton, 1376
z'. New York Concert Co., 2140
V. Ney, 1594
V. O'Ferrall, 721, 831, 1376
V. Peabody, 1492
V. Perley, 2303
V. Pierce, 810, 1580, 2097
V. Richardson, 351
V. Rock Creek, L. F. & M, Co., 1620
V. Rowe, 20
V. Scott, 2307
V. Sear, 2208
z>. Simpson, 1707, 1777
7'. Skinner, 1894, 1922
V. Smith, 1 126, 1175
%'. Speed, 2319
V. Stark, 1158
V. Stinson, 355, 366
V. Stonestreet, 2037, 2043, 2044, 2050,
2053, 2054
V. Taylor, 1009
V. Thompson, 993, 1264, 1267, 1268, 1269,
1270, 1274, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296
V. Tingle, 714
V. Walker, 868
V. Warner, 372
V. Watts, 2261
V. Wetherell, 728, 729, 731, 879, 1493,
1494, 1646, 2074, 2173
v. Whittlesey, 735
V. Williams, 1797
V. Winn, 2089, 2136, 2138
v, Winslow, 2225
V. Wood, 1405
Davis, Doe d., v. Evans, 1309
Davison's Appeal, 712
Davison v. Davison, 949
V. Johonnot, 2329
Davol V. Rowland, 772, 920
Davoue v. Fanning, 1708, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772,
1773, 1775' 2163
Davy zi. Pepys, 278
Daw 1'. Newborough, 1583
Dawley v. Ayers, 1395, 1462
Dawson, In re, 109
V. Kank of Whitehaven, 885
V. Bell, 943
V. Clark, 1638
V. Daniel, 78
V, Dawson, 515
V. Drake, 2085
V. Godfrey, 216, 236
T'. Hall, 2354
V. Hayden, 1449, 1467. 1777
7'. Holt, 1408, 1472, i486
V. Mills, rgor
7'. Oliver Massey, 270
V. Shaver, 706
7'. Small, 1687
T'. Thurston, 2365
Day z'. Adams, 2354
V. Allender, 2206
V. Cochran, 600, 603, 604, 607, 608, 612,
620, 621, 634, 635, 636, 637
v. Daveron, 307
V. Davis, 1897
V. Day, 2331
V. Howard, igoo
T. Micou, 278,-2142
V. N. Y. C. R. Co., 2240
V. Patterson, 2151, 2153
V. Solomon, 767, 804
V. Swackhamer, 2264
V. Watson, 1128, 1174
V. West, 920
Dayrell t. Hoare, 1039
Dayton 7'. Dayton, 2148
V. Doozer, 1138
V. Newman, 2353
V. Rice, 2079
7/. Vandoozer, T150
Deadrick v. Armour, 1815
V. Cantrell, 1608, 1631, 1633, 1635
De Agreda v. Mantel, 2167
Deaminville v. Mann, 1072
Dean 7'. AUalley, 130
V. Central Pass Co., 2333
v. Comstock, 1289
V. Dean, 1589, 1612, 1646
V. Feeley, 1349
V. McCarthy, 199
V. Mitchell, 788, 827
V. Nelson, 2176
V. Nunnallv, 338, 339
V. O'Meara, 1988
v. Parker, 1950
V. Phillips, 818
v. Richmond, 663, 664, 773, 920
V. Roesler, 1052, 1245
V. Walker, 206S, 2o6cj. 2071, 2072
Dean's Heirs v. Mitchell's Heirs. 76a, 7^1
Dean of Rochester v. Pierce, 1332
Dean of Windsor's Case, 1074, 1075
Deane v. Aveling, 594
V. Caldwell, 1069, 1173
V. Hutchinson, 123, 129
Dearborn v. Dearborn, 2032, 2079
V. Eastman, 2343
V. Taylor, 926, 2103
Dearbome v. Taylor, 2178
D'Arcy 7/. Blake, 781
Dearden v. Evans, 61
Deare v. Carr, 2158
Dearing v. Thomas, 1395, 1398, 1460, 1503
V. Watkins, 2126
Dearman v. Dearman, 1481
Dearmas v. Mayor, etc., of New Orleans, 18,
Dearmond v. Dearmond, 727, 794, 912
Deas 7*. Horrey, 383
Deaver v. Rice, 976, 1230, 123 1, 1238
De Pall V, Thompson, 1043
De Barante v. Gott, 2 18, 645, 959
De Baun v. Bean, 71
De Bell v. Thomson, 999
ex
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pagiis.
Diboe w. Lowcn, 415, 469, 538
]>.ibolle V. Pennsylvania Insurance Co., 2362
Djbow V. Colfax, 48, 539, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1267
l)i Castro V. Barry, iqSo
De Caters v. Le Ray De Chaumont, 1770
iJjch's Appeal, i8gi, 1893
D-'cker z/. Adams, 1131, 1271
I V. Boice, 1047, Z109
, V, Livingston, 1359, 13(10, 1363, 1364,
1367, 1368. 1369, -1901
V. McManus, 1274
Declonet v. Eorel, 2240
I >e Cordova v. Hood, 2006, 2008
I )c Cosier V. Villa, 661
Decouch V, Savitier, 646, 753, 1781
]Jecoursey v. Guarantee Co., 2274
l)edmu:i z*. Lawson, 2091
Dee V. Dowall, 2300
Deere v. Chapman, 1393, 1414, 1415, 1424, 1483
Deerfield v. Arms, 2294
T'earhurst v. St. Alnams, 1693
Deering &. Adams, 335, 1594, 1597, 1605, 1796
V. Beard, 1456, 1465
\ V. Boyle, 1513, 2012
Deffelry v. Pico, 1502, 1519
Deford v. Mercer 2331
De Forest v. Bacon, 1794
V. Byrne, 1076, 11S5
De France v. De France, 2053, 2054
V. Johnson, 751, 770
Deg V. Deg, 1623, 1691
De Gendre v. Kent, 43
De Geofroy v. Riggs, 218
De Godey v. De Godey, 712
Degraffenreid 'u. Scruggs, ro6, 132, 135, 136
De Grey v. Richardson, 362, 606, 607, 608, 692,
693. 703
De Hart w. Dean, 656, 678, 1372
V. United States, 2212, 2213
De Haven z/. Landell, 2146, 2156
De Herques v. Marti, 2302
De Hymel v. Scottish- American Mortgage Co.,
1476, 1467, 1490
Deibert's Appeal, 299, 1606
Deibler v. Barwick, 2004
Deisher v. Stein, gg6
Dejarnette v. Allen, 477, 479, 491, 552, 626, 635,
1364, 1370
Delahay v. Clement, 1997, 2077
V. McConnell, 2037
Delahoussaye v. Judice, 2226
De La Howe v. Harper, 1512, 1513
Delaire v. Keeman, 2001, 2043
j'^ De Lancey z*. Ganong, 1142, 1144, 1145, 1146^
1 148, 1 151
V. Steams, 2109
Delaney, Estate of, 1378, 1445
V. Fox, 12 14
V. McCormack, 1807, 1808, i8og
V. Rochereau, 1195
V. Root, 51, 55, 56, 1231, 1233
Delano v. Blake, 1031
V. Montague, 1013, 1348, 1353
V Wilde, 2083
D^laplaine v. Lewis, 2150
Dilashman v. Berry, 994
Dilassus V. Poston, 2005
V. United States, 3
Da Laureal v. Kempner, 2107
De Laurencel z*. De Boom, 1589, 1592
Delaven v. Pratt, 1496
Delaware & N. C. Co, -v. Bonnell, Sjo
Delaware & R. Canal Co. v. Lee, ig8
Delay v. Vinal, 948
De Leon v. Higuera, 2001, 2024, 2036, 2051
Dell V. Gardner, 2270
Dellettzj. Whitmere, 514
Dellinger's Appeal, 1594
Dellingerz/. Tweed, 1504
Delmas v. Merchants* Mutual Ins. Co., 1515
Delmerge v. Mullins, 1219
Delmonico v. GuiUaume, 787, 1961, 1963
Deloney v. Hutchinson, 18S5, ig6i
De Longz/. Mulcher, 2297
De Mandeville z/. Crompton, 794
Demarest v. Hardham, 198
71. Koch, 1955
V. Willard, 1074, 1075, 1077, 2064, 2251,
2252
7'. Wynkoop, 2085, 2095, 2104, 2175, 2176
Demby v. Parsene, 1186
Demers v. Bullett, 23G3
Demi v. Bossier, 1208, 1209
De Mill V. Lockwood, 450
Deming v. Bullitt, 501
V. Colt, 1963
V. Deming, 66r
V. Williams, 647
De Mott V, Benson, 2028, 2030
V. Hagerman, 1229, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1906
V. McMullen, 2012
Dempsey v. Kipp, 1306
V. Tylee, 646
Dempster, v. West, 2H7
Den V. Adams, 13 19
V. Bernard, 969, T004
V. Blair. 1136, 1140, 1335
V. Crawford, 534, 154S
7'. Dimon, 2063, 2132
i>. Drake, 1134, 1136, 1254, 1271, 1280, 1390,
i29g, 1319, 1337
v. Dodd, 835
V. Emans. 403
V. Fearnside, 1040
V. Fogg, 405, 411, 413
V. Fox, 401, 402, 447
V. Gardner, 1920
V. Green, 1292
•V. Hanks, 1549, 2314, 2318
V. Hugg, 403, 405, 415
7'. Johnson, 9S0
z'. Kinney, 544
V. Laquear. 403
V. Lloyd, 1146, 1271
zi. Mackey, 1271, 1299, 1319
V. McPeake, 408
7'. Moore, 415
V. Mulford, 22gi, 22g9
V. Payne, 2
V. Post, 1057, 1107, nil, 1123
V. Quinby, 1364, 1367
z/. Robinson, 445, 463
V. Schenck, 401
V. Sinnickon, 2295
7'. Snowhill, 1334, 1336
V. Stockton, 2077, 2084
V. Troutman, 1703
V. Wade, 1271, 1350, 1354
V. Westbrook, 1291
V. Winans, 12S5
Den d. Doremus z/. Zabriskie, 470
Den d. Hankinson v. Blair, 1307, 1309
Den d. Humphries v. Humphries, 1303
Den d. Irwin v. Cox, 1308
Den d, Jacocks v. Gilliam, 464
Den d. McEowen v. Drake, 1307
Den d. Pollock v. Kittrell, 1257
Den d Snowhill v. Snowhill, 1307
Den ex d. Bockouverw. Post, 1104
Den ex d. Crane v, Fogg, 415, 423
Den ex d. Davidson v. Frew, 927
Den ex d. Decker v. Adams, 1132, 1135, 1310,
_ 1333. 1346, 135^
Den ex d. De Peyster v. Howland, 1929
Den ex d. Ewan v. Cox. 412, 415. 423, 427
Den ex d. Freemen v. Heath, 1160
Den ex d. Grandy v. Bailey, ii6g, 1170
Den ex d. Hardenbergh v. Hardenbergh, 1024,
1876, 1881, igig, 1920, 1930, 193 1,
1033- 1938. i93<5. 1940. 1942, 1950
Den ex d, Harker v. Gustin, 1217
Den ex d. Hinchman v. Clark, 415, 444
Den ex d. Hopper v. Demarest, 598, 603, 604,
614
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CSl
Den ex d. Howell -v. Ashmore, 1220
1'. Howell, I2Q3
Den ex d. Hughes z*. Shaw, 914
Den ex d. James v. Dubois, 401, 448, 450, 470
Den ex d. Love v. Edmondstou, 12S2, 12S7,
1309
Pen ex d. Lyerly v. Wlieeler, 1751
Den ex d. Miller v. Miller, 852, 859
Den ex d. Needham v. Bronson, 1941, 1942
Den ex d. Player v. Nicholls, 973, 980
Den ex d. Roberts v. Forsythe, 2S6, 531
Den ex d. Somers v. Peirson, 412, 415
Den ex d. Spachius z>. Spachius, 450, 470
Den ex d. Stamps v. Irwme, 123 1
Den ex d. Stedman z'. Mcintosh, 1256
Den ex d. Stewart v. Johnson, 915
Den ex d. Williams 7'. Rennet, 873
Den ex d. Williamson v. Snowhill, 1319
Den ex d. Wilson v. Small, 411, 415, 426, 42S
Den ex d. Wyckoff, 1929, 1930, 1933, 1944
Den, Lessee, v. Webster, 1294
Denegre 7/. Haun, 1495, 1512, 1524
Denent v. Williams, 1978
Dengenbart v. Craciaft, 908
Denham n. Cornell, 94
v. Holeman. 2299
De Nicholls z'. Saunders, 2065
Denike v. New York & Rosendale Lime Co.,
1019
Denison -v. Denison, 595
V. Ford, 1 166
Denman v. Prince, 2237
Denn v. Cartwright, 1314
V. Gaines, 533
V. Gnskin, 302, 320, 331
V. Gillot, 441, 442
V. Shenton, 322
Denn d. Bolton v. Bowne, 310
Denn d. Jackling v. Cartwright. 1334
Denn ex d. Moor v. Meller, 344
Denne t*. Judge, 1967
Dennett v. Croker, 212
V. Dennett, 237, 401, 545, 666, 682, 1034,
2319
V, Hopkinson, 45
V. Penobscot Fair Ground Co., 1276,
1292, 2261
Denning v. Smith, 2335
V, Van Deusen, 536
Dennis v. Dennis, 752, 760
V. McCagg, 154s
V. Twitchell, 11 19
V. Warder, 1290
V. Wilson, 283, 285, 2218, 2361
Dennison v. Ely, 2042
V. Goehring, 1069, 1738
V. Grove, 1045
V. Reade. 1138, 1150
Dennistoun ?', Walton, 1213
Denny v. Cabot, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244
V. McCabe, 517, 651, 668, 669, 670, 701
V. Palmer, 1756
V. White, 1396, 1506
Denson v. Mitchell, 317, 3191 486, 536, S03, i'ii4
Dent 7'. Emmeger, 2192
z/. Slough, 1376
Denton z>. Cole, 2107
V. Donner, 1621
z'. Jackson, 41
V. Ledell, 22.12
V. Livingston, 43, 817
V. McKenzie, 1639, 1650
z/. Nanny, 511, 748, 757, 783, 800, 818,
2169, 2170, 2173
V. Strickland, 1237
Dentzel ?'. Waldie, 901, 911
Denzel v. Waldie, 2323
Dcnys V. Suckburg, igo6
Depas 7-/. Mayo, 720
Dcpew V. Dewey, 2175
De'PereCo. v. Reynen, 1317, 2270
Dc Peyster v. Clendinning, 1555
De Peyster v. Ferrers, 1885
V. Michael, 48, 245, 249, 250, 251,252,256,
2159, 261, 266, 1858, 1859, 1861
De Puy ». Strong, 1901, 1909
Deraismes v. Deraismes, 504
Derbes v Romero, 2365
Derby v. Taylor, 11 12
z'. Weyrich, 1480
Derby Bank v. Landon,2i44
Dering v. Farrington, 1989
Derm v. Gillot, 291
Dermott v. Jones, 1099
Derry %>. Deiry, 1622, 1652, 1760
Derush "v. Brown, 761, 763, 788, S32
De Rutte v. Muldrow, 259, 1039
De Rutzen, Doe d., v Lewis, 1148
De Ruyter v. St. Peter's Church, 2342
Dervinz'. Jennings. 2048
De Saussure %'. Lyons, i'^42
Descarlett v. Dennett, 1871, 1872
Deshler v. Buiy, 923,024
Desilver, Matter f,f, 986
Deskowitz v. Davis, 1646
Desloge v. Peace, 2212, 2213
V. Pearce, 995, 1280, 12S3, 2212
V. Pierce, 2212
Despard v. Churchill, 21, 974
V. Walbridge. 1133, 1149. 2050
Despatch Line v. Bellamy Mfg. Co., 105, 113,
115. 131. ^-^s. 1041
Detroit Savings Bank v. Bellamy, 1334, 1335,
1340
De Uprey v. De Uprey, 1983
Devacht, Lessee of, v. Newsam, 1220
De Vandal v. Malone, 21 19
Devaughn v. Devaughn, 836, 850
Devaynes z'. Robinson, 1832
Devecmon v. Devecmon, 974, 975
Devenpeck z/. Lambert, 2206
De Verne, In re, 6S2
Deville v. Wildoe, 1500
Devin z'. Himer, 2340
De Visme. In re, 1647
Devoy v. Devoy, 1648
Dewey v. Brownell, 2086
V. Dewey, 1964
V. Dupuy, 2264
V. Goodenough, 1514
V. Lambier, 1900
V. Lambies, 1966
V. Moyer, 1623
V. Payne, 1322
V. Van Deusen, 1996, 2085, 2104,
V. Williams. 1861
De Wilton v. Saxon, 1228
De Windt v. De Windt, 405, 417
Dewitt V. Cooper, 505
V. Moulton, 2122, 2366
De Witt V. Eldred, 401, 426, 443, 454, 459,
818
V. San Francisco, 1884, 1S88, 196S
De Wolf V. Johnson, 2056, 2071
Dexter v. Arnold, 1899, 2095, 2104
V. Gradner, 1687
V. Harris, 1993
V. Manley, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1166
71. Stewart, 161 r
Dey V. Dey, 1622
T. Dunham, 2039, 2042
D^ Vampert v. Brown, 2134
D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107.,
120, 128, 137
De Young z/. Buchanan, 1131, 1315, 1316
Diament v. Lore, 976
Diamond Manuf. Co. -u. Atlantic Delaine Co.,
2225
Dias 7/. Glover, 1930
Dibble v. Clapp, 789
V Hutton, 647
Dice V. Sheffer, 309
Dick V. Daughton, 912
t'. Mawry, 2104, 2105, 2106, 2107
cxu
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Dick V. Pitchford, 249, 253, 263, 257, 1577, 1578,
1748
Dickason v. Dawson, 2085
v. Williams, 2006
Dicken v. Johnson, 2341
V. Morgan, 135
Dickenaon v. Chase, 2007
V. Harris, 983
V. Jackson, 800
Dickerraan v. Burgess, 2334
V. Lust, 2171
Dickerson's Appeal, 1579
Dickerson, /« re, 266
Dickeraon v. Brown, 596
V. Chesapeake R. Co., 1928
V. Cook, 2273
V. Talbot, 2300
Dickey v. Lyon, 2241
V. McCullougli, 1863
ti. Thompson, 2153, 2155, 2181
Dickins v. Hamer, 812
Dickinson, Appellant, 1666
Dickinson v. Canal Co., 2230
V. Codwise, 1618, 1619, 1940
V. Davis, 778, 1640, 1647
V. Goodspeed, 1253
V. McLane, 1480
z/. Mayor, 570
V. Robbins, 1242
7'. Williams, i8go, i8g6
Dickson, In re, 267
i)ickson z'. Chorn, 1386, 1442, 1491, 1522
V. Desire, 2362
V. Dickerson, 1488
7'. Dickson's Heirs, 753
z>. Parker, 2035
zf. Saville, 782
Dicus V. Hall, 1440
Dietrick z'. Noel, 2296
Diffendorf z/. Reformed Cal. Church, 34
Digby 7'. Atkinson, logS, 1316, 1317
Digby, Ex Parte, v. Jones, 1242
Digg s Case, 1839, 1843
Digg's Lessee v. Jarman, 1810
Dighton z^. Tomlinson, 319
Dikeman v. Norrie, 1634
Dillaye v. Greenougb, 1696
Diller v. Brubaker, 1728, 1735
V. Roberrs, 1133, 1317
Dillingham v, Fisher, 2306, 2307
V. Hoffman, 2221, 2241
V. Jenkins, 975
V. Snow, 234
Dillon V. Brown, 1026, 1029, 1030, 1296, 2102
V. Birare, 2133
V. Byrare, 2133
V. Byrne, 1491, 1496, 1497
V, Dillon, 525
V. Frayne, 1559
V, Freine, 410
V. Parker, 946
V. Plaskett, 2083
V. Wilson, 2260, 2261
Dilrow V. Bone, 1791
Dilworth v, Mayfield, 1960, 1965
V. Sinderling, 1768
Dimmick v. Dimmick, 1949
Dinion v. Delmonico, 1241
Dimond v. Billingslea, 766
Dimsdale v. Robertson, 1051
Dinehart v. Thompson, 1229
V. Wilson, 1229, 1234, 1909
Dingley v, Buffum, i45t '204, 1266
V. Dingley, 1568
Dingman v. Kelly, looi
Dinnan v. Nichols, 2151
Dings V. Parshall, 2136, 2150
Dinsdale v, Ives, 1296
Dinwiddie v. Bell, 1906
DiDpers at Tunbridge Wells, 1364
Dircksz'. Brant, 1205, 1209. 1210
Disborough V. Outcalt, 1748
Disbrow v Folger, 1984
District Attorney v. Lynn & Boston R. Co., 5
District Township of Carwin v. Moorhead, 995
Ditchett V. Hpuyten Duyvil & P. M. R. Co.,
1202
Diver z'. Diver, 1024, 1940, 1951, 1952
Divine e/. Mitchum, 1671, 1963
Dix z/. Atkins, 13 14
V. Burford, 1733
Dixfield V. Newton, 2100, 2103
Dixie, Doe d., v. Davies, 1265, 1275
Dixon V. Baty, 1215
V. Dixon, 2007
V. Dixon's Exrs., 1407, 1410
V. Haley, 2270
V. McCue, 956
V. Niccolls, 1230, 1231, 2255, 2257, 2258
V. Nicolls, 2250, 2251
z'. Saville, 940
Doak z/. Donelson's Lessee, 1150, 1266, 1294
V. Wiswell, 127
Doane v. Bodger, 1891, 1892. 2208
z/. Doane, 509, 141 1, 1421
Dob V. Halsey, 1240, 1242, 1243
Dobbin V. Hewett, 2056
V. Rex, igSS
Dobbins v. Duquid, 1245
V. Lusch, 1280, 1285, 1295
Dobschuetz v. HoUiday, 123, 1225, 1226
Dobson's Estate, 76
Dobson V. Butler, 771, 920
V. Dobson, 732
V. Lord, 2089
V. Murphy, 878
Docker v. Somes, 76, 1715, 1761
Dockery v. Noble, 2103
Dockham z'. Parker, 1231, 1234, 1239, 1267, 2255
Doda 7'. Burchell, 2211
Dodd V. Acklom, 1161
V. Burchall, 2216
V. Watson, 545, 558, 1898
Dodds V. Snyder, 2153
V. Wilson, 1034
Dodge V. Berry, 71, 72
V. Cole, 1622, 1760
7J. Dodge, 936
V. Evans, 2004, 2005
V. Kinzey, 1944
V. Kinzy, 1919
V. Manning 1760
V. Moore, 318
V. Potter, 2122
V. Stacy, 2206
V. Woolsey, 76
V. Wright, 1 1 54
Dodgley v. Tolberry, 1023
Dodkins z/. Kuykendall, 1384
Dodson z/. Ball, 328, 329, 336, 500, 1602, 1655,
1674, 1694, 1695, 1736, 1737, 1798, 1799
V, Davis, 831
V Hall, 1003
V. Hay, 611, 695
Doe V. Allen, 308, 331, 533
V. Austin, 1 148
V. Baines, 308
V. Barton, 2092
V. Bateman, 1107, 1109
V. Batten, 1345
V. Bernard, 2357
V. Bevan, 257, 1057, 1113
V. Birch, 1058, 1059, 1138
V. Bird, 1914
V. Bliss, 1058
V. Britain, iSao, 1844
V, Brown, 66r, 662, 1362, 1370, 2299
V. Burt, 64, 66
V. Campbell, 2299
V. Carter, 274
V. Chamberlaine, 1259, 1290
V. Chapman, 202
V. Charlton, 425
V. Chase, 993
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXlll
. Claridge, 1607
'. Clark, 2341
. Clarke, 260, 272, 340, 343
'. Corrie, 271
. Crai^er, 416, 447, 472
'. David, 1113
'. Davies, 1261
'. Donovau, 1338, 1339
>. Dowail, 2300
'. Driscoll, 271
'. Bugan's Exrs., s^S
'. Dyball, 23
'. Kilis, 322
'. Fenn, igoi
'. Finch, 456
'. Flanagan, 523
'. Fiynn, T141
'. Freeman, 271
'. Fyldes, 333, 340
'. GaiUers, H13
'. Georgia R. & B. Co., 2324
'. Gilbert, 307
'. Godwin, 1139, 1146
'. Green, 13 11
: Grover, 993
'. Harris, 1788
'. Harter, 312, 343
'. Hawks, 113
'. Hicks, 1596,, 1797
'. Hodgson, 1022
'. Holmes, 340, 344
'. Homfray, 1560
'. Howland, 337
I. Hughes, 1344
'. Hull, 1346, 1347, 1348
'. Hutton, 6go, 184S
'. Ironmonger, 300, 1605
'. Jones, 456, 1215, 1868, 1869
'. Keen, 359, 363
'. Killen, 617, 618
'. Kinney. 312
'. Knightley, 1311
'. Lainckbury, 2, 307
'. Lamb, 2257
'. Langlands, 2, 307
'. Laniug, 473
'. Lanius, 2251, 2258
'. Lawder, 1282
'. Laxion, 525
'. Lazenby, 216
'. Maisey, 1279
'. Marriott, 1149
'. McKilvain, 2304
'. McLoskey, 2029, 2063, 2064, 2104
'. Miller, i2go
'. Milward, 1344
'. Morgan, 2, 322
'. Morris Canal Co., 2325
'. Needs, 1595
. Nicholls, z88, 299
. Oliver, 2323
. Palmer, 1344, 1345
, Parrott, 1920, 1940
. Pearson, 259, 261, 262, 263
. Pegge, 1 148
. Perkins, 1353
. Porter, 1306
. Presser, 1913
. Pritchard, 1349
. Prosser, 1915
, Raffan, 1317, 1335
. Reade, 1713
. Reynolds, 1144, 1148, 1212
. Richards, 340, 342, 344, 1280
. Rideout, 1306
. Ries, 1000
. Rivers, 387, 600, 692, 693, 702, 703
. Rooke, 1837
. Routledge, 299
. Rutledge, 1553
, Salkeld, 1558
Scott, 1337
Doe v. Scudamore, 694
v. Scuddamore, 693
t>. Seaton, 1074, 1149
Vk Shewin, 1102, 1152
V. Simpson, 970, 973, 980, 1597, 1711
V. Smaridge, 132 1
p. Smith, 1788, 1S31
V, Snelling, 340, 343
V. Spry, 1 184
V. Staples, 1713
V. Thomas, 1296
w. Timins, 780, 1597
V. Tolfield, 307
zi. Turner, 1296, 1348
V, Vincent, 1837
V. Wadell, 2283
V, Walters, 2302
V. Watts, 1254
V. Williams, 307, 309, 312
z/. Wilson, 546
t'. Wood, 1257, 1261, 1262, 1301, 1306
^. Wright, 331, 1743
V. Wrightmau, 13 11
v, Wroot, 1713
e-. Wichele, 363, 387
Doe d. Abdy&, Stevens, 1139, 1146
Doe d. Allen v Calvert, 1040
Doe d. Anglesea o. Churchwardens of Rugley,
1869
Doe d. Aslin v. Summereett, 1027
Doe d. Bastow v. Cox, 1265, 13 18, 1326
Doe d. Bennett v. Long, 1309
Doe d. Biggs v. White, 1039, 1040
Doe d. Birtwliistle ?'. Vardill, 22S8, 2289
Doe d. Blacknell v. Plowman, 1744
Doe d. Blomfield tt. Eyre, i82ii, 1829, 1S30
Doe d. Bly v. Colman, 1040
Doe d. Booley z'. Roberts, 2
Doe d. Booth v. Field, 1605
Doe d. Bothell v. Martyr, 1626
Doe d. Bowerman c. Sybouni, 1742, 1743
Doe d. Brune 7/. Martyn, 1596
Doe d. Bryan v, Bancks, 1058, 1138
Doe d. Buddie v. Lines, 13 10
Doe d. BuUeu v. Mills, 1148
Doe d, Burne v. Prideaux, 1040
Doe d. Burrell u, Perkins, 1309
Doe d. Cadogan v. Ewart, 300, 315, 322, 1553,
T577. 1597, 1605, 1606
Doe d. Calvert f. Frowd, 1309
Doed. Campbell v. Scott, 1339
Doe d. Carson v. Baker, 1255, 1278
Doe d. Carter zj. Barnard, 2299
Doe d. Chadboni ?'. Green, 1303, 1314, 1333
Doe d. Cheese z/. Creed, 1309
Doe d. Clark z>. Smaridge, 1136, 1303, 1307, 1314,
1333. 1335
Doe d. Clarke w. Clarke, 2280
Doe d. Clun z>. Clarke, 1309
Doe d. Collins z'. Weller, 1025, 1264, 1323
Doe d. Cooper v. Finch, 1807
Doe d. Cornwall 7/. Matthews, 13 10
Doe d. Cox V. Day, 1040
Doe d. Crisp v. Barber, 1352
Doe d. Croft zi. Tidbury, 1215, 1306
Doe d. Daggett z'. Snowden, 1308
Doe d. Darke v. Bowditch, 1150
Doe d. Darlington v. Bond, 1140, 1146
V. Ulph. 1 152
Doe d. Davenish z'. Moffatt, 1310
Doe d. Davies z'. Davies, 486, 1594, 1597
zf. Gatacre, 461
z>. Thomas, 1334
Doe d. Davis z;. Evans, 1309
V. Vincent, 1S28
Doe d, De Rutzen 7>. Lewis, 1148, 1863, igor
Doe d. Dixie v. Davies, 1265, 1275
Doe d. Doremus v. Zabriskie, 427
Doe d. Dormer z/. Wilson, 1920, 1930, 1939
Doe d. Dyke v. Whittingham, 1570
Doe d, Dymoke z>. Withers, 1039
Doe d. Egremont v. Langdon, 1743
CXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Doe d. Evans v. Evans, 307
Doe d. Fisher v. Giles, 1279
V. Prossefj 518
Doe d. Foster v. Waudlass, 1060
V. Williams, 1309
Doe d. Fowler z/. Peck, 1074, 1075, 1152, 1868,
1869
Doe d. Godsell v. Inglis, 1310
Doe d. Gratrex v. Hompray, 299, 1574, 1583,
1606
Doe d. Graves z/. Wells, 1144, 1145, 1336
Doe d. Gray v. Stanion, 1276, 1290
Doe d. Grubb v. Burlington, 549, 550
V. Grubb, 1309
Doe d. Hall v. Tunnel!, 2084, 2091
Doe d. Hallen v. Ironmonger, 1709
Doe d. Hammond v. Cooke, 1743, 1744
Doe d. Hampton v. Shelter, 1811
Doe d. Harrington v. Dill, 341
Doe d. Harris v. Masters, 1062, 1861
Doe d. Harrison v. Murrell, 1215
Doe d. Harvey v. Francis, 1318, 1326
Doe d Hatt v. Miller, 1272
Doe d. Hayes z/- Sturges, 1021
Doe d. Herbert v. Thomas, 348, 1814
Doe d. Hogg V. Taylor, 1308
Doe d. Hollingsworth v. Stennett, 1269, 1270,
1271, 1278, 1284, 1290
Doe d. Holt V. Harrocks, 607
Doe d. Howell, z'. Howell, 1294
Doe d. Hull V. Greenhill, 1579
V. Wood, 1265, 1280, 1306, 1320, 1325
Doe d. Hurrell v. Hunell, 309
Doe d. Jeffries v. Whittick, 1309
Doe d. Jones v. Jones, 1261, 1275
Doe d. Knight v. Nepean, 522
V. Quigley, 1269, 1278, 1293
Doe d, Knott v. Lawton, 312
Doe d. Lancashire v. Lancashire, 228a
Doe d, Landsell v. Gower, 1309
Doe d. Lean v. Lean, 310
Doe d. Leicester©. Briggs, 1560, 1574, 1607
Doe d. Lewis z'. Reed, 1306
z>. Rees, 1215
Doe d. Litscombe v. Yates, 265
Doe d. Lloyd w. Passingham, 1556, 1558, 1559,
1583, 1655
,Doe d. Lockwood v, Clarke, 1076
Doe d. Lord v. Crago, 1265, 132c, 1324
Doe d. Martin z/. Watts, 1299, 1307, 1308, 1318,
1319, 1320, 1325, 1337
Doe d. Mitchinson v. Carter, 1056, 1057, 1105,
II 13, 1869
Doe d. Moncic v. Geekie, 1314, 1333
Doe d. Muller v. Claridge, 1797
Doe d. Muston v. Gladwin, 1152
Doe d. NichoU v. McKaeg, 1258, 1260, 1261,
1275
Doe d» Otley v. Mannmg, 1626
Doe d. Parry v. Hazell, 1328, 1335, 1337, 1340,
1341
Doe d. Peacock v. Raffau, 1328, 1339, 1341, 1342
Doe d. Pearson v. Ries, looi
Doe d. Pennington v. Taniere, 1320, 1331, 1332
Doe d. Player v. Nicholls, 1553, 1595, 1597,
1694, 1797
Doe d. Phillip v. Benjamin, looi
Doe d. Phillips v. Butler, 1336
7'. Rollings, 1309
Doe d. Pidgen v. Richards, 1263, 1293, 1295
Doe d. Pitt V. Hogg, 1146
Doe d. Pratt v. Timins, 1595, 1596
Doe d. Price v. Price, 1267, 1293, 1326
Doe d. Prior v. Ongley, 1266
Doe d. Puddicombe v. Harris, 1308
Doe d. Rains z*. Keller, 1150
Doe d. Read v. Ridout, 1335
Doe d. Rendle, 1040
Doe,d. Rigge v. Bell, 1022, 1136, 1323
Doe d. Riggs v. Bell, 1013, 1014
Doe d. Roberts v. Polgrean, 1360, 1361
Doe d. Robertson z*. Gardiner, 1320
Doe d. Robinson v. Dobell, 1310
Doe d. Roby v. Maisey, 1295, 1350
Doe d, Rogers v, Coote, 1039
V. Pullen, 1258, 1294
Doe d. Routledge, 1626
Doe d. Shelley v. Edlin, 300, 1595, 1605
Doe d. Sheppard v. Allen, 1104
Doe d. Shore z-. Porter, 1135, 1136, 1254) 1270,
1299, 1301, 1308, 1334
Doe d. Smyth v. Smyth, 1788, 1844
Doe d. Spencer v. Clark, 436
Doe d. Spicer v. Lea, 1308
Doe d. Stevens v. Scott, 1605
Doe d. Strickland v. Spence, 1333, 1337
Doe d. Sutton v. Harvey, 1040
Dee d. Terry v. Collier, 1574, 1655
Doe d. Tilt zj. Stratton, 1269, 1293, 1310
Doe d. Thompson v. Gibson, 1549, 1550
V. Pitcher, 1687 ,
Doe d. Thomson v. Amey, 1313, 1316
Doe d. Tucker v. Morse, 1325
Doe d. Upton v. Wilherwick, 1206
Doe d. Warner z/. Browne, 1307, 1308, 1313, 1320
1336
Doe d. Watt v. Morris. 1347
Doe d. Webb v. Dixon, 1008
Doe d. Westmoreland v. Smith, 1314
Doe d. Whayinan v. Chaplin, 1027
Doe d. Wheeldon v. Paul, 1154
Doe d. Whitaker v. HaleS, 2065
Doe d. White zj. Simpson, 1595, 1596
Doe d. Whitehead v. Pittman, 1141
Doe d. Wilkinsons v. Fleming, 1923
Doe d. Williams v. Cooper, 1309
V. Matthews, 1039
V. Pasquali, 1309
V. Smith, 1336
Doe d. Willis" z*. Martin, 1559
Doe d. Wilson v. Phillips, 1150
Doe d. Woodcock v. Barthrop, 1597, 1605
Doe d. Wooden v. Shotwell, 5
Doe d. Wright v. Gooden, 234
V. Plumptre, 651, 1366
Doe d. Wyatt v. Byron, 1108
Doe ex d. Bastow v. Cox, 1256, 1275, 1278, 1294,
1295
Doe ex d. Birthwhistle z). Vardell, 719
Doe ex d. Bunny v. Rout, 2
Doe ex d. Burkett v. Chapman, 307
Doe ex d. Cnllender v. Sherman, 1217, 1219
Doe ex d. Carson zj. Baker, 1258, 1260, 1269,
1271, 1275, 127S, 1294, 1301, 1324
Doe ex d. Castletou v. Samuel, 1308
Doe ex d. Chandler v. Douglass, 2328
V. Smith, 426
Doe ex d. Clarke v. Clarke, 618
Doe ex d. Clinton v. Campbell, 517
Doe ex d. Cook v. Webb, 734, 838
Doe ex d. Cooper, 423
Doe ex d. Cotton v. Stenlake, 345
Doe ex d. Cox r. Day, 2353
Doe ex d. Dalton -v. Jones, 564
Doe ex d. Davison v. Frew, 791
Doe ex d. De Peyster v. Howland, 1025
Doe ex d. Doremus v. Zabriskie, 448
Doe ex d. Evans v. Evans, 202
Doe ex d. Flower v. Pick, 1074, 1075, 1152, 1S68,
i86g
Doe ex d. Freeland v. Burt, 1015
Doe ex d. Garnons v. Knight, 1786
Doe ex d. Glenn v. Peters, 1225
Doe ex d. Gorham v. Brcnon, 1216, 1217
Doe ex d. Gouverneur's Heirs v. Robertson,
214, 215, 675
Doe ex d. Green z>. Baker, 1138
Doe ex d. Groves v. Groves, 1254, 1261, 1275
Doe ex d. Grubb v. Burlington, 564
Doe ex d. Harrington v. Dill, 326
Doe ex d. Hollingsworth v. Stennett, 130S
Doe ex d. Jackson zi. Ashburner, 993
iJ)oe ex d. Jeff v. Robinson, 527
Doe ex d. King v. Frost, 321
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
fXV
Doe ex d. Kluge v. Lachenour, 1217
Doe ex d. Knight v. Quigley, 1270
Doe ex d. Lloyd ». Passingham, 298
Doe ex d. Lockwood v, Clark, 1113
Doe ex d. Longw. Prigg, 314, 315
Doe ex d. Lunsford v. Alexander, 1216, 1217
Doe ex d. Lyster 7'. Goldwiu, 6S9, 2062
Doe ex d. Marriott v. Edwards, 1148
Doe ex d. Martin v. Watts, 1256, 1270, 1299,
1313
Doe ex d. Miller v. Rogers. 673
Doe ex d. Morgan v. Morgan, 307
Doe ex d. Newton?^, Roe, 1159
Doe ex d. Nutt v. Nutt, 752, S35
Doe ex d. Palk v, Marchetti, 1139
Doe ex d. Patterson 2>. Richards, 1251, 1260
Doe ex d. Peyster v. Rowland, 1931, 1932, 1933,
2346
Doe ex d. Pidgeon v. Richards, 1251, 1260
Doe ex d. Pitt^-. Hogg, 1105
X>oe ex d. Player zi. NichoUs, 314, 315, 970, 1711
Doe ex d. Poor v. Considine, 1797
Doe ex d. Rawlings v. Walker, 971, 977, 978,
1 163
Doe ex d, Reade v. Reade, 1707
Doe ex d. Regge v. Bell, 1270
Doe ex d. Riddell v. Gwinnell, 709, 711, 790,
S53
Doe ex d. Rigger. BeU, 1135
Doe ex d. Shore v. Porter, 1310
Doe ex d. Thomson w. Amey, 563
Doe exd. Thorley ». Thorley, 337, 487
Doe ex d. Thorn v. Phillips, 340, 342
Doe ex d. Tomes v. Cliamberlaine, 1272
Doe ex d. Upton v. Witlierick, 47
Doe ex d. Webb v. Dixon, 970
Doe exd. Wheedon 11. Lea, 315
Doe ex d. Wheeldon ?•. Paul, 1059, io6r
Doe ex d. White v. Simpson, 1710
Doe exd. Winders. Lawes, 1163
Doe exd. Woodcock v. Barthrop, 1710, 1711
Doebler's Appeal, 249, 1694
Doellner v. Tynan, 5
Doggett V, Hart, 1741, 1744, 1745
V. Norton, 1212
Doherty*. Allman, 554
Doidge V. Bowers, 1255, 1324
Dolan V. Mayor, etc, of Baltimore. 1717
Dold V. Geiger, 1363, 1364, 1367, 1368, 1369
Dole If, Olmstead, 1727
Dolese ». Barberot, 1052, 1331
Dolf V. Bassett, S41, 843
Doll V. Anderson, 982
Dollman v Harris, L451
Dolman z'. Cools, 2069, 2079, 2147
Dolph V. White, iioo
Domestic Tel. & T. Co. z-. Metropolitan TeL
& T. Co., 1087
Dominick z/. Michael, 645, 985, 1031, 1S06, 2343
Dommet v. Bedford, 260, 272, 274
Donahue's Estate, 355, 2278
Donahue v. Hubbai^, 1955
V. Mayor of New York, 5
Donalds v. Plumb, 1580
Donaldson 7>. Bank of Cape Fear, 1962
v. Lamprey, 1465
■D. Phillips, 368, 2058, 2289
V. Rouzan, 1488, 1502
V. Smith, 1006
V. Volts, 1509
Donegan v. Wade, 267
Donellan v. Read, 2252
Donhaven's Appeal, 2334
Donkersley z/. Levy, 1 162
Donley v. Hayes, 2155
V. Hays, 2099,2105, 2107, 2111
Donnell v. Harshe, 1239
Donnelly v. Decker, 199
•V. Donnely, 751, 752, 755, 770
V. Simonton, 1999, 2132
V. Thieben, 1187
Donnelly's Heirs v. Donnelly's Heirs, 751, 769
Donnels v. Edwards, 1885
Donner v. Redenbaugh, 1476, 1484
Donnor v. Quartermas, 1975
Douoghue V. Chicago, 856
Dononue v. Chase, 2090
7'. McNichol, 1682
Donovan v. Donovan, 309, 312
V. Pitcher, 236
Doody ?'. Pierce, 2127, 2128, 2129
Doolan v. McCauley; 1020
Dooley ?'. Baynes, 627
V, Potter, 2033
Doolittle v. Blakesley, 1900
V. Eddy, 970, 1268, 1272, 1283, 2212
V. Lewis, 1820, T835, 1843
Door V. Dudderar, 2081
Dopp V. Albee, 1504, 1517
Doran V. Chase, 11G6
Dorchester v. Coventry, 823, 843, 844
■V. Effingham, 1692
Doremus, Doe d., v. Zabriskie, 427
Borland v. Borland, 180/
Dormer's Case, 1147
Borr z'. Barney, 1317, 1322, 1323
V. Harrahan, 267, 268
V. Munsell, 1033
V. Wainwright, 434, 437
Dorrance v. Jones, 1114, 1117. 2266
V. Scott, 1376, 1674
Dorrance's Admr- v. Commonwealth, 50
Borrell v. Johnson, 1125, 1296, 1310, 1346, 1347,
1350. '357
Dorrill v. Stephens, 1132
Borrow v. Kelly, 2139
Dorsett 7>, Cray, 2251, 2252, 2257, 2258
Dorsey v. Dorsey, 1707, 1766, 1769
z*. Eagle, 1209
7>. Hall, 2015
z/. McFarland, 1450, 1473
V. St. Louis. A. & T. H. R. R. Co., 1071
V. Smith, 746
Dostal z'. McCadden, no, 144, 145
Doswell z'. Be La Lauza, 2299
Botan z/. Russell, 1997, 1998, 2085
Dothard v. Benson, 2296, 2298
Bott z/. Cunnington, 408
V. Willson, 1S78, 1884
Botterer z'. Pike, 1622
Boty V. Baker, 746
z/. Burdick, 1140, 1159, 1217
7f. Gorhani, 131, 142, 147, 1137, 1187
V. Mitchell, 1375, 1562
Bougal V. Fryer, 2^9, 263
Bougail V. Bougall, 1690
Dougherty v. Jack, 520
ZI. McColgan, 2088, 2168
zf. Moriett's Lessee, 534
V. Thompson, 1277
Doughty ZI. Browne, 306, 310, 331, 334
V. Hope, 1515
v. Sheriff, 1510
Bouglas V. Anderson, 1317
V. Cruger, 677, 1372, 1604, 1753, 1798
Zf. Dickinson, 764
z;. Feay, 916, 934
v. Scot, 2300
V. Shumway, 55, 2364
Douglass V. IJryce, 1640, 1647
z>. Clark, 2025, 2026
V. Cline, 98, 2066
Zf. Darin, 2084
V. Dixon, 765
z'. Durin, 2100, 2102, 3147
Zf. Fulda, 1039
V. Kline, 1036
V. McCoy, 733, 736, 739, 907
V. Scott, 1349, 2358
V. Wells, 2166
V. Wiggins, 564, 1 107
Bougrey v. Topping, 923, 924
Boupe V. Cenin, 1083, 1106, 1176, iigi, 1196,
ii97j 120a
CXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Dow V. Dow, 707, 776
V. Jewell, 1646, 1651, 1654, 1976
V. McKenney, 2296
Dowels -u. Pond, 80
V. Henniiigs, 2231, 2236
V. Salliotte, 1953
Downer -u. Button, 2107
V. Clement, 2149
V. Fox, 2136, Z13S
V. Smith, 2321
V. South Ralston Bank, 2036
V, South Royalton Bank, 2123
V, Wilson, 2075, 2130, 2172
Downes v. Grazebrook, 1580, 1621, 2163
V. Turner. 186S
Downey v. Borden, 338
Downie v. White, 136
Downing -v. Marshall, 1559, 1603
■D. Palmateer, 2140, 2165
V. Wherrin, 322, 323
Downs V. Allen, 732, 1036
V. Cooper, 1149
7'. Hopkins, ic&% 2087
Dows V. Congdon, 83
Doyal V. Smith, 271
Doyle V. Blake, 1599, 1786
V. Cobuni, 1398, 1403, 1405, 1406, 1450,
1462, 147S
V. Gibbs, 1287, 12S9
V. Lord, 2223
V, MuUady, 414. 415, 443, 467, 475
V. Murphy, 1615, 1704
V. O'Neill, 1316
V. Teas, 1777
V. White, 2031
Doyler z/. Attorney-General, 181&
Doyley v. Attorney-General, 1663, 1685, 1841
Dozier v. Gregory, 565
Drake v. Bowditcb, 1 138
V. Gilmore, 671
V. Mcx>re, 1432
V. Newton, g8i, 996, 1013, 1264, 1322
v, Ramsey, 905, gS6, 1031
V. Root, 1441, 2076, 2078
V. Rout, 1479
V. Wells, 55, 56, 2313
Drane v. Gregory, igSS. 1976
V. Gregory's Heirs, 1150, 1222
V. Gunter, 1787
Draper 7'. Baker, 783
V. Draper, 1361
V, Jackson, 1S37, 1931, 1932,2014
V. Stouvenal, 1035
Drayto-i v. Grimke, 1835
V. Marshall, 2095, 2158
Drenuei) zk Walker, 831, igo6
Dresbock v. McArthur, 2305
Dresser v. Dresser, 1593, 1629
Dreutzer v. Bell, 1480, 1481
Drew 7'. Lockett, 2136
V. Rust, 810, Z182
Drewery v. Montgomery, 824, 1964
Drewry z;. Barron, 331
Drexler v. Tyrrell, 2059
Driggs V. Dwight, 1092
Drink v. Richtmyer, 982
Driver v. Hussey, 456
•u. Maxwell, 1083
Drohan v. Drohan, 1037
Drown V. Smith, 555, 2319
Druce v. Dennison, 943
Drucker v. Rosenstein, 1442
Druhan z*. Adam, 1152, 1228
Druid Park Heights Co. v. Oeltinger, 1599
Drum V. Simpson, 1648
Drummer v. Pitcher, 944
Drummond v. Duke of St. Albans, 1027,2162
f. Hopper, 1033
V. Sent, 2094
Drury v. Batchelaer, 1465
V. Clark, 2150
V. Drury, 923, 952, 957, 960
Drury t/. Foster. 882, 2340
V, Milwaukee & S. R. R. Co., 1586, 1616
V. Tremont Imp. Co., 2068, 2069
Drusadow v. Wilde, 310
Druse v. Wheeler, 2212
Drybutter v. Bartholomew, 42, 44, 816
Dryden v. Haiiway, 1650, 1697, 1699
V. Frost, 491
Drysdale^s Appeal, 1751
Dubber v. Trollop, 409
Dublin & W. R. Co. v. Black, 1031
Dubois' Appeal, 2102
Dubois V. Beaver, 56, 57, 570, 2235
V. Campau, 1990
V. Hull, 2008, 2009
V. Kelly, 55, 119, 1186, 1204
V. Marshall, 2295
zi. McLean, 2332
Dubose V. Dubose, 1749
Dubs 7/. Dubs, 616, 654, 65s, 675, 678, 679, 685,
687, 781, 1372, 1561
Ducey Lumber Co. v. Lane, 2261
Ducker v. Belt, 2149
V. Rapp, 2267
Ducland v. Roseau, 2078
Ducommun's Appeal, 1733
Dudden 71. Guardians, 2231
Dudley v. Bergen, 2130
V. Bosworth, 1639, 1640, 1643, 1646, 1653
V. Cadwell, 2104, 2300
V. Caldwell, 1995
7*. Davenport, 963
V. Dickson, 2008
V. Eastman, 927
V. Foote, 105, 107
V. Grayson, 2014
V. Hurst, 106, 117, 132, 13$
V. Kelly, 2261
7/. Shaw, 1473, 1480
V. Sumner, 2313
V. Warde, 128
V. Witter, 1777
Dudley Canal v. Grazebrook, 2227
Duer V. Boyd, 416, 433
Duff V. Beauchamp, 1919
7'. Wilson, 1080, io8r, I2ZO, 1990
Duffy zi. Calvert, 1578, 1749
zi. Duncan, 695, 1715
V. Ins. Co., 1561
V. Ogden, 1338
Dufour V. Camfranc, 1488, 150Z
Dugan V. Gittings, 679, 959
V, Massey, 792, 914
Dugdale, Re, 249, 252, 499
V. Robertson, 92
Dugger V. Dugger, 683, 699, 1464
Du Hourmelin v. Sheldon, 1657
Duhring ZI. Duhring, 786, 787, 824
Duke ZI. Balme, 2005
ZI. Brandt, 799
Z.I. Hague, 1026
z/. Harper, gg6, 1141, 1144, 1146, 1148,
1150, 1256, 1264, 1284, 1297, 1309, 1322,
1348
V. Reed, 1407
Duke of Cumberland v. Graves, 221
Duke of Norfolk's Case, 372, 1544
Duke of Rutland v. Hudson, 1865
Dulanty v. Pynchon, 1461
Dulency v. Green, 1033
Duley V. Kelley, 1261, 2261
Dumaresly v. Fishly, 594, sgs, 751
Dumas, Eg parte, ly^t
Dumey z'. bchoeffler, 271, 1858
Dummcrz/. Pitcher, gi8
Dumn V. Rothermel, 996, 997, 1284, 1320, 1325,
i335f 1338
Dumond v. Magee, 664
71. Strungham, 341
Dumont z>. Dufore, 1900
z>. Kellogg, 2225
Dumoulin v. Druit, 595
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXVll
Dumphy v. Riddle, 8io
Dumpor's Case, iS68
Dumpor v. Symmons, 1250
Dunbar v. Juuiper, 2262
Dimbartou v, Franklin, 596, 752
Duncan's Appeal, 794, 913
Duncan v. Alexander, 1391, 1393
z'. Bickford, 1947
v. Blake, 2255
V. City of Terre Haute, 670, 796, 821, 828,
893. 921
V. Dick, 720, 869
V. Drury, 811, 2097
7'. Duncan, 596, 752,935, 948, 2365
V. Farrer, 1^3, 1969
7'. Helm, 2057
7'. Hodges, 2338, 2339, 2340
"'. Jaudon, 1623, 1661, 1740, 1761, 1765
v. McCullougli, 1033
V. Miller, 2025, 2026
z>. Potts, 1260, 1269, 1271, 1313
V. Smith, 810, 2097
V. Sylvester, 1905, 1911, 1924, 1967, 1979
Dunch T'. Kent, 1749
Duncomb v, Dunconib,8i5
v. New York, H. & N. R. Co., 1768
Duncombe v. Felt, 1223
V. Mayer, 491
Dundas v. Bowler, 2101
7'. Hitchcock, 904
Dunham v. Biscoff, 2072
V. Chatham, 1947
•u. Cincinnati, P. Ei C. R. Co., 2018
V. Dey, 2 121
V. Isett, 2018
V. Osborne, 703, 761, 762, 798, 815, 820,
826
zi. Railway Co., 2019
V. Rogers, 1240, 1648
71. Wnght, 2345
Dunk V. Hunter, 1281
Dunker z/. Chedic, 1482, 1483
Uunklee v. Adams, 1871, 1S72
V. Wilton R. Co., 2242
Dunkley v. Van Buren, 2158, 2165
Dunlap V. BuUard, 1072, 1115, 1124, 1139, 2257
V. Thomas, goS
V. Wilson, 2073
Dunlop 2'. Avery, 2 118
V. Ball, 518
V. Harrison's Exr., 1759
Dunn V. Bagby, 1190
V. Barton, 1141
V. Bryan, 543
V. Keeling, 1806
V. Kelly, 2272
V. I^eidy, 1763
V. Raley, 2038
V. Rogers, 2068
V. Rothermel, 1275
V. Sargent, 1910
V. Tillery, 1292
V. Tozer, 1450, 1452, i4S9» 1462, 1473,
1475
Dunne v. Dunne, 265
V. Ferguson, 46, 50, 51, 52
V. Trustees, 1258, 1261, 1269, 12S1, 1293,
1295, 1339
Dunner v. Pitcher, 779
Dunnica v. Coy, 1641
Dunning w. Finson, 1280, 1290
V. The Ocean National Bank, 94, 1577,
1662, 1752, 2164
V. Vandusen, 486
V. Wherren, 470
Dunscomb v. Dunscomb's Exrs., 607, 611, 630,
679, 680, 695, J715, 1716, 1725
Dunseth v- Bank of United States, 789, 823,
842
7'. Banks, 841
Dunshee 7j. Grundy, 1144, 1216, 2258
V. Parmelee, 2133
Dunton v. Brown, 103 1
V, Harrison's Exrs., 1621
V. Woodbury, 1466
Dupas V. Wassell, 9S4, 1035
Duppa V. Mayo, 1060, 1061, 1862, 2270
V. Mayor, i86g
Dupre V. Thompson, 1792
Dupree Z'. McDonald, 645
Dupuy V. Leavenworth, 824
V. Wickwire, 2332
Durand v. Curtis, 2262, 2265
V. Isaacks, 2078, 2151
Durando v. Durando, 206,601,711,759, 761, 762,
815,819
V. Wyman, 11 19
Durant ?/. Johnson, 1918
V. Ritchie, 298, 1558
V. Palmer, 1202
Durel V. Boisblanc, 2213, 2223
Durfee v. Knowles, 2033
V. Pavitt. 1652
Durham v. Angier, 888, 930, 931
v. Bishop, 2072
V. Speeke, 2272
Durkee v. Felton, 740
V, Stringham, 44
Durland z'. Seller, 1463,1495, 1496,1514, 1520,
1521
Durr V, Sim, 1605
Durrett v. Whiting, 2156
Duruty v. MusaccTiia, 1947, 1948
Duryee v. Turner, 2255
Dusenberry v Dawson, 221
Dustin V. Cowdry, 1357
V. Steele, 901, 911, 912
Dutch Church v. Mott, 1742
Dutcher v. Culver, 2250
Dutoit z'. Uoyle, 2279
Dutton 7', Colby, 1274
V. Gerrisli, 1054, 1055, 1066, 1175, 1200
V. Ives, 2297
V. Warschaner, 1999, 2078
Dutro V. Wilson, 976, 1225
Duval V. Bibb, 1549, 1566,2006
7'. McLosky, 2077, 2078, 21 10
Du Val V. Johnson, 2142
V. Marshall, 1633, 1646
Duvall V. Craig, 729
V. Waters, 549, 550, 569, 570, 572.573, 574.
575. 576, 577, 2334
Dwen 7'. Blake, 2002
Dwenger v. Geary, 41I
Dwight V. Cutler, 1290, 1291, 2260, 2271
ZI. Mudge, 1069 I
Dwinel v. Perley, 799, 2105
Dwinneli v. Edwards, 1416, 1434
Dwyer v. Carroll, 1192, 1193
V. Garlough, 888
V. Newman, 1313
Dye 7'. Cook, 1383, 1396
z/. Mann, 1450, 1473, 1475, 1478, 2137,
2140
Dyer's Appeal, 1689, i6gi
Dyer, Matter of, 1023
Dyer 71. Brannock, 596, 751
V. City of St. Paul, 2233
V. Clark, 786, 787, 824, 825, 1671, 1957,
ig6r, 1963, 1965
V. Depui, 2247
V. Dyer, 1633, 1646, 1647
V. Martin, 2004
V. Osborne, 42
V. Sanford, 2240, 2245, 2246, 2247, 2303
V. Shurtleff, 2163
V. Wightman, 1067, logS, 1117,1126, 1172,
1 175
V. Wilber, 1894
V. Wittle, 629
V, Wittier, 570
V. Wrightman, 2269
Dye V. North American Coal Co., 1373,
1562
CXVIU
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Dyett V, Pendleton, 1127, 1128, 1166, 1168, 1169,
1172, 1174
Dyke v. Randall, 952, 953,956
Dyke, Doe d., v. Whittingham, 1570
Dymoke, Doe d., v. Withers, 1039
Dyson v. CoUick, 57
V. Sheley, 1378, 1387, 1420
E.
Eade v. Eade, 1627, 1629, 1632
Eadon v. JefEcock, 90, 93
Eads V. Retherford, 1905
V. Rucker, 1904
Eager v. Commonwealth, 2176
V. Funiivall, 602, 684
Eagle Fire Ins. Co. v. Lent, 1032, 2089, 2343
Eagles -v. Eagles,. 861
Kakin v. Brown, 1200
V. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 1041
Eales V. England, 1630
Eardley v. Granville, 84
Eare v. Snow, 885
Earl V. Beadleston, 1193, 1194, 1195
V. De Hart, 72, 2238
V. Grim, 310
Earl of Buckingham v. Drury, 923
Earl of Buckinghamshire v. Hobart, 510
Earl of Pembroke's Case, iggi
Earl of Pomfret v. Windsor, 1783
Earle v. Earle, 1407, 1660
V. Hale, 1216
V. Reed, 2343
z'. Washburn, 1580
■V. Wilson, 2281
V, Wood, 1886
Earle's Admx. v. Hale's Admr., 1216, 1217
Early v. Burtis, 134
V. Friend, 1905
Earsham v. Myers, 1923
Eashy v. Larkington, 2064
Easter v. Little Miami R. Co., 268
Easterbrooks v. Tillinghast, 161 1
Eastern R. Co. v. Boston & M. R. Co., 2327
Eastham v. Anderson, 982
East India Co. v. Atkyns, 216S
V. Clavell, 1626
East Lincolnshire R. Co., Re,c^h
Eastman v. Amskeag Mfg. Co., 2325
s7. Batchelder, 266, 2032
V. Caswell, 1514
V. Foster, 63, 140, 2022
V. Perkins, 1000, 1002
Easton v. Pratt, 1040
Eaton V. Campbell, 492
V. Eaton, 2345
7). Green, 2038, 2043, 2049, 2052
•V. Jacques, 979, 1074, 1077 .
V. Mason, 2152
z/. Simonds, 802, 803, 808, 8og, 2090, 2097,
2172, 2182
7). Southby, 52
V. Straw, 487, 1820
■V. Tillinghast, 1791
•u. Watts, 1630
V. Whitaker, 994, 1024, 1025, 1363, 1368
V. Whiting, 1995, 2050, 2062
Eaves v. Estes, ri6, 117, 132, 143, 144
Ebbets V. Quick, 415
Eberle v. Fisher, 888, 8go, 907
Eberlien v, Abel, 1343
Ebert v. Fisher, 1983
V. Gerding, 2136, 2137
V. Wood, 1977
Eberts v. Fisher, 1152
Ebey z-. Ebey, 779, 831
Ebrand v. Dancer, 1647
Ebsworth v. Alliance Marine Ins. Co., 631
Eby's Appeal, 76, 291
Echelkamp 7>. Schrader, 572
Eckert V. Reuter, 1514, 2012
Eckman v. Eckman, 2316, 2331, 2359
Eddy V. Baldwin, 1647
Edelmen v. Yeakel, 2312
Edgarton v. Young, 520, 810, 1580
Edge V. Worthingtou, 2002
Edgell V. Hazens, 1480
V. Stanfords, 2028, 2029
Edgerton v. Hufif, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73
V. Page, 1082, 1128, 1129, 1166, 1168, 1169
V. Paige, 1 1 74
V. Young, 2096, 2097, 2105, 2106, 2157
Edgewood v. Railway Co., 2328
Edgewood R. Co's Appeal, 2328
Edgington v. Hefner, 2132
Edmands v. Mut. S. F. Ins. Co., 2117
Edmonds v. Crenshaw, 1734
ti. Eastwood, 2254
Edmondsou w. Fort, 1247
V. Hyde, 1483, 14S4
V. Kite, 1278
V, Montague, 782
Edmonson v. Blessing, 1450, 1467
z', Meacham, 1481
V. Welch, 827
V. Welsh, 764, 765, 831
Edmuns v. Povey, 2139
Edmunson v. Kite, 1262, 2270
Edrington v. Harper, 1363, 1368, 1369, 2037,
2038,. 2047, 2052, 2053, 2054
Edsall V. Buchanan, 2095
Edson z*. Colbum, 1236, 1237,
V. Munsell, 2291, 2292
Edward's Appeal, 2272
Edward v. Cheyne, 1562
V. Barnes, 2, 307
V. Bibb, 447, 815, 820, 821, 826, 889
V. Bishop, 535
V. Brinker, 2366
V. Candy, 1168
V. Culberson, 1616
V. Culbertson, 15S6
V. Edwards, 1425, 1649, 1653, 2009
V. Farmers' Fire Ins. Co., 799, 2131
V. Freeman, 19
V. Fry, 1443
7'. Grand Trunk R. Co., 55
V. Hale, 1348, 1351, 1353, 1355
V. Hall, 42
V. Heatherington, 1200
V. Hetherington, 1177, 1200, 2269
V. Kearzey, 1510, 1512, 1513
V. New York& H. R. Co., 198, 1054
V. Perkins, 974, 975, 981
V. Salter, 1844
V. Sanders, 2155
V. Sheridan, 647
V. Slater, 1826, 1845
V. Sleater, 1805, 1806
V. Stevens, 1514
71. Sullivan, 901
V. Taliafero, 2013
V. Trumbull, 2003, 2004
V. University, 1781
Edwardsville R. Co. v. Sawyer, 281, 531
Eels z'. Lynch, 75
Egbert v. Butter, 1733
Ege V. Medlar, 630, 655, 656, 677, 682, 684, 1372,
2298
Egemont v. Hellins, 1039
Egertou v. Brownlow, 1569, 1570, 1609
z'. Brownlow's Estate, 1539
V. Earle. etc., 454
Eggz/. Devey, 267
Eggleston v. Bradford, 2358
V. New York & H. R. R. Co., 1282
Egremont, Doe d. d. Langdon, 1743
Ehle V. Quackenboss, 2275, 2276
Ehrman v. Mayer, 2268
Eichart v. Bargas, 1154
Eichelberger v. Bamitz, 396, 414, 416, 418, 434
Eicman ik Finch, 2171
Eidson v, Fontain, 645
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXIX
Eitelgeorge v. Mutual House Building Asso-
ciation, 1755
Elbers v. United Ins. Co.. 1456
Elder w. Reel. 8S7, 891,892,894,895,921
]':i Dorado Co. w. Davidson, 1035
Kldred v. Leahy, 1082, 2258
Eldredge v. Bell, 1143
V. Forestal, 798
V. Forrestal, 703, 761, 815
v. Pierce. 1524
V. Preble, 634
Eldridge v. Fisher, 416, 447, 472
V. Kin^sburv 2083
z>. Pierce, 13S1, 1476
w. Preble, 477, 479, 491, 626
V. See Yup t"o, , i6Sg
V. Smith, 2DJI
YM^.v. Cole, 1993, 1999, 2078
Elias V. Snowden Slate Quarries, 494
V. Verdugo, 1426
Eliot V. Thatcher, 1378, 1379
Elkin V. Meredith, 890
Elkius V. Edwards, 2093, 2094
EUcock V. Mapy, 1637
Ellerbrock z'. Flyiin, 1144
Ellett V, Reid, 2333
EUice, Ex parte, 1721
EUicot V. Welch, 777, 832, 2005
V. Mosier, 86i, 865, 866, 868, 870, 933, 956
ElUnger 7'. Crowl, 1623
Ellingsworlh v. Cook, 692, 703
Elliot V. Davis, 2356
V. Frakes, 1924
V. Smith, 542, 545, 546, 724
v. Sleeper, 2133
Elliotson V. Fleetham, 2250
Elliott, £jr^(ir/e, 1754
Elliott V. Aiken, 1054, 1068, 1083, 1106, 1107,
1 1 28, 1200
V. Armstrong, 1576, 1635
V. Ashland Mut. Fire Ins. Co.. 2113
V. Bishop, 129
V. Dycke, 1212
•V. Fisher, 76, 1560
■V. Fitchburgh R. Co., loi
1}. Gower, 2012, 2013
V. Horn, 1624
V. luce, 1034
V. Maxwell, 2044, 2054
V, McKay, i8g6
V. Minto, 368, 369, 719, 2057, 2058, 2289
•u. Morris, i8g8
V. Nichols, 1919, 1940, 1950
V. Northeastern R. Co., 2229, 2232
V. Pearsall, 411
V. PearsoU, 413, 443, 903
V. Perasoll, 467
V. Rhett, 2246
V. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 1051
V. Sackett, 2068, 2069
V. Stone, 1027, 1278, 1284
V, Teal, 1364, 1366
z/. Turner, 1871, 1872
7'. Wood, 2001, 2038, 2163
Ellis V. Davis, 1404
V. Duncan, 2230
V. Ellis, 870, 1632, 1633
V. Fisher, 1595, 1709, 1710, 1712, 1797
V. Foster, 2251
V, Fusher, 336
V. Guavas, 2148
V. Hussey, 1998, 2077
V. Johnson, 2071, 2166
V. Kenyon, 2r52
V. Leek, 2144
If. Lewis, 943, 945
V. Martin, 2020, 2140
V. Pa^e, 147, 1269
». Paige, 131,997, 1136, T137, 1187, 1252,
1264, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1284, 1285, 1295,
12^6, 1299, 1304, 1305, 1322, 1338
V, White, 1400
Ellison's Trust, Re, 1788
Ellison V. Airey, 326
V. Brigham, 56
V. Daniels, 1995, 1998, 2063, 2104, 3ixx
V. Ellison, 17Q1
ElHss V, Kreutzinger, 2 118
V. Nimmo, 1841
Elloit V. Fitchburg R. Co., 72, 2228
Ells V. Sims, 2024
Ellsworth V. Cook, 600, 601,603, 607, 613, 630
V. Hale, 1266, 1280
V. Hinds, 1024, 1362, 1370
V, Lockwood, 2074, 2136, 2137, 2138, 2150,
2169
V. Tartt, 1240, 1242, 1244
Ellwell 1/. Shaw, 1043
Elmendorf v. Carmichael, 2347
V. Lockwood, 734, 793, 835, 896, 900, 901,
911,923
•v. Taylor, 1785
Elmendorff v. Carmichael, 211, 215
Elmer v. Leper. 2087, 2088, 2090
Elmes V. Sutherland, 1794
Elmore v. Marks, 2034
Elms V. Randall, 1220, 1223
El ore z/. Robinson, 2267
Elsee ?». Gatward, 1183, 1191
Elston zi. Jasper, 986
V. Robinson, 1386, 1443, 1444, 1445
Elton V. Eason, 1212
Elwell V. Buruside, 1969
Elwes V. Maw, 118, 124, 127, 12S, 129, 130
Elwood V. Deifendorf, 2177
V. Forkel, 13x7
V. Klock, 819
Ely V. Alcott, 2349
V. Beaumont, 975
V. Eastwood, 1516
7'. Ely, 2009
V. Lyon, 1456
V. McGuire, 2077
V. McNight, 2070
V. Scofield, 2036, 2iog, 2110
If. Wilcox, 2366
Emans v. Turnbull, 98
Emanuel v. Hunt, 2104, 2106
Emanuel College v. Evans, 1996
Embree v. Ellis, 712, 766, 870, 874, 876
Kmbrey -u. Owen, 2225, 2228
Embury v. Connor, 2323, 2324, 2327, 232S
Emerick z>. Tavener, 1315
V. Taverner, 1317, 1335, 1350, 1355
Emerson v. Atwater, 2045
V. Cutler, 1024
V. European & M. A. R. Co., 2018, 2019
V. Fiske, 2212
V. Harris, 763
V. Proprietors, 730
V. Simpson, 1867, 1972
V. Spicer, 1022, 1023
7'. White, 2345
V. Wyley, 2362
Emery v. Chase, 2315, 2316, 2317
V. Grocock, 1743
V. Ownings. 2027, 2030
Emigrant Co. v. County of Wright, 1763
Emison v. Risque, 2009
Eramerson v. Heells, 51
Emmert v. Hays, 681
Emmes v. Feeley» 2260
V. Feely, 1171, 1219, 1253, 1294
Emmett v. Emmett, 223, 2014
V. Hays, 1025
Emmons v. Kiger, 1002
V. Littlefield, 2349
V. Newman, 1243
V. Scudder, 12S1, 1348, 1352, 1353
V. Williims, 2334
Emmott V. Cole, 982, 2250
EmonB v. Turnbull, 72
Emory v. Keighan, 2127
V, Wise, 14S6
\
cxx
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
lo pages.
Emporia 7). Sodam, 2230
Enders v. Enders, 1648
Enfield v. Day, 212, 2298
Enfield Toll Bridge Co. u. Connecticut River
Co., 1869
V. Hartford R. Co., 197
Engelbrecht v. Shade, 1387
Engels V. Mitchell, 1253
England v. Dowes, 654
V. Downs, 659, 795
V. Lewis, 2167
England d. Sybouin v. Slade, 1742, 1743
Engle V. Fitch, 1092
V. Haines, 2068
V. Underbill, 2082
Englebrecht v. Shade, 1419
Englefield's Case, 1544, 1842
Englesz/. McKinley, 1117
English V. Duncan, 2272
V. English, 945, 946
V. Foxall, 1666
V. Key, 1120,2250,2257
V. Lane, 2037
V. Register, 1259
V. Roche, 2024
Englishba w. Helmutb, 207, 601
Eno v. Del Yecchio, 2208, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237
Enos V. Cook, 1046
z». Sutherland, 2038, 2169
Ensign v. Colbum, 10271 2.188
Enthoven i». Hoyle, 2339
Enyeart v. Kepler, 1932, 1945, 1955
Episcopal Charitable Society v. Episcopal
Church, 1 020, 104a
Eppes z*. Cole, 2270
Epstein f. Greer, 1159, 1213
Equitable Life Assn. Soc. v. Bostwicfc, 2070,
2151
Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Bostwicfc, 2i65
w. Stevens, 2165
Equitable Life Ins, Soc. v. Von Glahn, 2080
Erickson t». Michigan Land & Iron Co., 93, 94
V. Patterson, 1207
V. RafEerty, 1998
V. Willard, 1593, 1629, 3631
Erie V. Cau)kins, 1193
Ernest 1). Ctoysdill, 1761
Erskiner. Plwmmer, 54, 55
v^ Townsend, 2040,2041, 2049, 2077, 2127,
2128
Ervine's Appeal, 2324
Erwin v. Blanks, 2170
V. Clark,, 1246
V. Hurd, 33, 36, 39
V. Olrastead, 12S2, 1903, 192a
». Parham, 175S
V. Shuey, 2037
Erwin's App>eal„ 1064
Escheator v. Smith, 1672, 1673
Esdonr. Colbum, 1234
Eskridge t>. McClure, 2005, 2007, 2009
Eslava v. Lepetre, 826, 829, 925, 926
Espy V. Fenton, 2270
Essex V. Atkins, 1562
V. Essex, 1964
Essex Sav. Bfc. v. Meridan F. Ins. Co., 2113
Estabroofc T*. Hughes, 1139
V. Smith, 1094
Estate of Sunderland, 2283
Estate of Wiley, 2263 , 2264
Estave v. Lepetre, 804
Estcourt z/. Estcourt, 953, 955, 957
Estep V. Estep, 1106, 1196
V. Morton, 479
Esterbrooks v. Tillinghast, 1637
Esterly v. Purdy, 2028, 2030
Estes V. Keedsey, 1356
Estill V. Rogers, 594, 595
Estvick's Case, 184
Esty V. Baker, 997, 1253, 1269;^ 1270, 1286, 1293,
1296, 1304, 1354
Etheridge v. Vemoy, 214S
Ethridge v. Malempre, 218, 750
Ettenheiraer -v. Hefferman, 221
Etting V. Bank of the United States, 518
Eureka Clothes Wringing Machine Company!'.
Bailey W. W. Machine Company,
1042
Eureka Co, v. Bailey Co., 1020
Eustache v. Rodaquest, 220
Eustis V. Keightley, 964
Euston V. Friday, 2133
Evan V. Jayne, 2236
Evans* Estate, 1634, 1733
Evans ly. Erittain, 1883, 1919
V. Chew, 1662, 1752
V. Clapp, 1051, 1052
7'. Evans, 690,691,780,788,815,820, 826,
885, 888
V. Gibbs,. 2354
V. Hardy, 1021, 2257,2258
V. Hastings, 1125, 1310
V. Huffman, 2093, 2094
V. Iglehart, 537
V. Jackson, 1037
V. John, 1786
V. Jones, 2120, 2173
V. Ketterell, 2056
V. Kimball, S09, 8ro
V. King, 1609
V. Kingberry, 1364
V. Kingsberry, 76, 77, 1367
V. Lamar, 1794, 2020
V. Montgomery, 1511, 1518
V. Norris, 2031, 2254
V. Pierson, 935
V. Read, 1350
V. Reed, 1355
•v. Roberts, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 537
V, Rosser, 274
V. Webb, 723, 917, 918, 938, 940, 942,
945
f. Webbs, 944
V. Wells, 1042
V. Womack, 13S8
Evans, Doe d., w. Evans, 307
Evansville Gas Light Co. v. State, 2153
Evanturel v. Evanturel, 267
Evarts V. Nason, 1782
V. Steger, 2331
Evelyn v. Raddish, 1091
Evens v. Hardy, 2251
Everett t* . Potter, 733, 734, 736
V. Strong, 2102
Everitt V. Everitt, 1793, 1807
V. Thomas, 2358
Everman &. Robb, 1051, 2020
Everson v.. Carpenter, 2343
Everts w. Beach, 1894
V. Chittendon, 315
Evertson v. Booth, 2105, 2107, 2164
V. Sawyer, 976, 1149
V. Tappen, 802
Evoy V. Tewksbury, 2267
Ewan, Doe d., v. Cox, 412, 415, 423, 427
Ewart V. Smith, logg
Ewer z/. Heyden, 1176
•V. Hobbs, 1866, 1998
V. Moyle, 2268
Ewing V. Burnet, 2296
V. City of St. Louis, 1515
r. Coddington, 2254
V. Jones, 1790, 1791
V. Shannahan, 1792
V. Smith, 1375, 1562
V. Wilson, 1789
Ewing's Lessees*. Burnet, 209, 211
Excelsior F. Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 2113,
2117,2118
Exchange & Deposit Bank v. Stone, 1935
Executors of Lord v. Carbon Iron Mfg. Co.,
2233
Exeter v. Odiome, 1548, 1560, 1606, 1607
Exeter Bank v. Stowell, 1702
References are
to pages.
Ex parte Allen, 2263
Ex parte Coburn, 2212
iijr/irtr/tf Duble, 2263
Ex parte Faxon, 2266
Ex parte Hall, 2252
Ex parte Martin, 2324
Ex parte Merriam, 2179, 21S0
Ex Parte Morrish, 2263
Ex parte Withers, 2325
Extension of Central Park, Matter of, 922
Exter V. Odiorne, 297, 299, 300
Exton V. St. John, 820, 821
Exum V, Canty, 2316
Eyre z>. Potter, 1757, 175S
Eyrick v. Hetrick, 254, 485, 1674, 1675, 1748,
1786, 1788
Eysaman?'. Eysaman, 1344
Eysterw. GofE, 2153
V. Hatheway, 1409, 1490, 1491, 1497, 1498,
1524, 2060
Eyton V. Jones, 1141
Ezelle V. Parker, 1283, 1291, 2345
F.
Fabb V. Archer, 645
Faber w. Police, 1570
Fagan v. Scott, 1282
Fahnestoc^c v. Faustenauer, 1300, 130S, 1315,
1335, 1336
Failing V, Schenck, 981
Fair v. Brown, 2079, 2091
Fairbank v. Cudworth, 2080, 2188
Fairbanks v. Metcalf. 2353
Fairchild %'. Chastelleux, 1024, 1364, 1367, 1930,
1Q31, 1932, 1940. 1941J 1945
V. Fairchild, 824, 1964
7'. Lynch, 2068
Fairfax v. Hunter, 2347
Fairfax's Devisee d. Hunter's Lessee, 214, 215,
236, 672, 673, 1657
Fairfield v. Jeffreys, 1247
V. Lawson, 1685, 1686
Fairis v. Walker, 113
Fairman v. Bavin, 1620
V. Beal, 317, 319, 337, 536, 1815
V. Peck, 1758
Faivre v. Daley, 1467, 146S, 1473, 1474
Falls V. Conway Ins. Co., 2055
Falk V, Turner, 1791
Falkner £». Campbell Printing Press Co., 2064,
2065
Fall V. Hazelregg, 1290
V. Moore, 1133
Fall River Whaling Co. v. Eorden, 824, 1957,
i960
Fallon^. Schilling, igS
Falls Village W. P. Co. v. Tibbetts, 572
Famworth v. Ferrers, 559
Faming zk Chadwick, 1896, 1903
•v. Dunham, 2060
V. Kerr, 2160
Fansworih v. Cole, 731
Fant V, Cathart, 2343
Fardy v. Williams, 998, 1042
Farewell v. Cuttings, 728
Farley v. Craig, 1004, 1120, 1139, 2251, :267,
2269
V. Farley, 1869
V. Thompson, 2250, 2255, 2258
Farmer v. Francis, 309
V. Grose, 2045, 2047, 2052
V. Ray, 887
V. Rogers, 1160
V. Simpson, 1492, 1497
Tj. Turner, 1428
Farmers' Bank v. Corder, 1937, 1952
V. Duval, 2335
Farmers & Mechanics' Bank v. Bronson, 2091,
2122
■i/. Greogory, 1920
TABLE OF CASES.
CXXl
Farmers & Merchants' Bank of Rochester v.
Gregory, 1952, 19S0
Farmers & Merchants' National Bank v. Wal-
lace, 1936
Farmers' F. I. & L. Co. v. Edwards, 2131
Fanners' F. & L. Co. v. Edwards, 2129
Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 2115
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Carroll, 1550,
1810
V. Commercial Bank, 201S
V. Fisher, 2018
V. Hughes, 1662
V. Maltby, 2154
V. McKinney. 2014, 2322
V. St. Jo. & D. R. Co., 98, loig, 1020
Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Moran, 1797
Famam v. Brooks, 162 1, 17S1
V. Holman, 2262
V. Loomis, 767
Faniham v. Clements, 1586, 1645
Farnival v. Crew, 1008, 1009
Farnsworlh v. Boston, 688, 2062
V. Duffer, 1045
Famum v, Burnett, 2030, 2059
"'. Loomis. 764
x>. Peterson, 1095, 2301
V. Piatt, 2206, 2208, 2222
Farquharson v. Eichleberger, 289, 1553, 1594,
1597
•V. McDonald, 1600, 1789, 2023
Farr v. Dudley, 2082
V. Gilreath, 298, 1564
V. Sherman, 1362
V. Smith, 1246, 1904, 1905, 1969
Farrand z'. Gleason, iSgi
V. Marshall, 2231, 2232
Farrant v. Love], 575, 576, 20S0, 2185
V. Thompson, 984
Farrar v. Ayres. 306, 330, 337, 340
V. Chauffetele, 112, 114, 116, 126, 2334
V. Cooper, 2245
V. Dean, 216
V. Eastman, 1913
V. Stackpole, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 113,
133. 135
V. Winterton, 76
Farrell v. Lloyd, 682, 1647
V. Patterson, 1376
Farrer v. Beswick, 1246
Farrington v. Baley, 2273
V. Barr, 1538, 1586, i6ro, 1612, 1637
V. Kimball, 1072, 1073, 1115, 1117
V. Morgan, 233
Farris v. Houston, 1219, 1222, 2087, 2258
V. Walker, 104, 136
Farrow w. Edmundson, 1144, 1296
V. Farrow, 896, 898, 899, 923, 956
Farrow e v Beam, 841
Farson v. Goodale, 1273, 1334, 1344
Farwell v. Cotting, 925
V. Dickenson, 1176, 2250
V. Murphy, 2174
V. Rogers, 209, 1005, 2256
Farwell Brick, Tile & Clay Shingle Co. v.
McKenna, 1464
Fash V. Blake, 2323
v- Kavanagh, 1343
Fassett v. First Parish in Baylston, 36, 38, 39,
40
V. Mullock, 2106. 2153
Fassitt V. Middleton, 975
Faubanks v. Codworth, 2081
Faulkner w. Anderson, 1253
V. Brock en borough, 1998, 2077
V. Dmiel, 510
V. Daniels, 2170
V. Davis, 1738, 1739
V. Warren, 2251
Faure v, Winans, 2089
Faurote v. Carr, 1427, 1428
Fawcett v. Whitehouse, 1621
Fawcetts z/. Kinney, 2177
cxxu
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Fawley v. Craig, 2253.
Faxon, Ex Parte, 1173
V. Folvey, 1589
Fay w. Brewfer, 553, 563, 1153, 2086
1). Cheney, 688, 1996, 2014
V. Fay, 1605, 1810
V. HoUoran, 984, 2249, 2252, 2259
ZK Muzzey, 78, 79
V. Salem & D. Aqueduct Co., 71
■u. Taft, 1560, 1614
V. Valentine, 2174
Faysoux ff. Prather, 1723
Fearoti v. Aylesford, 773, 939, 965
Fears w. Brooks, 1371, 1373, 1561
Feather v. Strohoecker, 1989, 1990
Featherstonhaugh v. Lee Moor Porcelain Clay
Co., roig
V. Bradshaw, 2271
Fee V. Swingly, 2085
Fejavary v. Braesch, 1050, 2271
Felch V. Finch, 841, 844
&. Harriman, 1207
V. Hooper, 1614
V. Taylor, 1108, 1117, 2062
Fell V. Brown, 2073, 2149
V. Rich Hill Coal Mining Co., 976
Fellows' Appeal, 1791, 1792
Fellows V. Fellows, 1770
V. Heermans, 1680
V. Lee, 197
V. Lewis, 1480
V. Mitchell, 1732
V. Smith, 1623
v. Tann, 1561
Felthouse v. Bi'idley, 1000
Feltman v. Butts, 293
Felton V. Bissell, 2177
V, Deall, 982, 1232
Fenn v. Holme, 1516
V. Smart, 1849
Fennings v. Granville, 1246
Fenny n. Durrant, 862
Fenton v. Emblers, g6i
V. Holloway, 1034
z'. Lord, 2o58
V. Reed, 506, 752, 757, 758, 769, 883
V. Stump, 759
Fenwick z/. Floyd, 1501
Fereday v. HorderU; 1240
Ferguson v. , 1068
v, Cornish, 1007, 1008
V. Franklin, 1554
V. Hardy, 2257
V. Hass, 786
V. Kimball, 2154
V. Kumler, 1431
11. Neville, 2014
•v. Peden, 2298
•V. Reed, 1425
V. Stuart's Exrs., 76'
V. Tweedy, 592, 593, 598, 6or, 604, 616,
624, 692, 693, 703
V. Wetsell, 2248
V. WLtsell, 2242
Ferguson's Lessee v. Zepp, 307, 308, 332, 536
Fergusson v. Brent, 1099
Ferfat v. Gojon, 594
Ferraby v. Hobson, 1038
Ferrall v. Kent, 1233, 1234, igog
Ferre v. American Board Comrs., etc., 1842
Ferriu v. Kennedy, 1294
V. Kenny, 1293
Ferris w. Cooper, 2335, 2336
V. Crawford, 2070, 2071, 2112. 2150, 2166
V. Ferris. 2051
V. Gibson, 322, 323
V. Quimby, 123
V. Van Buskiric, 2237
V. Van Vechten, 1622, 1760
Ferriss v. Harshea, 730
Ferry v. Bnrnell, 739
V. Meckert, 2107
Ferry v. Pumell, 733
Fesmire v. Brock, 1026
Fessler's Appeal, 2002, 2050
Fetrie v. Shoemaker, 1034
Fetrow v. Merriwether, 2318
V. Wiseman, 2344
Fetters v. Humphrey, 2211
V. Humphreys, 2216
Fettiplace v. Gorges, 1562
Fewell V. Kessler, 2134
Fickett V. Durham, 778
Field V. Arrowsmith, 1598, 1716, 1766, 1795
V. Columbet, 2322
V. Craig, 1904
«». "Helms, 2168
V, Herrick, 1030, 1066, 13 16, 1327, 1329,
1340
V. HoUowell, 970
•v. Howell, 971, 974, gSi
V, Mayor, etc., of New York, 2017
V. Mills, 1057, 1104, iiii, 1113, 1159
V. Pierce, 42
V. Schiefflin, 1022
V. Stagg, 2341
V. Swan, 1 1 19, 2065, 2257
Fielden v. Slater, 1185
Fielder zk Darrin, 2045, 2060
V. Murphy, 2152
Fields V. Fields, 1953
Fiero zk Belt, 1229, 1234
Fify Assoc, v. Howland, 1059, 1062, 1138, 1155
Figart v. Halderman, 2071
Fightmaster v. Beasley, 1969
V. Beasly, 1905
Filbert v. Hoff, 1904
Files V. Magoon, 1277
Fillebrown v. Hoar, 1171, T173, 1174, 2268
Filley -v'. Register, 1623, 1625, 1626
FilUter v, Phippard, 568
Fillman v. Divers, 1622
Fillor V. United States, 1035
Finaly v. King's Lessee, 1864
Finch's Case, 1348
Finch 11. Finch, 650, 962, 966, 1647, 1653
V. Miller, 1316
z'. Newham, 2170
V, Shackleford, 1153
Finden v. Stephens, 1627
Fiudlay v. Smith, 340, 495, 544, 550, 552, 553,
561, 562, 742, 776, 806, 812
Findlay's Kxrs. v, Findlay, 899
Findley v. Findley, 933, 956
V. Wilson, 1668
Finlay r/. King's Lessee, 270, 305, 1770
Finlayson v. Finlayson, 1586, 1616
Finley z). Diedrick, 1388, 1513
V. Dietrick. 1390
V. McConnell, 1381, 1476
V. United States Bank, 2147, 2148
Finklemeier z*. Bales, 11 59
Finney v. Cochran, 1782
zi. Watkins, 128
Finney's Trustees v. St. Louis, 1131, 1315, 1316,
1348
Fipps V. McGehee, 2364
Fiquet v. Allison, 1234, 1246
Firchburg Cotton Manf. Co. v. Melven, 1028
Fire Ins. Patrol v. Boyd, 1751
Firebrass v. Pennant, 646
Firestone v. Firestone, 764, 804, 827, 832
First Baptist Church v. Bigelow, 31
First Baptist Society zk Grant, 33, 36
First Baptist Church of Hartford v. Witherell,
33. 35.36. 39
First Congregational Society v. Atwater, 1555
First Methodist Episcopal Society v. Brayton,
37
First Natl. Bank v. Bennett, 975
V. Hughes, 1795
V. Vevay, 1316
First National Bank of San Luis Obispo v.
Bruse, 1421, 1447
References are
to pages. .1
TABLE OF CASES.
cx^m
First National Bank of Santa Barbara v. La
Suerra. 1425
First National Bank of Sioux City v. Gage,
2066
First National Bank of Stewart v. Holling-
worth, 13S3, 1443, 1445
Fii-st National Bank of Waterloo v. Elmore,
810
First Parish in Brunswick ?'. Dunning, 234
First Parish of Sudbury r'. Jones, 142
First Presby. Church's Lessee v. Pickett, 1139,
1140
Firat Presbyterian Society of Chili v. Bowen,
1671
Firit Religious Society in Whitestown v.
Stone, 1671
Fish i'. Chapman, logg
v. Dodge, 119^,2070
V. Fish, 783, 940, 2074, 2182
V. Howland, 2008
V. Potts, 2257
V. Wilson, 1782
Fishbach v. Lane, 1469
Fisher's Appeal, 162 1
Fisherz'. Banta, 76
V, Brown, 1749
V. Bush, 1211
V. Cornell, 1443, 1445, 1459, 1462
V. I>erring, 1120, 2258
V. Dewerson, 1972
V, Dixon, 104, 127
V. Fair, 2218
V. Fields, 288, 289, 290, 1542, 1563, 1574,
^575> *592, 1594, 1596,1689,1690,1691,
1796
jr. Filbert, 1561
V. Fislier, 102 1
V. Forbes, 53, 724, 959
V. Glover, 32, 39
V. Grimes, 784, 821, 907
V. Horicon, etc., Co., 1554
V. Johnson, 2005, 2007
V. Jewitt, 2343
zi. Klein, 2347
V. Krutz, 1643
V. Lackey, 151 1
7'. Meister, 2059, 2147
V. MiDiken, 1098, 1172
V. Morgan, 874, 875
71. Mossman, 924
r. Otis, 202S, 2105, 210S
V. Prosser, 1170
7/. Provin, 1024, 1930, 1932, 1942, 1952
V. Smith, 1151, 2256
V. Tallman, 2169
V. Taylor, 273, 500, 1674, 1675, 174S
V. Thirkell, 1202
V. Wigg, 1246, 1883
Fisher, Doe d., z>. Giles,. 1279
V. Prosser, 518
Fisk V. Chandler, 1866
V, Eastman, 692, 703, 761, 815
Fiske V. Fiske, 2031, 2032, 2033
z/. Flores, 2359
V. Tolman, 2068
Fitch v. Archibald, 2254
V. Ayer, 647
V. Burk, 2020
V. Cotheal, 2131
V. Harrington, 1241
7/. Pinckard, 1997
V. Renner, 2057
Fitchburg Cotton Co. v. Melvin, 2064
Fitchburg Cotton Manfg. Corp. v. Melvin, 119,
497, 1127, 1167, 1171, 1172, 1174
Fitchburg R. Co. v. Page, 2295
Fitcher v. Remer, 2057
Fite V. Beasley, 1686
Fitton V. Inhabitants of Hamilton City, 1043,
1317, 1328, 1342
Fitts V. Fitts, 1949
V. Hoitt, 70S, 729, 1093
Fitz V. Smallbrook, 1807
Fitzgerald v. Anderson, 1187, n8S
V. Barker, 2068, 2166
7>. Beebe, 1125, 1169^1212
V. Fernandez, 1426
7J. Foulkes, 2272
V. Reed, 986
V. Topping, 1798
Fitzlierbert v. Shaw, 130
Fitzhugb V, Anderson, 2176
V. Barnard, 1777
V. Cregham, 2364
V. Crigham, 5 1 7
V. Croghan, 206, 601, 73*^ 2354, 2365
V. Hellen, 486
Fitzpatrick v. Childs, 1131, 1132
V. Fitzgerald, 1706, 1707, 1713
V. Fitzpatrick, 597, 1648
V. Waring. 1038
Fitzsimmons v. Ogden, 2124
Flacks f. Kelly, 2136
Fladland v. Delaplaine, 2000
Fladung zr. Rose, 1919, 1932, 1939
Flagg V. Bean, 641, 642,666
V. Ely, 171 5
V. Geltmacker, 2071
V. Mann, 1590, 1738, 1990, iggs, 2037,
2041, 2043, 2044, 2045,2046, 2048,2049
2053, 2054, 2064, 2079, 2204, 232S
Flaherty v. McCormick, 2296
Flanagan v. Glanagan, 75
v. Pearson, 1144, 1145, 1160
7/. WeStCOtt, 2112
Flanders?'. Clark, 1816, 1841, 1888
V. Flanders, 1776
71. Lamphear, 2032, 2033, 2064
V. Thompson, 1623
Fleek v. Zilhaver, 1933
Fleeson ?'. Nicholson, 831, 8gi, 927
Fleet V. Borland, 504, 505, 506
Fleetwood v. Hull, T076
Fleming 7/. Brush, 2356
v. Buchanan, 1821, 1825
V. Chunn, 2252, 2259
V. Fleming, 597
77. Gilmer, 17S4
7'. Sitton, 2165
Flemming v. Culbert, 1781
Fletcher 7/. Ashburner, 94, 679, 695
11. Ashley, 654
7'. Chase, 2097, 2178
7>. Com. Ins. Co., 1224
V. Fletcher, 1791
V. Herring, 8r
7/. Holmes, 722, 924, 1999, 2106, 2167
7>. Mayor, 2100
V. McFarlane, 1076,2263, 2264
v. Peck, 19, 1512
7'. Rylands, 199
z>. Smiton, 307, 311
V. State Bank, 1093
7/. State Capitol Bank, 1412, 1501
V. Thunder Bay River Boom Co., 70
V. Walker, 1720
Fletcher v. Dyche, 2356
Fleureau v. Thornhill, 1245
Flinn v. McKinley, 1990
Flint 7/. Clinton Co., 1786, 17SS, 2013
V. Hughes, 347. 1632, 16S4
tr. Phipps, 2033
V. Sheldon, 2038, 2046
Flint & P. M. R Co. v. Gordon, 2203
Flinthan's Appeal, 33S, 1814
Flinthan's Case, 317
Flood V. Blood, 1348, 1354
Florence 7/. Adams, 1766, 1776
7/. Hopkins, 1917, 1982,
Florence Sewing Machine Co. v. Grovor &
Baker Sewing Machine Co., 1157
Florentine 7'. Barton, 2333
Flournoy v. Johnson, 1743
Flowers z;. Elwood, 2133, 2161
CXXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Flower, Doe d., v. Peck, 1074," 1075, 1152, 1868,
i86g
Flower v. Miller, 1380, 1381
Flowry v. Befiker, 662
Floyd V. Calvert, 596
V. Carow, 21
V. Floyd, 1300, 1308, 1335, 1337
•a. Morrow, 2018
V. Ricks, 45, 2364
Floper V. Lavington, 2168
Fludz/. Flud. 518
Fluke V. Fluke, 1754, 1810
Flureau v. Thomhill, iigo
Flyz'. Brooks, 2331
Flynn v. Coffee, 523
V. Hatton, 1054, 1086, 1248
■v. Powers, 20 11
Fl'ynt w. Arnold, 829, 2365
V. Conrad, 48
'V. Hubbard, 1647, 2080
Fojal w. Pino, 514
I'ogarty z'. Finley, 2364
V. Sawyer, 2078, 2159
Fo^ 1/. Clark, 2, 305. 307, 308, 310, 331
V. Fogg, 1386, 1442, 1443, 1501, 1502, 1503,
V. Price, 1053, 1093
Fogle v. Chancy, 1309
Folden v. State, 970, ggo, looi
Foley w. Cooper, 1524
V. Cowgill, 1701
ff. Howard, 2033,
■V. Parry, 347
■V. Perry, 1630
■V. Wyeth, 1253, 12S2, 1290, 2231, 2232,
2248
Folger k. Evic, 1638
V. Kenuer, no
27. Mitchell, 2191
Folkingham v. Croft, 257
Follansbez'. Kilbreth, 1735, 1736, 1746
FoUett V. Heath, 2027. 2031
V. Rose, 1757
V. Tyrer, 684, 1372
Folschow V. Werner. 1427
Folsom ». Belknap Co. Mut. F. Ins. Co.,
2115
p. Carli, 1445, 1504, 1505
V, Chesley, 541
v. Moore, 107, 1269
V Perriii, 994
Folts V. Huntley, 1127, 1167
Foltz -v. Prouce, 2250, 2251, 2258
Fonda w. Sage, 1861, 1862, 1873
V. Van Home, 1023, 2344
Fontatn v. Ravenel, 2348
Fontaine -v, Bostman's Sav. Bank, 765
Fonte V. Horton, 1734
Fooler «/. Cooke, 1729
Foos V. Scarf, 1822
Foose -D. Whitmore, 1591, 1593
Foot V. New Haven & N. Co., 1280, 2212, 2213
0. New Haven R. R., 2212
zi. Tewksbury, 1033
V. Wiswall, 517
Foote V. Bryant, 1615
V. Cincinnatti, 1127, 1129, 1167,2268
71. Colvin, 45, 1229, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1579,
1615, 1622, 1638, 1642, 1648, 1747
•V. Gooch, 132
V. Hartford Ins. Co., 2116
Footner v. Cooper, 2, 307
Forbes v. Appleton, iiSo
V. Balenseifer, 2212, 2213
7j. Eden, 34
v. Forbes, 1947
z/. Hall, 1 74 1
V. McCoy, 2025, 2026
'V. Moffatt, 810, 1164, 1580, 2097
V. Ross, 1708
V. Scannell, 1795
V. Smiley, 1258, 1273, 3260
Forbes v. Smith, 679, "680
V. Sweezy, 592, 628, 634, 635, 668, 669
Forbush v. Lombard, 2021
Ford z/. Conb, 61, 81, no, 117, 122, 125, 141, i43»
144
V. Cook, 447, 448, 468
■u. Erskine, 867, 868
V. Gray, 1913
V. Grey, 208, 1968
zi. Irskine, 807
2/. Johnson, 1514
z). Joyce, 2330
V. Kiiapp, 1891, 1892
V. Lacy, 2293
%K Peering, 491
V. Phillips, 1031
V. Philpot, 782
z'. Smith, 2005, 2009
V. Tynte, 60
ZK Williams, 141
V. Wilson, 2300
Forde v. Herron, 1962
Fordyce zk Hicks, 1425
V. Willis, 1590
Foreman 7'. Foreman, 94, 434
Forgy ZI. Merryman, 2071
Fornshill v. Murray, 752, 757, 759
Forrer t. Forrer, 1S89
Forrest z>. Foirest, 771. 772, 920, 1359
V. Tremmell, 764, 766
Forrester v. Forrester, 750
Forsaith v. Clark, 310
Forsey v. Luton, 497
Forshaw v. Higginson, 1787
V. Welsby, j8oi
Forster z/. Hale, 1590, 1591, 1592, 1691, 1692
Forsyth -v. Preer, 1479
Forsythe v. Price, 539, 540, 1208
Fort V. Burch, 799, 2365
Fortesque zi. Hennah, 795
Forth V. Ballance, 1146
Fortier v. Darst, 2106
Fortman v. Goepper, 116, 143, 144
Forward z>. Deetz, 1914
V. Pittard, 498, 1099
Fescue ZK Foscue, 1781
Fosdick V. Fosdick, 323
V. Gooding, 791, 851, 857, 870
V. Schall, 2018
V. Southern Car Co., 2018
Foss V. Crisp, 659, 660, 673, 674, 750, 20T4
z). Hildreth, 1033
V. Strachn, 1383, 1449, 1451, 1455
V. Van Driele, ii6g, 1170, 2258
Foster's Appeal, 75, 1961
Foster v. Abbott, 2092
V. Atwatev, 2068
V. Beals, 2 no
V. Browning, 2212, 2213
V. Byrne, 1428
V. Cook, 943
V. Davis, 1724, 1728
ZI. Dawber, 1788
V. Deacon, 2152
•V. Dugan, 1349
V. Dwinell. 764, 803, 827
V. Equitable Ins. Co., 2118
z). Foster, 1412, 1910
7). Groton, 735
V. Hall, 636
v. Hawley, 759
V. Hilliard, 509, 2182
V. Joyce, 285, 477, 532
•V. Mansfield, 2353
V. McGregor, 1481
ZK Marshal, 489, 589, 590, 624, 626, 630,
632, 666
v> Maybe, 144
V. Merchant, 1034
V. Morris, 1172, 1220
V. Peyser, 1054, 1066, 1067, 1081, 1175,
1200, 1201
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxxv
Foster v. Potter, 2164
V. Prentiss, 142
V. Reynolds, 2030
V, Robinson, 1209
V. Romney, 1564
V. Rowland, 999
V. Shreve, 534
V. Stewart, 2, 30S, 309
V. The Essex Bank, 2332
V. Trustees, 1652
V. Trustees of Athenseum, 2007
z*. Van Reed, 21 17
V. Westmoreland, 2272
Foster, Doe d., v. Wandlass, 1060
V. Williams, 1309
Foteaux w. Lepage, 2251, 225S
Fothergill v. Fothergill, 1839
Fouch V. Wilson, 2004, 2037
Foucher J', Leeds, 1316
Fougerar'. Cohu, 1300, 13 17, 1321, 1335, 1442
Foulk V. McFarlane, 1773
Foulkes, Succession of, 1497
Fountaine v. Pellett, 504, 1726
Fourth Ecclesiastical Society v. Mather, 647
Fowell V. Franter, 1007
Fowke V. Slaughter, 1650
11. Woodward, 1047
Fowle V. Lawrason, 1669
V. Torrey, 646
Fowler, In re-, 2260
V. ^tna Fire Ins. Co., 21 15
V. Bailey, 786, 825
V. Bailley, 1957
V. Bott, 1082, 1099, 1175, 1179, 2250
V. Bush, 2133
7'. Fay, 810, 2068
V. Fowler, 661, 1604, 1687, 1891
V. Griffin, 739, 740, 780, 856
7'. Hawkins, 2272
z'. Payne, 1099, 1100
V. Poling, 1 172
V. Shearer, 900
V. Stoneum, 2046
V. Thayer, 1878
V. Treboin, 647
Fowler, Doe d., v. Peck, 1074, 1075
Fowley v. Palmer, 2089
Fox V. Blossom, 2293
V. Carlyne, 1848
V. Cash, 1781
V. Corey, 970, 2257, 2263
V. Fletcher, 1887, 1919, 1932
V. Hanbury, 1246
V. Lipe, 2060
V. Long, 504, 520
V. Mackreth, 76, 1619, 1621, 1761, 1772
V. Nathans. 1006, 1320
V. Phelps, 289, 331, 332, 340, 342, 533, 536
V. Phoenix Ins. Co., 2113, 2117
V. Pratt, 803, 885, 21G4
&. Southack, 214, 215,672, 673,750, 774,
1657, 2014
V. Swann, 1250
Foxcroft V. Barnes, 1983
Foxton V. Manchester & Liverpool District
Banking Company, 1783
Foxwell V. Craddock, 223
Foxworth V. White, 760 ,
Foy V. Foy, 1590
Frail v. Ellis, 2006
Frakes v. Elliott, 1904
Frame v. Frame, 1589
Framptgn v. Stephens, 770
France's Estate, 210
France v. Harrow, 722
Francestown v. Deering, 1646
Francis' Appeal, 2242
Francis The, 1456
Francis v. Cockrell, 1054, 1055
V. Francis, 597
V. (larrarJ, 841, 844
V. Nash, 43
Francis v. Porter, 1999, 2140, 2141
V. Sayles, 1211
V. Wells, 2004
Franciscus v. Reigart, 58, 251, 1552, 1559, 1583,
1672, 1673
Frank's Appeal, 959
Frank v. Brunnemann, 1184
V. Davis, 2167
V. Murphy, 2171
V. McGuire, 2263, 2264
V. Stovin, 424
Franke v. Youmans, iiio
Frankland v. Moultob, 143
Franklin v. Brown, 1054, 1056, 1066
z'. Carter, 11 72
V, Coffee, 1378, 1379, 1380, 13S6, 1416,
1439, 1442, 1443, 1444, 14^5, 1457, 1458,
14S3, 1495, 1514
V. Gorham, 2074
V. Harier, 331
V. McEntyre, 1613, 1651
V. Merida, 1212
V. Osgood, 1663, 1731, i8£o, i8i3» 1814,
1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1S41, 1842, 1S43
V. Palmer, 1164
V. Robinson, 1889
V. Thombury, 985
Franklin Land, etc., Co. v. Card, 1130, 1131
Franklin Sav. Inst. v. Central Mut. F. Ins.
Co., 2119
Franklin Savings Institution v. People's Sav-
ings Bank, 1885
Franklyn, Ex parte, 1721
Franklyn v, Hayward, 2147
Frary v. Booth, 1373, 1374, 1562
Fraser z'. Davie, 2255
V. Davis, 2273
Frasur v. Hurey, 536
Fratt V. Whittier, 105, 106, 107, 108, 121, 135,
136, 138, 141
Fraunces' Case, 1867
Fray v. Packer, 281, 285
Frazer v. Hightower, 655, 677, G82, 683,
1372
V. HilHard, 2017
V. McPherson, 2314
V. Pigott, 2281
V. Robinson, 1213
Frazier ?'. Bamum, 254, 1747
V. Brown, 2226, 2230
V. Brownlow, 1373, 1562
7'. Frazier, 1671
V. Pankey, 2333
Frazier, Trustees of, v. Center, 766, 830
Freak v. Hearsey, 2148
Frear v. Drinker, 2095
V. Hardenburgh, 52
Frederick's Appeal, 1790
Frederick v. Devol, 142, 143
V. Gray, 1915
V. Haas, 1700
V. Youngblood, 1698
Freeborn v. Wagner, 1808, i8og
Freedland v. Manderville, 955
Freeholders v. Henry, i68g
Freeland v. Burt, 1176
V. Freeland, 2059
V. Harris, 2064
V. Southworth, 107, iii
Freeman v. Baldwin, 2038
V. Barber, 1951
V. Buniham, 1623
V. Carpenter, 15141 ^S'S
V. Coit, 345
V. Cooke, 1707
21. Dawson, 77
V. Dunn, 658, 669
V. Foster, 1094
V. Freeman, 1696
7'. Hartmen, 588, 658, 669, 1362, 1377
V. Headly, 1259, 1277, 12S2, 1292
V. Howe, 1516
CXXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages,
Freeman. 7/, Kelly, 1634, 1653
V. McGaw, 809, 2016
V. Ogden, 1317
V. Parsley, 1828
v. Peay, 2033
V. Schofield, 2148
V. Schroeder, 2125
V. Smith, 76
V. Underwood, 982, 9S3
V. West, 1040
V. Wilson, 2045, 2054
Freeman, Den exd,, v. Heath, 1160
Freemantle v. Bankes, 648
Freer v. Lake, 1690, 2096
V. Stotenbur, St2, 1204. 1227
Freerez'. Moore. 2139
Freethy v. Freetixy, 1514
Fregonwell z>. Sydenham, 1692
Freidlander v. Ryder, 1187
Freidly v. Scheetz, S89
Freligh v, Piatt, 31, 35, 36, 38, 40
Fremont v. The United States, 88
Frenqh zr. Braintree Manf. Co., 2247
V. Brewer, 88
V. Bums, 2046
V. Cadden,4i8
V. Crosby, S64. 911
v. Edivards, 1800, 1801
■v. Freeman, 79, 81
V. Frencli. 297, 534, 1548, 2319, 2321
■V. Fulier,'i2S2
•V. Hatch, 319
V. Hobson, 1733
■V. Lord, 796, S13, 821, 828, gii, 921, 922
i>. Lund, 1925
V. Macale, 1872
V. Marstin, 2219, 2220
iv. Mayor, 1 106
V. Mcllhenny, 302, 306, 309, 331, 333
V. Mehan, 1920, 1933, 1939, 1940, 1941,
1942, 1945
V. Pearce, 210, 211, 2298
z>. Peters, 854, 860, 900, 904
V. Pratt, 849, 854, 856, 859, 860
V. Rollins, 515, 665, 666, 1142
V. Sturdivant, 2038, 2052, 2054
V. Turner, 2104, 2106
Frenches Heirs v. French, 1033
Frewen v. Relfe, 1888
Frey v. Rockfellcr, 2364
V. Vanderhoof, 2131
Freyvogle v. Hughes, 1674, 1675
Frick Co. v. Petals, 1380, 1381
Friedhoif ■z'. Smith, 996, 1322
Friedland v. Johnson, 1712, 1761
Friedlander z/. Ryder, 1188
Friedly v. Hamilton, 2042, 2119, 2126
Friend v, Garcelon, 1428, 1429
Friendly 7/. Sheetz, 1773
Frier v. Jacksou ex. d. Van Allen, 518
Frierson ?/. Blan*on, 2066, 2067
V. Frierson, 647
7>. Williams, 720
Frieze w. Chapin, 2160
Frink v. Branch, 2027
z/. Le Roy, 2175
V. Murphy, 21^1
Frisbie ?'. Fogarty, 2155
v. Price, 1271, 1280, 1289
V. Whitney, 2308
Frissell 7'. Rosier, 646, 647, 895, 1938
Frith, In re, i66g, 1974
Frische v. Kramer's Lessee, 2078
Frogmorton v. Holday, 331
«7. Wharrey, 234,437
V. Wright, 331, 533
Frogmorton d, Fleming z*. Scott, 1352
Frogmorton d. Robinson v. Wharrey, 442
Frontier z*. Ballance, 1140
Frontin v. Small, 1989
Fronty v. Wood, 1132, 1317
Frosdick zr. Sterling, 1366, 1369, 1370
Frost V. Reekman, 1777, 2038, 2121, 2122,
2123
Frost V, Brisbin, 1456
z*. Butler, 1859
V. Cloutman, 470
V. Crisp, 2025
V. Deerjng, 901, 903
V. Earnest, 1067
V. Frost, 2150
V. Peacock, 818, 925
z/. Raymond, 1989, 2362
V. Shaw, 2071, 2112
V. Wolf, i960
V. Yonkers Savings Bank, 2138, 2172
Frothingham v. McKusick, 2186, 2187
Front V. Hardin, 1230
Fry V. Fry, 636
V. Jones, 1230, 1237, 2255
V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 858
V. Sliehee, 2146
V. Smith, 336
Fryatt v. Sullivan, 2186
V. The Sullivan Co., 103, 104, 143
Frye v. Bank of Illinois, 2030
V. Porter, 1692
Fryer, In re, 1732
Fryer v. Fryer, 596, 752
Fudge V. Durn, 1713, 1714, 1723* 1728
Fuhr z/. Dean, 1356, 1357, 2212, 2240
V. Deane, 2213
Fullas V. Pierce, 2366
Fullenwider 7^. Watson, 1821
Fuller V. Ferguson, 1946
V. Fuller, 1889
V. Hodgdon, 2079
V. Hodgson, 2091
z'. Hunt, 2068, 2069
V. Parish, 2045, 2050
V. Ruby, 1128, 1168, 1172, 1173, 1174
z'. Scribner, 2152
V. Sweet, 999, 1275, 1281, 1307, 1319
V. Swett, 1171, 1172
z/. Tabor, it6, 123
z'. Tates, 535
%K Wason, 541, 542, 543, 545, 546, 724
V. Watson, 807
V. Wright, 730
V. Yates, 917, 918, 942, 944, 965
V. Young, 2251, 2258
Fulmer v. Williams, 199
Fulthrope v. Foster, 2010
Fulton V. Davidson, 1735
V. Hood, 136
V. Johnson, 603
V. Norton, 103, no
V. Stewart, 1139
V, Stuart, 1112, III5'
Fulwiler ?'. Infield, 1428
Fulwood's Case, 723
Funk V. Brigaldi, 112
■V. Creswell, 2321
z/. Eggleslon. 319, 337, 340, 1806, 1836,
1837
V. Halderman, 1973, 2189
z'. McReynolds
V. Newcomer, iggo, 2301
V. Walter, 1522
Funk's Lessee v. Kincaid, 1120, 1213
Furbish v. Sears, 2032
Furbush z*. Goodwin, 2077, 2084, 2103, 2104,
^ , 2147
Furlong f. Leary, 1273
Furmanz/. Coe, 1725, 172S
V. Fisher, 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, 1786, 17S9,
1790, 1795
zf. Johnson, 2263
V. McMillan, 1890
Furnas v. Durgin, 2069
Furrow z*. Athey, 1469
Fusselman v. Worthington, 1144, 1296
Fyffe V, Beers, 1422, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461,
1465, 1466, 149s
Ileferences are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxxvu
G.
Gabbert v. Schwartz, 2106
Gable v. Daub, 402
V. Miller, 34
Gadberry v. Shspard, 261
V. Sheppard, 1855, 1857. i860, 1867
Gadd:ird v. Bolster, 2186
Gadsden v. Cappedeville, 1797
w. Whaley. 1587, 1592
GafEee^s Trust, /« re, 1561
Gaffee v. Caffee, 1361
Gaffield v. Hapgood, 115, iiS, 119, 128, 129, 130,
144. 145, 146, 1187
Gafford v. Steams, 1909
Gagare/. Eckert, 746
Gage V. Bates, 1154
V. Brewster, 2158, 2172
V. Jenkinsoii, 2166
V. Sleinkrauss, 71
V, Ward, 765, 766
Gaillard v. Parcher, 645
Gaines v. Chew, 1609, 1662
V. Gaines' Exrs. & Heirs, 821, 822
V. Green Pond Iron Mining Co., 494, 495,
496, 812
zf. Relf, 770
z/. Walker, 722
z>. Wilson, 736
Gains z'. Poor, 647
Gaiaus !7. Cannon, 1417
Galbraith v. Galbrailh, 18S3
v. Gedge, 786, 1963
V. Greene, 711, 759, 760
Gale V. Cobum, 2317, 2319
V. Edwards, 2250
V. Gale, 15S6, 1645
v. Hiues, 1903
7f. Kinzie, 776, 844
V. Mensing, 1777, 1794
V. Morris, 2001
z>. Nixon, 1063
V. Oil Run Petroleum Co., 1145
V. Ward, 105, 108, 112, 114, 116, 126, 133
Galena & Chic. U. R. R. Co. v. Jacobs, 1288
Gallagher v. Mars, 2004
V. Shipley, 78, 79, So
V. Waring, iigg
Gallaher 7/. Herbert, 1157
Gallatin Co. v. Beattie, 2063
Gallego's Exr. v. Attorney-General, 1684
Gallego V. Chevallie, 636
Galleo V. Eagle, 1980
Galliers 21. Moss, 1552, 1554, 2084
Galligherz/. Smiley, 1381, 1384, iSH
Galligo V. Chevallie, 635
Gallop V. Newman, 1240
Galloway v. Bonesteel, 2241
V. Finley, 1617, 2304
1/. Herbert, 1284
V. Kerby, 1316
Galloway, Lessee of, v. Ogle, 1213
Gait V. Dibreil, 1712, 1795
V. Dibsell, 2366
V. Jackson, 2054
Galusha 7/. Sinclear, i8gi
Galveston, H. & H. R. Co. v. Cowdrey, 2018,
2019
Galway v. Fuilerton, 2107, 2152
Gambette v. Brook, 1416, 1460
Gamble's Estate, 616
Gamble, Succession of, 31, 32
Gamble v. Voll, 2171
Gambril v. Gambril. 515
7J. Doe ex d. Rose, 281, 284
Gamhill v. Newby, 1904
Gammis v. Clark, 2362
Gammon zr. Freeman, 2357
V. Vernon, 1072
Gandy v, Jubber, 1300
Ganet z'. Hall, 2316
Gangwere's Estate, In re, 899
Gangwere v. Gangwere, 957
Gann vl Chester, 2007
Gannaway v. Tarpley, 760
Gannon v. Freeman, 7G4
zi. Nowell, 355
Gano V. Vanderveer, 994, 1081
Gans z'. Thieme, 2101
Ganseii v. Tomlinson, 2101
Ganter v. Atkinson, 1320
Gantley's Lessee v. Ewing, 1511
Gantz V. Toles, 2172
Garaty v. Dubois, 1394, 1421, 1422
Garber v. Henry, 2120
Garbut v. Bowlin, 8g6
Gardeline v. Michel, 2336
Gardener v. Finley, 47
Gardenhire v. Hinds, 1797
Gardiner?'. Astor, 2097, 2098
V. Corson, 1063
z'. Derring, 541, 544, 546, 557
z/. Painter, 1626
Gardiner Mfg. Co. v. Heald, 1976
Gardinier z>. Corson, 2362
Gardner t. Astor, 2095, 2097
V. Barnes, 1093, 20S3
V. Bennett, 1194, 1195
V. Board of County Commissioners, 1131,
1133, »f34. i'35 '
v. Collins, 22S6
V. Commissioners of Dakota Co., 13)3,
1315. i3'6
z;. Corson, 1S55
v. Emerson, 2136
v. Finley, 2022
V. Gardner, 1044, 1562, 1580
V. Green, 761, 815
z'. Hazleton, ggg, 1283, 1305
v. Heartt, 800, 2186
V. Heyer, 2281
z/. Hoeg, 2020
V. Hooper, 634
V. James, 2134
z>. Keteltas, 978, 1079, 1128, 1201
V. Klutts, 617
V. Moore, 1485, 2038
V. Newburgh, 2224
V. Ogden, 1621
Garesche v. Priest, 1719
Garfield v. Crow, 417
V. Hatmaker, 768, 1548, 1559
V. Williams, 1093
Gariss V. Gariss, 1292
Garit v. Chambers, 69
Garland v. Executors of Crow, 480, 519
V. Garland, 1677, 1678, 1679
V. Jackson, 1037
V. Richeson, 2105
V. Towne, 198
z/. Wynn, 2307
Garlick v. Strong, 708, 726
Gamer v. Bond, 1503
V. Byard, 2263
V. Garner, i6og
V. Hannah, 1059, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1152,
1157, 1158
V. Jones, 1920, 1932, 1952
z/. Manhattan Building Assoc, 1140,
1141, 1158
Gamett v. Macon, 1758
Gamhart z'. Finney, 1058, 1086, 1155, 1156
Gamons, Doe ex d., v. Knight, 1786
Garnsey v. Mundy, 1609, 1791, 1792, 1793
?'. Rogers, 2070, 2072
Garrard v. Garrard, 956
7/. Lauderdale, 1713, 1793
V. Tuck, 1261
Garraud, Jie Estate of, 1648
Garretsie zi. Van Ness, 498
Garretson v. Brien, 734, 741
Garrett's Appeal, 1509
Garrett z/. Beaumont, 671
V. Buckett, 2106
CXXVIU
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Gairett tt. Cheshire, 1380, 1510, 1512, 1518
V. Clark, 531, 130S, 1320, 1335
V. Cummins, 116G
V. Moss, 909
z/. Sconten, 1873
Garrison, Re^ 856, 859, 860
Garrison v. Moore, 59
V. Rudd, 2217
V. Sandford, 1093
Garritt v. Sharpe, 2218, 2220, 2246, 2247
Garson v. Green, 2005, 2006
Garth v. Baldwin, 300, 1606
V. Cotton, 575
V. Mois, 1626
Gartshore v. Chalie, 954, 956
Gartside z/. Outley, 1125, ii6g, 1319, 2065
Garvey v. Dodyns, 2256
V. Jarvis, 173S
Garvin v. Hatcher, 928
V. Jennerson, 1292, 2261
Gary w. Esterbrook, 1501, i5t9
Gascoigne w. Thwing, 1648, 1700
Gaskell v. Gaskell, 515
Gaskill V. Sine, 2153, 2154, 2179, 2180
■V. Trainer, 1061, 1154, 1164
Gassage v. Taylor, 442
Gassert v. Bogk, 2043, 2052
Gast V. Baer, 414
Gaston v. Wright, 1948
Gate V. Wiseman, 648
Gate City Land Co. v. Heilman, 1045
Gates V. j^dams, 21S0
V. Andrews, 1795
V. Butler, 211
V. Caldwell, 1989
V. Salmon, 191 1, 1924, 1967
Gales d. Markham v. Cooke, 2S9
Gateward's Case, 2193
Gatewood w. Gatewood, 2173
Gather v. Welch, 2333
Gathings z/. Williams, 755,883
Gaule V. Bilyeau, 1226
Gaulstine 7/. Royal Ins. Co., 632
Gault V. McGrath, 2x33
V. Neal, 1340
V. Stormont, 1278
Cause V. Hale, 645
V. Wiley, 416, 424, 462
Gausen z*. Tomlinsoii, 2125
Gaven 7/. Ha^en, 1282
Gawtry V. Leland, igS, 2245
Gay's Case, 969, 974
Gay V. Baker, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 83
V. Edwards, 1781
V. Gay, 58S, 634
V. Hunt, 1648, 1701
V. Joplin, 1 189
V. Mitchell, 1259
V. Mottiff, 2297
Gay, Exrx.jZ/. Davey, 1179
Gayetty v. Bethuiie, 2205, 2242, 2295
Gayford v, Moffatt, 2238
Gayle v. Johnston, 1894
V. Price, 764
Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 1791
V. Imhoif, 1432
Gayner v. Laresborough, 883
Gazely v. Price, 729
Gazzoloz'. Chambers, 1067, io8i
Geary v. Bearcroft, 526
Geay v. McCune, 917
Gebb V. Rose, 646, 882
Gee V. Gee, 1464, 1453, 1640
V. Moore, 1450, 1455, 1469, 1478, 1502,
1518
V. Thompson, 773, 920
V. Young, 48, 538
Gfeeber v. Kleckner, 988
Geggetts V, Geggetts, 727
Geheebee 7/. Stanby, 1316, 1331, 1340
Geiger v. Braum, 996, 1329, 1339, 1343
V. Browne ,1324
Geisy v. Cincinnati, 2325, 2326
Gellespie v. Worford, 604
Gellett V, Rhode, 1013
Gellig V. Maas, 2 121
Gelpcke v. Blake, 136
V. Dubuque, 1516
Gelston v. Burr, 2066
V. Sigmund, 1053
Gelzer v. Gelzer, 923,927, 933, 950, 951, 954,
957, g64
Genet v. Tallmadge, 1023
Genner z'. Tracey, 2176
Gennings v. Lake, 2216
Genty. Mayor, 1194
Center -a. Morison, 2354
Gentleman v Soule, 2206
Gentry v. Wagstaff. 703, 1363, 1370
George v. Andrews, 2071
V. Baker, 2085. 2101
V. Bussing, 650, 651
i<. Cooper, S26
V. Gardner, 2175
V. Goldby, 1034, 1368
•u. Kent, 2153, 21/8, 2183
V. Morgan, 424, 466
V. Putney, 1169, 1170, 225S
V. Wake, 795
7'. Wood, 2153, 2178, 2181, 21S3, 2184
George's Creek Coal & Iron Co. v. Detmold,
1997, 2079
Georges v. Stanfield, 543, 544
Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Kinnier, 2116
Gerald %>. EUey, 2331
Gerard v. Basse, 2356
Geiard Ins. Co. v. Chambers, 300, 32S, 1605
Gerber 71, Grabel, 2223
Gerdine z'. Menage, 2137, 2138
German -u. Gabbald, 1G42, 1648, 1G49, ^^^1^ ^^99
V. German, 327
German Bk. v. Leyser, 2333
German Ins. Co. v. Hynian, 631
German Reformed Church v. Seibert, 34
Germond v. Jones, 767
Gerrish v. Brown, 2225
V. Mace, 2060
Gerry v. Stimson, 801, 1537
Gervoy's Case, 966
Gerzebek v. Lord, 1034, 10S6 '
Getman v. Getman, 1635, 1696
Gettings v. Eastman, 368
GetzandafEer v. Caylor, 2251, 2257, 225S, 226R
Getzler v. Saroni, 1409
Geugerz'. Braun, 1340
Geyerz/. Wentzel, 313, 34S
Ghegan v. Young, 2263
Ghenny v. City National Bank, 1094
Ghormley z'. Smith, 1677, 1678
Gibbes v. Jenkins, 1089
V. Smith, 1599
V. Vincent, 523
Gibbens z'. Thompson, 2255
Gibbiiisz'. Dayton, 13 10
V. Eyden, 589
V. Shepard, 317
Gibbon v. Gibbon, 8g8
Gibbons v. Dayton, 1330, 1340
7'. Dillingham, 45, r698, 2250
Gibbs V. Diekma, 15S6
V. Estey, 847, 851, 2021
V. Esty, 60T
V. Marsh, 1599, 1737, 1754, 1830
V. Ougier, 77
7'. Penny, 1677, 2044, 2046, 2055
z'. Ross, 1 120, 2249, 2251
Gibett V. Peteler, 1856, 2359
Giblin v. Jordan, 1426
Gibson v. Chedic, 1795
V. Chouteau's Heirs, 2304, 2322, 2323
7'. Courthope, 1343
V. Crehore, 510, 803, 866, 808, Sog, 810,
1494, 1921, 2074, 2090, 209s, 2097,
2172, 2176, 21S2, 23O4
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXXIX
Gibson v. EUer, 1068, 1106, 1107, 1281, 1284,
2037, 2054
w. Foote, 1589, 1610, 1646
V. Gibson, 635, 636, 889, 897, 899, 943,
954, 956, 963
V. Holden, 2235
V. Holland, 1000
V. Jeyes, 1707
V. Maulton, 415
V. McCormick
V. Montfort, 2S8, 289, 290, 335, 1563, 1594,
JS95
V. Moulton, 447, 472
V. Mulligan, 2257, 2272, 2274
z'. Parlee, 2354
V. Taylor, 2031
V. Rees, 1795
■V. Smith, 573
V. Soper, 1032
V. Sopier, gS6
V. Wells, 570
V. Zimmerman, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932,
1940, 1950
Giddeus v. Dodd, 1007
Giddiiigs v. Cox, 676, 677, 1362
V. Eastman, 1621, 2058, 2289
V. Palmer, 1665, 16S9, 1790
V. Smith, 401, 411, 412
Giddon v. Andrew, 2074
Gies v. Green, 2167
Gifford 7'. Choate, 344, 351, 352
V. First Presbyterian Society of Syracuse,
37, mo
V. McCloskey, 2166
Gilbert v. Beach, 1194, 1195
V. Carter, 1620
V. Chapin, 1627
V. Columbia Turnpike Co., 1515
V. Dickerson, 1905
V. Gilbert, 682, 2136
•u. Holmes, 2059, 2060
V. Husman, 2169
V. Penn, 2016
V. Peteler. 268, 1777, 1849
V. Reynolds, 923
V. Richards, 1878, 1884
V. Sanderson, 2072
V. Smith, 1974
V. Wiman, iioi
Gilbertson v. Richard, 2259
V. Richardson, 1552
Gilbraith v, Gedge, 824
Gilchrist z/. Stevenson, 1599, 1660, 1787
Giles V. Austin, 1157
V. Baremore, 2094. 2146
V. Boston F. & W. Soc, 1686
z'. Ebsworth, 1220, 2273
V. Dugro, 2236
V. Gullion. 722, 828
V. Hallock, 2309
•u. Law, 722
V. Little, 339, 345, 1822
V. O'Toole, 1245
V. Palmer, 1750, 1751
V. Simonds. 55, 56
Gilhooley v. Washington, 979, J199
Gillian v. Norton, 1184, 1185
Gilky V. Dickerson, 1231
Gill's Estate, Re, 2r9, 774
Gill V. Clark, 2oot, 2180
v. Cook, 720
V- Edwards, 1504
V. Fauntleroy, 1928
V. Logan, 1796
V. Lyon. 2154
V. Middleton, 1106, 1182, 1191
V. Newell, 1639, 1652
V. Ogburn, 1125
V. Pinney, 2027, 2029
Gillam v. Taylor, 1685
V. Dixon, 1886, 1920, 1931, 1933
Gillean v. Moore, 765
Gillenwaters v. Miller. 1643
Gillespie w. Bailey, 1031,2011
V. Jones, 2297
V. Mayor, 2268
V. Moon, 2331
V. Nabors, 274, 1980
V. Smith, 1758
V. Sommerville, 781, 782, 827
V. Thomas, 1127, 1129, 1167, 1170, 2268
Gillet V. Van Rensselaer, 695
Gillett V. Balcom, 47, 2142, 2146
V. Eaton, 2000
V. Stanley, 985
V. Tre^nza, 574
Gillian v. Swift, gor
Gilligan v. Aldermen of Providence, 976
Gilliman v. Moore, 805, 818, 829, 836
Gilling 7'. Maass, 1047
Gillion z*. Finley, 1315
Gillis V. Bailey. 1019, 1972
V. Brown, G37, 712, 784, 820, 821
7'. Martin, 2040, 2043, 2052, 2086, 2185
7'. McKay, 1577, 1741
Gillispie v. Walker, 1579
Gillitt V. Truax, 49
Gilman v. Brown, 2005, 2008
V. Gilman, ^456
V. Illinois & M. Tel. Co., 2066
7', McArdle, 154S
V. Milwaukee, 1029, 1132
V. Moody, 2027, 2028
V. Morrill, igig
•v. Reddington, 1798
V. Stetson, 1883
u. Stevens, 2056
7'. Williams, 1514, 1515
7'. Wills, 2084
Gilmer 7'. Limepoint, 197, 2326, 2327
Gilmore v. Burch, 679, 681
V. Driscoll, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2248
V. Gilmore, 652
V. Hamilton, 1002
V. Ontario Iron Co., 983
•V. Wilbur, igoi
Gilpin V. Davis, 1625
V. HoUings worth, ig28
V. Howell, 42, 43, 817
Gilson V. Boston, loio, 2260
V. Gilson, 2040, 2031, 2037, 2041, 2042,
2102
V. Hutchison, 794, 913
V. Zimmerman, 1920
Gilworth V. Cody, iqoo
Gindrat v. Western R. of Ala., 1800
Ginger v. White, 423
Gingrich v. Foltz, 175 1
Girard v. Hughes, 2294
V. Philadelphia, 165S, 1659
Girard Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Chambers,
318, 500, 1675
V. Stewart, 2070
Girland v. Sharp, 1582
Gist V. Cattel's Heirs, 938
Givan v. Tout, 2103
Given v. Doe, 2318
V. Marr, 729, 771, 772, 8ro, 869, gig, 1093,
1376, 2127, 212S
Givens w, McCalmont, 2087, 2185
Givins v, Easley, 2274
Gladding v. Warner, 2087
Gladwyn v. Hitchman, 2140, 2146,
Glaister v. Hewer, 77g
Glascock e*. Robards, 1271, 1290
Glascow?/. Hortiz, 2192
Glasgow (Earl) v. Hurlet Aim. Co., gi
Glass V. Ellison, 1993, 1697, 2063
V. Gilbert, 1781
V. Glass, 755
•V. Hulbert, 2045
V. Warwick, 2152
Glasscock ti. Glasscock, 2363
Gleasou v. Emerson, 772, 919, 920
cxxx
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Gleason v. Fayerweather, 239, 240, 249, 318
V. Scott, 456, 462, 463
Glegg V. Glegg, 963
V. Rees, 1794
Glein V. Rise, 1149
Gleises v. Maignan, 2147
Glen V. Gibson, 1160
Glendale Wooleu Co. v. Protection Ins. Co.,
i6g3, 1701
Glenn v. Bank of U. S., 902
V. Canby, 1070
V. Clark, 782, 804, 926
V. Davis, 1S67
V. Glenn, 719
V. Peters, 974, 976
Glenorchy, Lord, zl Bosville. 443
Glidden v. Bennett, 63, 103, 104
V. Blodgett, 645
V. Strumpler, 924
Glisson V. Hill, 2047
Globe Marble Works Co. p. Quinn. 122, 132
Gloninger v. Franklin Coal Co., 2189
Glover z/. Monckton, 1596
V. Payn, 2053, 2054
•V. Reid, 1822
Goddard*s Case, 2353
Goddard 7/. Bolster, 105, 2186
V. Brown, 1740
V. Chase, 130, 137, 146, 2334
V. Hall, 2271
V. Lethbridge, 316
V. Pomeroy, 225
V. Sawyer, 2058, 2059
V. Russ, 794 ■
V. Snow, 795
V. South Carolina R. Co., 1308
Goddard's Executors v. Railroad Co., 1335
Godden v. Crowhurst, 274
Godfrey v. Beardsley, 2304, 2365
V. Bryan» 1024, 1945
V. Cartwright, 1026, 1925
V. Godfrey, 1630, 1633
V. Humplxrey, 202, 305, 306, 308, 312, 335
V. Poole, 1792
V. Thornton, 146S, 1475
V. Watson, 2185
Godfrey ex p. Warren v. Rudall, 573
Godley I/. Hagerty, 1197,1202
Godolphin v. Godolphin, 1658
Godrow w. Atkinson, 1883
Godsell, Doe d., v. Inglis, 1310
Goebel v. Iffla, 154S
Goehrings* Appeal, 500
Goelet V. Gori, 1951, 1952
Goewayp. Urig, 1914
Goff V. Anderson, 617, 618
Going 7/. Emery, 118, 706, 1754
Gold V. Ryan, 928
Gold Mining Co. v. National Bank, 1020
Goldbeck v. Goldbeck, 596
Golden v. Prince, 2056
Golden Fleece Co. v. Cable Con. Co., 221
Golding V. Golding, 1948
Goldman v. Clark, 1387, 1391, 1417, 141S
Goldsberry v. Bishop, 1285, 1290
Goldsborough v. Martin, 16S2
Goldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Improvement
Commissioners, 2227
V. Wilson, 1266, 1280
Gomber w. Hackett, 1156
Gomez v. Tradesman's Bank, 1592, i6gi
Gonnon tj. Hargadon, 20
Gonsolis V. Donchouquette, 1364
Gooch V. Atkins, 715, 734, 735, 741, 838
Good V. Coombs, 1924
V. Fogg, 1514
V. Good, 411, 417
V. Zercher, 904 2324
Goodall's Case, 1996
Goodall V. Mopley, 2148
V. New England Fire Ins. Co., 1668
Goodbura v. Stevens, 786, 825, 1957, 2181
Goode V. Crow, 890
Goodell 7/. Jackson, rg7 '
Goodenough v. Warren, 2364
Goodenow v. Allen, 1252, 1262, 1273, 1281
V. Ewer, 1S94, 1999, 2151
Goodere v. Lloyd, 163S
Goodhue 2>. Barnwell, 1782
Goodiil V. Brigham, 487, 1039, 1820
Gooding v. Gibbes, 1664
Goodlee v. Rogers, 1247
Goodlel V. Cleveland, 1309
v. Smithson, 2304,2305
Goodlittie v. Billington, 1568
■v. Holdfast, 1870
V. Jones, 1595
V. Newman, 703
Goodman v. Grierson, 2044, 2168
V. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. Co., 1188
V. Kine, 2081,2188
V. Randall, 2033, 2037, 2060, 2071
V. White, 2073, 2146
Goodmorst v. Goodmorst, 7S1
Goodnow V. Empire Lumber Co., 103 1
Goodrich v. City of Milwaukee, 1607, 1655, 1656
V. Harding, 33^, 416
V. Jones, 20, 78, 79, 96, J04, 106, 107, 136
V. Pendleton, 1781
V. Proctor, 288, i524» ^754
7'. Russel, 215, 2/17673
V. Staples, 2146
V. Thompson, 1021
7i. Walker, 2353
Goodright v. Cator, 1844, 1845, 1S62
v. Davids, 1139, 1143
V. Mead, 387
7'. Noright, 1 1 57
Goodright d. Lisle v. Pullin, 424
Goodriglit d. NichoUs v. Mark, 1007
Goodright d. Walter v. Davids, j868
Goodright ex d. Drewry v. Barron, 320
Goodrum 1/. Goodrum, 1371
Goodsell V. Myers, 2343
Goodson z/. Ellison, 1742, 1743
Goodspeed t. Fuller, 1700
Goodtitle v, Bailey, 235S
V. Burtenshaw, 405
V, Funucan. 1040
V. Jones, 1713, 1742
V. Maddem, 340, 343, 344
V. Newman, 359, 618
V. Otway, 338, 1814
V. Tombs, 1903
V. Way, 993
V. Whitby, 315
Goodtitle d. Gurnel v. Wood, 1572
Goodwin v. Gilbert, 1063
V. Goodwin. 7S4, 823, 969, 974
V. Hubbard, 208
V. Hudson, 2259
V. Jones, 367, 720, 2057, 22SS
V. Richardson, 1886, i960, 1963, 2077
V. Winston, 827
Goodwright 7K Wells, 1574, 15S2, 2096
Goodyear v. Vosburg, 501
Goold z\ Great Western Coal Co., 90,93
Goon V. Anthony. 2303
Gordon v. Armstrong, 1238
V. Bell, 2004
71. Bulkely, 1042
V. Dickinson, 763, 766
V. George, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1304
V. Gilman, 1270, 1274
V. Hobart, 2174,2185
V. Ingraham, 485
V. Lewis, 2087, 2184
V. Little, 120S
V. Massachusetts Ins. Co., 21x3
■u. Milne, 2235
V. Overton, 1810
V. Pearson, 1987
V. Phillips, 1701
V, Preston, 2014, 2016
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXXXl
Gordon v. Sizer, 2297
c Small, 1781
V. Sterling, 1985
V. Stevens, 916, 918, 940, 942, 944, 945,
946, 956
V. Tweedy, 746, 747
V. Ware, 2128
V. West. [715
V. Wlneldon, 1939
(lore V. Brazier, S22, 841, 844, 843, 1095
V. Gibson, 987, 1032, 1034
V. Gore, 1569
V. Jeiinisoii, 2187
V. Stevens, 1127, 1169
V. Townsend, 726, 727, 729, 822
Goreton z'. George, 1135
(Jorges V. Stanfield, 559
Gorman v. Daniels, 237, 297, 776, 835, 1548,
i549> 1550
Gorham v. Arnold, 1999, 2078
V. Daniels, 2315
11. Gorham, 1980, 1984
V. Lnckett. 706
Gorton z>. Hadsell, 32
Goshen v. Stonington, 1517, 2332
Goslin z>. Agricultural Hall Co., 1195
Goss V. Froman, 774, 892, 894
V. Singleton, 1598, 1785, 1786, 1788
Gosan V. Brown, 2137
Gossom V. Donaldson, 1990
<'iOtliard V. Fiynn, 2003
Gott V, Cooke, 1560, 1604, 1684, 1798
V. Gandy, iro6
Gotzler z/. Saroni, 1481
Goudie v. Johnston, 1822 '
Gough V. Bult, 1782
V. Manning, 271, 939, 1858
Gouhenant v. Cockrell, 1461
Gould V. Boston Duck Co., 2227
V. Cayuga Co. Nat. Bank, 225
V. Chappell, 1664
•u. Crow, 661, 771, 772, 919, 920
V. Garrison, 2154
V. Kemp, 1968
V. Kerr, 2266
V. Lamb, 284, 285, 287, 288, 289, 290, 1594,
i597i 1710. 1796
V. Lamp, 1754
V. Lynde, 1537, 1586, 1637
•V. Marsh, 2107
V. Mather, 1814
V. Newman, 2091, 2102, 2147
V. School District, 969
V. Sub- District No. 3, mi
V. Tancred, 2088
V. Thompsc-i 1257, 1260, 1261, 1281, 1290,
2248
V. Webster, 539, 66r, 662, 1025, 1368
Gould's Exrs. v. Womack, 898
Gourley v, Woodbury, 1988
Gouverneur?'. Lynch, 2154
V. Robertson, 1657, 2014
Govdell V. Pierce, 2354
Gove V. Gather, 790, 843, 858, 867, 8gi, go8
V. Persue, 86 r
Goverin v. Humboldt Safe Deposit & Trust Co.,
2127
Governor v. Campbell, 1794
Govier 7/. Hancock, 774, 894, 895, 921
Gowen v. Shaw, 1904
t Cower V. Eyre. 557
V. Howe, 2105, 2106, 2147
V. Quinlan, 1922
V. Winchester, 2174
Gowza w. Grantham, 1029
Grabenhorst v. Nicodemus, 1166
flrable v. McCulloh, 1999
Grace v. Denison, 1053
V. Newton Board of Health, 5
V. Smith, 1241, 1243
V. Webb, 271
Gradner v. Rowe, i6gi
Grady v. McCockle, 791, 888
V. Wolsner, 1194
Graff «*. Bennett, 1548
?'. Castleman, 1667
V. Fitch, 50, 51
Graffney v. Peeler; 2301
Grafton v. Grafton, 229s
Grafton Bank v. Foster, 2133
Graggz/. Gragg, 141 1
Grahams'. Bennett, 596, 757
V. Bleakie, 2156
%K Cammamm, 517
V. Campbell, 2007
•V. Carondelet, 114a
V. Crockett, 1400
•V. Davidson, 1734
V. Dunighan, 740
i>. Graham, 671, 718, 736, 781, 784
V. Lambert, 1691
V. Long, 2152
7.1. Luddington, 621
V. Moore, 741
V. Newman, 2104, 2105, 2106
•u. Peat, 1351, 1352
•u. Pierce, 1904
7'. Public Admr., 1456
V. Roberts, 513
V. Stewart, 1521
V. Way, 1117
Graig v. Eastin, 1425
t'. First Presbyterian Church, 41
Gramham ^. Houston, 983
Granby v. Amherst, 1456
Grand Canal Co. v. Fitzsimons, 1173
Grand Gulf Bank z>. Archer, 1554
Grand Rapids Booming Co. v. Jarvis, 976
Granderson zt. Gr, ndeison, 965
Grandona v. Lovdal, 57
Grandy, Doe ex d., v. Bailey, 1169, 1170
Granger il Illinois & Michigan Canal, 1037
Grannis v. Clark, 1081, 2362
Grant v, Bissett, 2120, 2126
V. Carpenter, 348
V. Chase, 515, 743, 1142, 2242, 2245
v. Cosby, 1513, 1516, 1517
V. Duane, 2073, 2169
7'. Fowler, 210, 211, 2296, 2297, 2300
V. Grant, 75
V. Hclmes, 2051
7'. Parham, 717
7/. Ramsey, 1264
•V. Tallman, 1092
7}. United States Bank, 2139
V. White, 1213, 1281, 1285, 1316, 1317
Grantham v. Hawiey, 538
Grapengether v. Fejervary, 1738, 2004, 2106
Grass v. Lange, 915
Grassby v. Reinbach, 2106
Gratrex, Doe d., v. Homprey, 299, 1574, 1583,
1606
Grattan v. Wiggins, 2078, 2147, 2175
Graty v. Du Bois, 1400
Gratz V. Ewoldt, 2362
7'. Gratz, 1976
Gravel Hill School District v. Old Farm School
District, 233
Gravenor 7/. Woodhouse, 1149
Graves* Case, 556, 562, 564
Graves v. Berdan, 65,66, 1015, 1126, 1175, 1176,
1177, 1179, 1180, 2270
7/. Boston Marine Ins. Co., 1669
V. Boyle, 326
V. Braden, 925
7/. Carter, 1698
V. Cochran, 737. 740, 837
V. Dolphin, 246, 253, 273
V. Graves, 1538, 1610, 1652, 2349
V. Porter, 1075
V. Sawcer, 1247
V. Sayre, 2055
7'. Smith, 223S
V. Trueblood, 697
CXXXll
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Graves 7'. Waterman, 1770
V. Weld, 48, 49, S3
Graves, Doe d., v. Wells, 1144, 1145, 1336
Gravillon v. Richards' Exr., 1456
Gray's Case, 28
Gray, Ex parte ^ 225, 969, 974
Gray v. Actor, 1025
V. Baird, 1502
V. Baldwin, 2187
V. Bartlett, 2302
V. Bates, 1897
V. Blanchard, 259, 263, 267, 268,269, 1849,
1861, 1862, 1868, 1972
V. Clement, 2262
z/. Cox, 1200
V. Fox, 1720, 1721, 1724
V. Givens, 1897, 1898, 1899
V. Gray, 1630
V. Henderson, 1662
V. Hill, 1712
V. Holdship, 104, 105, 106, 113, i44j 5^7:
2022
V. Jenks, 2076, 2132
V. Johnson, 12 13
w. Jones, 2310
V. La Fayette Co., 2314
V. Lynch, 1663, 1730, 1810, i8n, 1885
V. McCune, 711, 949
V. Mannock, 525, 526
v. Mathis, 1360
!:'..Obear, 501
V. Palmer, 1957, 1964
V. Rogers, 2258
V. Shaw, 1755
■V. Smith, 1691
■V. Slivers, 2024
V. Ulrich, 1777, 2364
V. Wilson, 1050
V. Winkler, 321
Gray, Doe d., v. Stanion, 1276, 1290
Graydon v. Church, 2016
Grayson v. Atkinson, 306, 308, 326
Greason v. Keteltas, 1037, 103S, 10S6
Great Falls Co. v. Worster, 1998, 20S5
Great Luxembourg R. Co. v. Magnay, 76, 1621
Great Northern Dispatch Co. v. Nova Cassarea
Harmony Lodge, Ohio. 2263, 2264
Great Northern R. Co. v. Harrison, 1063
Created v. Created, 249
Greathead's Appeal, 734
Greatorez v. Carey, 943
Greeawalt v. Greeawalt. 465
Greeley z*. Scott, 1379, 1419, 1420, 1433, i434
Green's Case, 1S63
Green v. Armstrong, 20, 21, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55
V. Arnold, igii, 1987
V. Beals, 2356
V. Bethea, 2243
V. Blackwell, 1662
■V. Biddle, 1512
V. Bridges, 1157
V. Burke, 50, 2072
V. Butler, 2025,2132
V. Carsey, 767
V. Chelsea, 207, 209, 760
V. Clark, 2358
V. Crockett, 2007, 2146
V. Crow, 141 1
V. Demoss, 2006, 2007
V. Dietrich, 1008
V. Dixon, 2152
V. Drummond, 1634, 1641
V. Eales, 1099
V. Early, 1777
V. Garrington, 2122
V. Green, 694, 887, 916* 934. 935»9S5» i^3>
J737
V. Harman, 2296
V. Hart, 1995, 210T, 2107
V. Hewitt, 534
V. Houston, 2071
p. Hurt, 2099
Green v. Keene, 742
V. Kemp, 2060, 2125
V. King, 1920
V. Liter, 209, 600, 602, 607, 608, 613
V. Maj-ks, 1451, 1496
V. Marsden, 1627
V, Massie, 2250, 2251, 2258
V. Neal's Lessee, 1516
V. Otte, 1377
V. Pettingill, 1862
V. Phillips. 103, 105, 117, 123, 126, 132,
135, ^37
z/. Porter, 955 , , „
V. Putman, 88,692, 703,718, 730,761,815,
826, 1985, 1988
V. Ramage, 2181
V. Rampage, 2154
z>. Redding, 1192
V. Sargeant, 1717, 1776
V. Siter, 2304
V. Smith, 1243
V. Spicer, 253
V. Stephens, 434
V. Sternberg, 2258
V. Sutton, 1815
. V. Tanner, 1624, 2136, 2139
V. Tennant, 822, 842, 844
V. Thomas, 2314
V. Turner, 2020, 206S, 2069, 2071, 2075,
2085, 2094
V. Williams, 1245, 1246
V. Winter, 1708, 1726, 1727, 1768
V. Wynn, 2172
Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co. v. Hewitt,
1822
Green d. Cren z'. King, 1930
Greenaway v. Adams, 1104, iiii
Greenbaum v. Austrian, 799, 802
Greenby v. Wilcocks, 1093
Greene v. Barnard, 1497
V. Beesley, 1240
V. Cole, 553, 564, 570
V. Couse, 1213
V. Crowe, 1407
V. Dennis, 1541, 1555
V. Greene, 769, 786, 824, 825, 826, 885
V. Keene, 735
V. Rutherford, 1540
V. Tyler, 2060
V. Westcott, 2087
z'. Windham, 1456
Greener v. Klein, 728
Greenfield's Estate, 1792, 1801
Greenhold v. Stanforth, 215, 216
Greenhouse, Ex parte, 1662
Greenia v. Greenia, 220
Greenlaw v. Greenlaw, 1919
Greenleaf v. Allen, 1069, 2361, 2362
71. Edes, 2120
V. Francis, 2226, 2230
Greenlee v. Davis, 2279
Greenly v. Hall, 569
Greeno v. Munson, 1144, 1145, 1150, 1160, 1214,
1222
Greenough's Appeal, looi
Greenough v. Turner, 901, 902, 909, 911
V. Welles, 1810
Greenup v. Sewell, 1975, 1986
Greenvault v. Davis, 1081, 1082
Greenway v. Adams, 1057
V, Hockin, 39
Greenwich Hospital Improvement Act, Re, 307
Greenwood v. Clarke, 519
V. Coleman, 1796
V. Curtis, 753, 754
V. Ligon, 729, 730, 1093
V. Maddox, 1398, 1423, 1475
zi. Murdock, 2021
V. Tyber, 1025, 1026
71. Wakeford, 1787
Greer v. Blanchar, 1877
V. Mayor of New York, 519, 520, 746
Refereices are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXXXlll
Greer v. Sankston, 775
V. Tripp, itS97
Gregg V. Blackmore, 1976, 2303
V. Bostwick, 137S, 1379, 1384, 1386, 1387,
1416, 1419, 1435, 1436, 1437, 1438,
M39, i442» 1443. M45» M4^ '447
V. ('oates, 267
V. Currier, 1810
V. Irish, 1029
V, Sanford, 2018
Greggs V. Smith, 764, 766
Gregor «', Cady, 1191, 1193
Gregory v. Cowgill. 1806, 1815
zr. Ford, 1364
p. Gregorj', 1987, 1989
r. Hartley, 2025, 2026
V. Henderson, 1607
V. Paul, 2346
v. Price, 234<i
77. Rosenkrauz, 2067
V. Savage, 2096
V. Setter, 1648, 1649
z/. Smith, 1627
Gregsou v. Harrison, 1156
Greider's Appeal, 1126, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1164
Greiger v. Brown, 1322
Oreiner v. Klein, 879
Greither v. Alexander, 2071, 2150
Grellet ?'. Heilsliorn, 810
Grendon v. Bishop of Lincoln, 207
Gresham 7/, King, 1936
Cjresley z'. Mousley, 76 ^
Greton z/. Smith, 1013, 1168, 1258, 1322, 1323
<ireve 77. Coffin, 2104
Grey v. Cuthbertsor, 1071, 1078
■p. Northumberland, 84
Grice z'. Scarborough, 1094, 1702
V. Shaw, 2098
Grider v. Eubank, 938
V. Payne, 1707, 1769
Gridley z>. Bloomington, 1201, 1202
27. Watson, 1623
tf. Wynant, 1658, 1696
Grier^*. Sampson, 1201
Griffin ■zr. Banks, 769
w, Bixby, 57
v, Blanchar, 1622
V. Colver, 1247, 1248
zf. De Veulle, 756
V. Dighton, 29
v. Fellows, 516, 1140, 1142
a/. Ford, 103S, 1039, 1040, 1682
z/. Griffin, 1708, 1975, 2058
V. Ktnsey, 2261
V. Knisely, 1133
z/. Lovell, 2129
7/. Macauley, 1732
V. Marine Co., 2017
7/. McKenzie, 15 17
7/. Nicholas, 2302
V. Nichols, 1405, 1500
v. Proctor. 1422, 1424
V. Ransdell, 145
V. Reece, 891, 927
v. Sheffield, 1348, 1349, 1354
v. Sheley, 1457
V. Sutherland, 1398, 1457, 1514
7K Thompkins, 1104
Griffith's Case, 563, 1153
Griffith IT'. Buffum, 1244
V, Eustin, 1900
v. Evan, 1627, 1629
V. Godey, 1586, 1645
7;. Gi-iffith, 764, 938, 1371, 1599
V, Harrison, 1040, 1807
V. Henderson, 983
V. Hodges, 1167
z'. Lovell, 2155
V. Paramaley, 1023
V. Parmley, 1212
z>. Pownal, 1811
7/. Puleston, 540
Griffith V. Rickets, 76, 1794
V. Robinson, 1806
V. Schwenderman, 1030, 1031
7/. Spratley, 519, 1758
V. Watson, 42
w, Wilcox, 719
7/. Wright, 2302
Griffiths CT. Hamilton, i888
7f. Morrison, 2241
Grigg 71. Banks, 2064
V. Cocks, 1761
V. Smith, 826
Griggsby v. Hair, 2007
Griejnon 7'. Astor, 2304
Grim's Appeal, 535
Grim 71. Dyar, 1917
V. Wicker, 1905
Grimes z'. Byru, 15 10
z/. Kimball, 2134
z>. Orrand, 292, 293
Grimley v. Riley, 2363
Grimshawe z'. Burnham, 106
Grimstone v. Bruce, 1870
V. Carter, 2365
Gring's Appeal, 2138
Grisham z'. State, 595, 752
Grissell v. Swinhoe,9i8, 944
Grissom z>. Hill, 247
Grist z'. Hodges, 1079
Griswold z'. Fowler, 2149, 2150, 2151
z'. Gelding,- 2056
». Griswold, 2133
V. Huffaker, 1440
z'. Johnson, 191 1, t924, 1967, 1997
V. Messenger, 1537
zT. Penniman, 686
Gristwold 77. Mather, 1997
Grizzle z/. Pennington, 1141
Grob f. Cushman, 2170
Grocers^ Co. 7'. Donne, 199
Groff z/. Rohrer,68i
zr. Levan, 1234
Grogan v. Garrison, 898, 899, 957
Gregory v. Duncan, 1758
Grosholz zf. Newman, 1393, 1444
Gross V, Jackson, 107, no, 113
7f. Lange, 792
77. McKee, 2060
v. Welwood, 229s
Grossley zf. Lightowler, 2227
Grosvenor z/. Allen, 2036, 2123, 2124
71. Henry, 1281, 1289, 1310
Groton zt. Roiiorough, 689
Groustra 71. Bourges, 1252
Grout ». Townsend, 427, 471,489,513,516,629,
633, 643, 666, 6go. 691, 744, 2349
V. Van Schoonhoven, 1798
Grove v. Barclay, 2261
7/. Barklay, 2260
7f. Brien, 2177
71. Gather, 922
V. Todd, 882, 896, 900, 904, 909
7f. Trueblood, 688
Grover 7'. Flye, 2127, 2128,2131
V. Thatcher, 809, 810,2097
Groves z'. Groves, 1635, 1697
z>. Steel, i6g8
Grubb V. Bayard, 93, 2189
V. Guilford, 2189
Grubb, Doe d., v. Burlington, 549, 550
V. Grubb, 1309
Grube v. Wells, 2296, 2297
Grubbs ff. McGlawn, 1775
Gruenewald zr. Schaales, 1334, 1335, 1340
Crumley 71. Webb, 1619, 1620, 1766
Grundin v. Carter, 1124, 1220
Grute zr. Locroft, 1024
Gruve ?'. Wells, 2295
Grymes 7'. Boweren, 129
Guard 7^ Bradley, 1016
Guardians n. Nathans, 596
Guardians of the Poor v. Nathan, 752
CXXXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Guardians of the WoodlMidge Union, The, v.
The Guardians of Colneis, 1266
Gudgell V. iVuvall, gg6, iiHg-
Gudger v. Burnes, 1284
Gue V. Tidewater Canal Co., ^
Gueriu v. Moore, 707, 841, 843
Guernsey v. Kendall, 2068, 2o6y
Guest V. Farley. 1548; 1559, 2515
Guffey z'. Hukill, 1162
Guier v. O'Daniel, 1456
Guild z'. Richards, 1154, 1849, 186S
V, Rogere, 2270, 2273
Guion V. Locke, 2175
Guiod V. Guiod, 1396, 1449, 1452, 1454, i455r
. I4S7. 1461, 1470. M7i> 1524
Guion z/. Anderson, 489, 589, 590, 591, 604^622^
623, 624, 1364. 1^366, 1369, 137=^
V. Knapp, 2154
Gulf R. Co. V. Owen, 2297
Gulliver d. Tasker v. Ban*, i3c8>. 1337
Gully V, Ciego, 1629
■V. Ray, 760, 763, 765, 766, 781, 782, 819,.
827, 893
Gunn w. Barryjigio, 1512, 1513, i5f5» 'S'?*
1706
V. Brantley, 2175
V. Gudehaus,. 1395
V. Pollock, 2254
•v. Sinclair, 1164, 133-5, »3J9. iy4<'
V. Thomtony 15,13
Gunning z/. Carman, 505, 511,. 519,. 520, 7^
Gunnis z*. Kater, 1164
Gunnison v. Twitchell, 1383
Guns V. Scovi'1^2270'
Gunsolus?'. Lormer, 1285
Gunson v. Healy, 2220
(iuphill V. Isbell, 1639, i642'^ 1707^- '729* '74ir
1784, iSoo-
Guptil V. McFee, 1399, 1432
Guthrie's Appeal, 402,. 4501 472, 1674
Guthrie V. Field, 2175
V. Gardner, 779, 1647
V. Jones, 109, 110, MZ, 125, i-^^ 139, 145,
1225
V. Kahle^2039
V. Murphy, 985
V. Owens, 873, 931
Guttcridge v. Munyard, jogS.
Guttman v. Scammell, 712
Guy V. Butler, 2099
V. De.- Uprey, 2130, 2138-
V. Downs, 1459
Guyer v. Maynard, 1605
Guytherz/. Pettijohn, 1246, 1905
Gwineth v. Thompson, iSgi
Gwinneil "v. Fames, 1085, i rgg, 120*
Gwynn zi. Jonesi'' Lessee, 212, 1285, 134S
V. Turner, 2123
Gwynne v. Cincinnati, 796, 828„893,,92e
H.
Haas V. Shaw 646
Habergham v. Vincent, 315, 1831
Habig «». Dodge, 1985
Hackensack Sav. Bank -u. Terhune Mfg. Co.,
2137
Hackett z>. Reynolds, 2003
Hackley v. Draper, 21 58
Haddock v. Perham, 415
Haden v. Buddenseck, 2025, Z059
Hadley v. Hadley Mfg. Co., 1850
z. Morrison, 1291
V. Pickett, 2008
Hadlock v. Bulfinish, 2133
V. Gray, 1939
K.ifer, In re, 1399
Haflic V. Stober, 115, 145, 146, 147, 1224 *
Hagan v. Brainard, 2015
V. Lucas, 1516
V. Walker, 2149
Hagar %>. Brainard, 2186
Hagar v. Brainerd, 688, 1998, 2015, 2078
V, Buck, 1074
V, Wis wall, 19S7
Hageman v. Sutton, 2107
Hager v. Schiiidler, 2331
7'. Spect, 1923
Hagerty v. I ee, 2240, 2241
Haggard v. Benson, 1610
Haggart v. Morgan, 1456
Haggin %k Haggin, 1975
Hagthorp v. Hook, 1612, 1777
Hague V. Cummings, 1138
Hahn v. Concordia Soc, 1872
V. Gilford, 1220
Haigh, Ex parte, 2002
Haiglit V. Hall. 678, 698
Haines v. Beach, 2074, 2147, 2169, 2172
V. Burnett, 1096
V. Ellis, 652
V. O'Connor, 1699, 1739
V. Thomas, 2039
V. Thompson, 2053, 2055
V. Witmer, 416
Hait 11. Hoale, 1450, 147.'?, 1475, 1478'
Halbrook v. Halbrook, 2349
T. State, 755
Halcomb v. Halcomb, 2163
Haldane 7*. Johnson, 1151
Haldeman v. Haldeman, 411, 413, 420, 42;
V. Jenings, 1872
Hale zi. Bower, 1034
V. Glidden,. 212, 2298
V. Hale, 618, 1666
V. Heaslip, 1386, 1441, 1443'
v. Henrie, 1648
V. James^ 823, 840, S41, 84^, 843, 844, 845,
846, 934
V. Jewell, 2039, 2045
V. Lawrence, 4, 5
V. Marsh, 317, 318, 536
V. Munn, 764
V. Nashua & L. R. Co., 102&
V. Omaha Nat. Bank, 2272-
V. Pew, 1693
V. Plummer, 786, 825
V. Rider, 215S
V. Wilkinson, r6g7
Hales z/. Petit, 442, 443
Haley v. City of Philadelphia, 671
V. Hickman's Heirs, i335', 1337^
Halford 71. Hatch, 1124
7'. Stains, 1.637
V. Tetherow, 1903, 1904
Hall's Case, 916, 942, 949
Hall's Estate, Re, 813
Hall V. Ashby, 232, 278
V. Bliss, 2163, 2316
7/. Benner, 1017, ri42-, 1149^
7'. Burgess, 1162
V. Caldwell, 2-176
V, Carter, 1734
V. Chaffee, 322, 470
V. Comfort, 1027
V. Commonwealth, 522
V. Davis, 1894
V, Dean, 1093
II. Dennison, 1795
V. Dewes, 1817, i8r8
V. Dewey, 1144, 2295
z/. Dickinson, 330, 333
V. Doe d. Surtees, 2095
V. Gay, 2298
V. Goodwin, 304, 353. 536
V. Hall, 221,629, 633, 643, 657, 750, 935,
938, 940, 13 19, J334, 1336, 1790, 1793,
1801, 1946, 1947, 1949, 2142
V. Hancock, 2280
V, Heyden, 2016
V. Heydon, 1624
V. Huggins, 2151
V. Lance, 2063
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxxxv
Hall V. Lawrence, 215T, 2195, 2198, 2199, 22oo,v
2201, 2295
V. Leonard, 2357
V. Loomis, 1485
v. Mayor of Swansea, 1332
V. McCaughey, 2246, 2247, 2248
V. McDuff, 2003
V. McLeod, 2220
V. Meyers, 1134, 113G
•V. Mobile, etc., B. Co., 2068
V. Myers, 1135, 1307, 1337
V. Mullin, 184
V. Nelson, 2149, 2151
7/. Page, 124G
V- Peftny, 1514
V. Piddock, 1893, 1S96
V. Priest, 415, 418
z'. Ryder, 1045
V- Savill, 1999
V. Saville, 2053
V. Sayre, 1365
V. Sewald, 122
V. Smith, 2007
V. Southmayd, 1131, 2270
V. Sprigg, 1638, 1642, 1644, 1648
v, Stevens, 1920, 1929, 1092, 1945
v- Stevens, 1917, 1930*
V. Surtees, 1279
V. Swift, 2247
1/. Thayer, 252, 396, 411, 465, 466
V. Towne, 2163
V. Tufes, 249
V. Tuffts, 1S57
V. Tufts, 2028, 2029, 2030
zi. TuUerton, 1469
•V. Tunnell, 1998, 2078
V. Vandergrift, 409, 423, 427
V. Wadsworfli. 1254, 1300, 1301, 1303,
1307, 130S, 1322, 1325, 1336, 1337,
1343
V. Western Transportation Co., 1295
V. Young, 1576, 1587
Hallen, Doe d., z*. Ironmonger, 1709
Hallene/. Runder, 143, 145, n86
Hallenbeck v. Dewitt, 2352
Hallesy v. Jackson, 2175
Hallett's Estate, In re, 1621, 1761
Hallett V. Collins, 595, 752, 1545, 1578, 1585,
1765, 1782
V. Oakes, 986, 1032
V. Thompson, 246, 253, 273, 1747, 1798
zi. Wyley, 1175
V. Wylie, 992, 1175, 1176, 1179, 1126
Halley v. James, 368
V. Northampton, 252
V. Oldham, 1773
Hallifax v. Higgins, 2051
Haliigan v. Wade, 1128, 1168, 1174, 226S
Hallihan v. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. Co., 1197
Hallowav V. Lacy, mo
Hallowell z*. Saco, 1456
Halluck V. Brush. 1016
Halserg v. Brown, 21 it
Halsey v. Beer, 221, 222
V. Blood, 1883
V. Fairbanks, 1713, 1795
V. Martin, 2042
V. Reed, 2069, 2072, 2112, 2150,2166, 217S,
2179
Halstead v. Bank of Kentucky, 2120
V. Board of Commissioners cf Lake, 215,
1657
V. Commissioners, 2014
Ham V. Ham, 1777, igu* 1931,2301
V. Kendall, 1268
V. Santa Rosa Bank, 1447
Hambleton z/. Duhain, 2307
Hamblin v. Wardecke, 1455, 1502
Hambly v. Trott, 1228
Hamburger. Re, 2260
Hamby v. Walls, 1893
Hamilton v. Hempstead, 448
Hame! v. Lawrence, 1213, 1218, 1271
Hamer v. Sidway, 1589
Hamerton v. Stead, 1162, 1254, 1298, 1313
Hamilton zk Badger, 2208
V, Browning, 211 1
p. Buckminster, 1754
V. Buckwalter, 917, gi8, 938,942, 944,949
V. Clanricarde, 1018, 1039
V. Conine, 1889, 1902
V. Dobbs, 2074, 2136, 2150, 2169
V. Doolittle, 2321, 2322
V. Elliott, 1864, 1S67, 1991
zf. Fowlikes, 2006
V. Greenwood, 1625
V. Halpin, 1958
z/. Hempstead, 414
z>. Hughes, 7S2
ZK Huntley, 132, 133
z' Lubukee, 1670, 2106, 2110, 2163
». McPherson, 1248
V. Marsden, 1149
V. Nutt, 2359
V. Royse, 2155
ZI. Wilson. 1093
V. Wright, 1065, 1082, 2298
Hamit v. Lawrence, 1213, 1309
Hamlin t. Hamlin, 781, 787, 1376
V. Parsons, 2022
Hammann v. Jordan, 2235
Hammekin v. Clayton, 216, 218, 2014
Hammersley t'. Smith, 1673
Hammon v Douglas, 1264, 1312, 1324, 1330,
1331
Hammond v. Crosby, 2298
V. Dean, 996, 1322
v. Hammond, 307, 309, 312
V. Harper, 2272
V. Hicks, 1783
z<. Myrick, 2155
V. Port Royal & A. R. Co., 1856
V. Zehner, 2242
Hammonds v. Hopkins, 2039
Hamper, Ex parte, 1240, 1244
Hampshire v. Wickens, 257, 1096, 1097
Hampson v. Full, 1633, 1646
Hampton v. Hodges, 21SS
V. Levy, 2120
7'. Nicholson, 2134
zf. Spencer, 1691
V. Wheeler, igoo
V. White, 2264
Hamrick z'. People's Bank, 1409
Hanbury z>. Kirkland, 1733
Hanchet v, Whitney, 1136, 1300, 1301, 1303,
1308, 1313, 1319, 1320, 1322, 1336, 1337,
Hancock v. American Life Ins. Co., 523
V. Austin, 2252
». Carlton, 688, 1S70, 1871, 1872, 2069,
2244
V. Day, 552, 575
V. Fishing Ins. Co., 631
V. Fleming, 2071
V. Hancock, 810, 2098, 2148
V. Harper, 2047
V. Jordan, 105, 108
zj. Morgan, 1378, 1387, 1419, i434, M46
V. Titus, 1751
V. Watson, 2023
7'. Went worth, 2243, 2244
Hancom v. Allen, 1720
Hand v. Fairbanks, 2334
V. Kennedy, 2068
W.Winn, 1449, 1451
Handley v. Cunningham^s Trustee, 2256
V. Wrightson, 1627
Handlin, Re, 1399, 1432
Handy z'. Foley, 2361
V. McK'm, 285
Handly r'. Sydenstricker, 2305
Hanford v. Fitch, 2176
V. McNair, 1042
CXXXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
ITanham v. Sherman, 1161
Hanke v. Finke, 635
Hanna's Appeal, 349
Hanna v. Spotts' Hears, 1728
Haanah v. Carrington, 1995
V. Osbom, 533
V. Swamer, 75
V. Wadsworth, 2349
Hannahs v. Felt, 1512
Hannan v. Hannan, 2059
V. Osborn, 1895
V. Towers, 1878, 1932, 1940
Hannay v. McEntire, 573
Hannen v. Ewalt, 1108, 2262
Hannibal & St. Jo. R. Co. z*. Green, 1777
Hannon v. Christopher, 2301
V. Sommer, 1475
Hannum v. Mclnturf, 1513
Hanover Fire Ids. Co. v. Tomlinson, 2167
Hanrahan v. O'Reilly, 146
Hanrick v. Patrick, 223
Hansard v. Hardy, 2095
Hansell v. Hubbeil, 414, 415
Hansen v. Buckner, 2359
V. Dennison, 2020
V. Kairtley, 982
V. Meyer, 1070, 1078
Hansford v. Elliot, 316
Hanson v. Buckner, 2350
V. Gardiner, 577
V. McCue, 2230
V. Willard, 1973, 1979. J982
Hantz z/. Seely, 595, 5g6, 752
Hapgood V. Blood, 1998
Haralson v. Bridges, 1359, 1363, 1364, 1368, 1369
V. Redd, 319
Harbison z>. Lemon, 1033
Harbuckz'. Toledo, 2327
Harburg v. Hussey, 1979
Harcourt v. Wyman, 1363, 1364, 1368, 1369
Hard v. Nearing, 2324
Hardcastle, Ex parte, 1761
Harde v. Harde, 544
Hardeman 7k Downer, 1510
Harden v. Cullins, 2301
V. Hays, 331, 333, 341, 342
V. Parsens, 1664
Hardenbergh, Den ex d.. v. Hardenbergh, 1024,
1876,1881,1919,1920, 1930,1931, 1950
Hardenburgh zi. Blair, 499
Harder?'. Harder, 563, 1612
Hardin v. Baird, 1691
V. Forsythe, 1212, 1217, 1220
V. Gerard, 1292
V. Iowa R. &. C. Co., 2155
V. Wolf, 1506
Harding v. Alden, 771, 782
V. Cobb, 1035
V. Glyn, 326, 1593, 1629, 1685
V. Harding, 661
V. Mill River Co., 2146
V. Springer, 1919, 193 1. "^932. 1940.2203
V. St. Louis Life Ins. Co., 336, 1709
V. Wheaton, 1616
Hardwicke v. Vemon,;i7S3
Hardy v. De Leon. 216
V. Gregg, 1883
V. Johnson, igoi
V. McCullough, 2241
V. Redman's Admrs., 289, 335
V. Van Harlingen, 677, 1372, 1373, 1562
V. Waters, 2343
V. Winter, 1257
Hare v. Celey, 1233, 1235
V. Groves, irSr
V. Van Deusen, 200S
Harford v. Johnson, 2S6
V. Lloyd, 1761
Hargis v. Price, 1309
Hargrave zj. King, 256, 1057, 1104, iiii, 1113,
1643
Hargreaves v. Mitchell, 1782, 1783
Harker v. Bitkbeck, 990
Harker, Den ex d., v. Gustin, 1217
Harkins v. Forsyth, 2157
V. Pope, 1131, 1132, 1135, 1315, 13^6
Harkness v. Burton, 1280.
V. Sears, 118, 119, 122, 131, 134, 13S1
137
V. Underbill, 2307
Harkrader ?/. Leiby, 1998
Harlan v. Emery, 2260
v. Harlan, 105, 133, 138
V. Lehigh Coal Co., 88, 983
V. Smith, 2156
V. Stout, 1983
Harland?'. Bromley, 1343
71. Trigg, 346, 347> 1627* 1629, 1631, 1632
Harle 7.'. McCoy, 12S3
V. Richards, 1391, 1459
Harley v. Platts, 1553
V. Ring, 2265
V. State, 218, 219, 2014
Harlow v. Lake Superior Iron Co., 983
V. Thomas, 730, 1095
Harman v. Allen, 1211, 1225
V. Kelly, 1983
Harmes v. Chesapeake & O. C. Co., 2325
7>. Palmer, 2074
Harmon v. Brown, 1858
7>. Gartman, 1969
V. James, 214, 672
V. Kelly, 1973, 1979
Harmony Building Association v. Berger, loS,
III
Harmony Lodge v. White, 1100, 2263, 2264
Harner v. Dipple, 20ti
Harnett v, Maitland, 122S, 1277
V. Yielding, loog
Harney 7/. Donohoe, 220
7'. Dutcher, 172?!
Harnickell 7'. Orndorff, 2160
Harpending 7/. Dutch Churcli, 1899, 1913, 1914
Harper's Appeal, 2086, 2088
Harper 7'. Archer, 19S0
7'. Barsh, 2038
71. Hlean, 304, 306, 313, 326
V. Ely, 1998, 2077, 20S8, 2089, 2090
V. Forbes, 1457, 1461, 1465, 1466
7'. Gilbert, 902
71. Hampton, 367, 720, 2057, 2288
71. Leal, 1506
7'. Phelps, 1591, 1593, 1635, 1651
Harr 7'. Bridges, 1008
Harrell 7>. Harrell, 1986
7'. Miller, 53, 55, 56
Harrer ?'. Walhier, 1934, 1954
Harriman 7'. Gray. 905, 906, 910
7J. Queen's Ins. Co., 1391, 1392, 1417
7'. Stowe, 1 194, 1 196
Harrington 7'. Allen, 2126
V. Brown, 1770
7'. Fortner, 2038
7>. Harte, 1820, 1S25
7'. Murphy, 729, 730, 1092, 1093, 1095
71. Price, 443
V. Watson, 1015, 10S3, 1176
7'. Wilklns, 2295
Harrington, Doe d., zi. Dill, 341
Harris, /« re, 534
Harris v, Bannon, 2081
V. Barnett, 1592, 1614
71. Booker, 1579
7'. Cannon, 1031
7'. Carson, 1205, 1207
V. Casson, 1211
7!. Cohen, 1202
71. Cook, 2107
7'. Elliot, 89
7). Evans, 1007
V. Frank, 1072
71. Frink, 49, 50, 52, 973, 976, 980, 1206,
1207, 1208, 1255, 1256, 1257, I25fV
1267, 126S, 1269, 1271, 1272, 1275,
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxxxva
1276, 1278, 1280, 1282, 1286, 1289
1291, 1297
Harris v Gilbert, 2358
V. GilUiigham, 63, 2212, 2213
V. Glenn, 1513
V. Hickmaa, 2264
V. Hayies, q6, 138
•V. Hydii?. 66, 88, 92, 93, 94, 533
v. IngUdeii, 2176
V, Jones, 2020
z'. Knapp, 31S, i8o5
V. Larkins, 1979
V. Lloid, 2281
V. Mirs'iill, 130-)
V, McElroy, 1741, 1753
If. McLaran, 293
V. Mills, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2099
V. Miller, 2240
V. Mills. 565
V. Morris, 9S3
V. N'ortoa. 2125
V. Pepperell, 2331
V. Potts, 533
V. Ryding, 2233, 2237
V. Rucker, 1599
V. Sumner, 1623
•u. Slaght, 76, 225
V. York Ins. Co., 632
Harris, D32 d., v. Masters, 1062
Harrisbargh v. Crangle, 4g3
arrisburgh Electric Light Co. v. Goodman,
45
amson v. Battle, 1820, 1825
V. Botts, 1908, 1925
V. Boyd, 736, 782
V, Brolaskey, 1674
zi. CT.rroll, 909
V. Eldridge, 791, 8gi, 925, 927
•V. Foreman, 1909
V. Graham, 1733
V. Griffith, 832
V. Harrison, i8go
V. Harrison's Admx., 943, 1591, 1593,
1627, 1631, 1727
V. Hefln, 872
V. Hicks, 2127, 212S
•V. Howard, 1649
v. Jackson, 1030, 1042
V. Laverty, 1698
V. Leach, 15 15
V. Lemon, 2040
V. Lincoln, 883
V. McHenry, 1775, 1776
i>. Metz, 671
V. Middleton, 1261, 1269, 1281, 1293, 1294,
1297. 1350
V. Pag2, 2192
V. Phillips, 2034, 2039, 2132, 2353
V. Rays, 1955
V. Ricks, 1238, 1288
V. Smith, 1762
V. Southampton, 661
V. Stryes, 2058
V. Town, 1697
V. Trader, 959
V. Trustees, 20^8
V. Trustees Phillips' Academy, 2042,
2055
V. Wine, 2085, 2087, 2184
Harrison, Doe d., v. Murrell, 1215
Harrison's Exrs., v. Payne, 855, 858
arrow v. Johnson, 783, 802, 817, 847, 940
V. Meyers, 722
Harrow School, Keepers, etc , v. Alderton, 554
Harrower v. Heath, 1229, 2263
Harston v. Tenison, 1782
Hart's Appeal, 95
Hart V. Burch, 717
V. Chalker, 2026, 2027
V. Chase, 810
V. Evans, 2225
V. Finney, 1315
Hart V. Gregg, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, 2256,
2301
V. Hart, 1008
-v. Hill, 69
V- Horn, 1456
V. Hudson River Bridge Co., 1109
V. Isreal, 1120
V. Lindley, 1335, 1340, 1456
V. Logan, 799
V. Marks, 1S83
V. McCullum, 914
V. McGraw, 629
V. Robertson, 1901
V. Sheldon, 116
V. Soward, 1372
V. Thompson. 419
V. Tribe, 1630
V. \yiiite, 3c8, 310, 312
V. Windsor, 1054, 1055, 1080, 1082, 1097,
mo, 1175, 1200, 1201
Hartford Bridge v. East Hartford, 2303
Hartford, etc., Ore Co. v. Miller, 1924
Hartley's Appeal, 1811, 1843
Hartley v, Harrison, 2070, 2071, 2072, 2112,
2166
V. Hurle, 1371
7'. O'Flaherty, 2155
Hartman v, Kendall, 103 1
V. Munch, 1421, 1422
Hartness v. Thompson, 103 1
Harton v. Harton, 299, 1561, 1574, 1594, 1608,
165s, 1672, 1673, 1712
Hartshome v. Hartshorae, 783, 802, 803, 813,
814, 818, 866,1975
V. Hubbard, 2079
Hartwell 7/. Bissell, 49, 52
v^ Blocker, 2147
V. Cammen, 84, 85, 88
V. Kelly, 63, 1154,2256,2272
V. McDonald, 1519
Hartwick v. Mynd, 1818
Harvard v. Underwood, 2169
Harvard College -v. Alderman of Boston, 505
V. Boston, 1 102
•V. Gore, 1456
Harvey's Estate, Re, 1836
Harvey v. Alexander, 1698
zj. Aston, 1857
V. Ball, 720
V. Bridges, 1351
V. Erydges, 1357
V. Cherry, 1912
V. Harvey, 127, 563, 1909
V. McGraw, 1076, 1107, 1124
V. Olmstead, 332, 342, 536
V. Wickham, 603, 605, 612, 635, 637, 1512
Harvey's Admrs. v. Thornton, 2149
Harvey, Doe d., v. Francis, 1318, 1326
Harville v. HoUoway, 785
Harvy z/. Aston,.27i
Harwood v. West, 1627, 1630, 1863
Hasbrook v. Paddock, io8g, 1139
Haseltine v. Donahue, 2363
Haskell v. Bailey, 2093, 2094, 2147
ZK Hervey, 1783
ZI. House. 1810
V- New Bedford, 2325
7'. Putnam, 1214
Haskill V. Sevier, 2033, 2034
Haskins zk Hawkes, 2085
V. Tate, 535
Haslage v. Krugh, 2252, 2257, 2259
Haslem &. Lockwood, 78, 79, 81
Hasler v. Hasler, 695
Haslett V. Glenn, 538
Hass V. Choussard, 2226
Hasselman, v. McKernan, 2171
Hassett z'. Ridgly, 1977
Hasson zi. Barrett, 2045
Hastie & Silver v. Aiken, 1783
Hastings v, Clifford, 932, 939
V. Crunkleton, 495, 552, 743, 806
CXXXVIU
TABLE OF CASES.
References arc
to pages.
Hastings 7>. Dickinson, 889, 897, 8g8, Sgg, 927,
950,951, 953, 954^5^ 95S> 963>964. 9<^^
V. Dollarhide, 103 1
V. Drew, 162a, 1760
7'. Hastings, 1904, ig6g
V. Hopkiiison, 1242
7'. Livermore, 1252, 2248
z'. Merriam, 286
7/. Stevens, 511, 783, 802
7'. Vaughn, 2364, 2365
V. Weber, 998, 1000
V. Wilson, 1 1 15
Hasty V. Wheeler, 564
Haston v. Castner, 1623
Hatch V. Barr, 2013
V. Dana, 1581
V. Hart, 1234
V. Hatch, 1016, 2287, 2353
V. Kimball, 2097, 2130
V. Palmer, 802, 805
V. Pendergast, 1144
V. Smith, 2295
V. Sykes, 2257
V. White, 2142, 2t57
Hatcheli r. Kimbrough, 1230, 1231, 1237
Hatcher?/. Hatcher, 1281
Hatfield v. Fullerton, 2269
V. Sneden, 447, 533, 585, 588, 626, 653, 670,
673,678, 6go,6gj, 885,889, 1361,1362,
1372, 1377
Hathaway v. Spooner, 492, 503
H a thorn z/. Calef, 1512
V. Lyon, 622, 65;, 668, 670, 701, 1362
V. Maynard, 1718, 1934
7'. Stimson, 2241
Hatstat z/. Packard, 1344
Halt V. Doe d. Miller, 1272
Hatton V. Weems, 415
Haughabaugh z'. Honald, 1S81
Haughery 71. Lee, 982
Haughton t'. Harrison, 326
V. Haughton, 270
Haughery t>. Lee, 9^9. 1010
Haulenbeck v. Conkright, 740
Hause?'. Hause, 1894
Haussknecht v. Claypool, 1516
Hauxhurst 71. Lobree, 1135, 1309, 1350, 1353
Haven v. Adams, 1028
7/. Emery, 97, 116, 142, 144, 2018
7/. Foster, 355, 2iSr
Havens v. Havens, 917,918, 944, 955, 965
V. Klein, 2224
V. West Side Electric Light Co., 45
Haverstick v. Sipe, 2223
Haviland v. Halstead, 754
Hawes z/. Show, 1149
Haweyw. Thomas, 1026
Hawke t/. Senseman, 2296
Hawkes 7>. Hubback, 1561
7'. Pike, 2033, 2034
Hawkins 7/. Clermont, 2031
V. Holmes, 998, 1017, 1042
V. Hudson, 2298
V. Kemp, 1040, 1830, 183 1, 1843
V. Luscombe, 1608
zf. McDougall, 1981
V. McPugh, 1476, 1490
V. Ragsdale, 720
V. Reichert, 1288
V. Senseman, 2297
zf. Sbewen, 365
V. Skegg, 48, 271, 538, 539
z>. Taylor, 1986
Hawksworth 71. Hawksworth, 202, 307
llawley 7>. Bradford, S13, 814, 818, 926, 2164
7'. Burgess, 647
z'. City of Baltimore, 2205
7'. Clowes, 575, 1903
7f. Cramer, 1768, 1769, 1770
V. James, 274, 434, 767, 7S0, 781, 782, S28,
948, 1576, 1637, J63S, 1667,2058,2289
V. Kramer, 1771
Hawley v. Moody, ggS
V. Northampton, 24q, 255, 329, 401,415,
416, 448, 449, 450
Haworth t. Wallace, 1226
Hawralty 7>. Warren, 1486
Haws v. Haws, jgio
Hawshill Bridge v. County Commissioners,
2327
Hawthorne v. Smith, 1447. M4S, i499» ^5H
Haxalls's Exrs. 7/. Shippen, 513
Haxtun 7'. Bishop, 2142
Hay 7'. Cohoes Co., ig8, 2231, 2233
V. Cumberland, 984
7'. Estell, 1975, 1987
7'. Hill, 2123
V. Mayer, 619, 656, 1837
7'. Palmer. 1 172
7'. The Cohoes Co., 2232
7'. Watkins, 1837
Haycraft 7j. liland, 1677, 1678
HaydcU ?'. Hurck, 1739
Havden 7: I'radley, 1084, 10S5
7'. Inhabitants of Stoughton, 1854
7>. IVIeintzer, 2349
V. Merrill, 1894, 1969
7'. Patterson, 1901
7'. Smith, 2132
Haydon 7'. Stoughton, 265, 266, 1S49, 1850, 1853,
1855, 1856, J864
7'. Wesser, 741
Hayes 7'. Berwick, 522
7'. Bickerstaff, 2362
7'. P.ickerstall, 1989
E'.-Fessenden, 1211
7'. Kcdzie,2i3o
7>. Kershaw, 2316
7'. Kershow, 1558
7'. 1 iviiigston, 2302
V. N. Y. Mining Co., 123, 12S, 145
If. People, 596, 757
7'. Sanderson, 1369
V. Tabor, 1559, 1655, 2301
V. Waldron,2225
V. Ward, 2136, 2177, 2178
V. Whiiall, 928
Hayes, Doe d., v. Sturges, 1021
Hayford 7'. Benlows. 76
7'. Spokesfield. 2245, 2247
Haygood 7/. Cuthbert, 855
7>. Harley, 2354
V. Marlowe, 832
Hayne v. Cummings, 1049, 1063
Hayner 7>. Hayner, 963
z'. Smith, 1128, 1167, 1168, 1174
Haynes 7'. Aldrich, 1131, 1132
z>. Bourne, 598, 599, 677, 696, 697
7'. Jones, 1723
7/. Powers, 868.
V. Swan, 2046
7/. Thomas, 2205
z'. Wellington, 2148
Haynew z-. Bailey. 1048
Haynie z'. Hall's Exrs., 489, J782
Hayrover z'. Thompson, 596
Hays z'. Davis, igSi
7>. Doane, 123, 129, 130
71. Jackson, 1684
7i. Lewis, 2104
7/. Quay, 1594
7'. Richardson, 2213
7'. Sanderson, 661, 662, 663
Hayse v. Ferguson, 2268
Hay ward 7'. Angel, 1870
77. Clark, 1427, 1428
7'. Cuthbut, 874
7>. Dimsdale, 2331
7'. Howe, 415, 417, 447
7'. Mayor, 2323
7/. New York, 197
7/. Range, 1184
7' Sedgley. 1253
7/. Stiliingfleet, 575
References are
to pages. "
TABLE OF CASES.
CXXXLX
Haywood z>. Cope, 999
7'. Fulmer, ggo, 1001
V. Kinney, 1863
V. Miller, 1287, 12SS
z'. Rogers, 1237, [23S
V. Tliomas, 2298
Hayworth v. Worthingtoii, 1701
Hazard v. Draper, 2118
V. Robinson, 2241, 2245
Hazard Powder Co. v. Looniis, 974, 975
Hazelbaker». Goodfellow, 2303
Hazehine v. Colburn, 1257, 1274, 1285, 1305
Hazcllon v. Lesure, 766
V. Putnam, 2211, 2212, 2213
Har,lelt v. Powell, 1066, loSi, 1127, 1167
Head z>. Head. 64S. 1513, 1335
V. Sutton, 2251, 2257, 225S
V, Temple, 1832
Hcadley v. Goundry, 1995
Headman v. Rose, 750
Hcald's Petition, 898
Ileald?'. Heald, 1682
Hcaly v. Alstoon, 1580
Heap V. Barton, 145, 1186
Heard v. IJaird, 1741
7f. Downer, 1450, 1479, 1514
V. Eldredge, 1581
7'. Fairbanks, 49
7>. Pilley, 1644, 1648
Heardson t. Williamson, 1797
Hcarle 7'. Greenback, 598, 599, 609, 611, 654,
G80, 684, 6S5, J035, 1372, 2125, 2127
Heani z'. Gray, 1319
2/. Kennedy, 1383, 1519
Hearst z'. Pujol, 1589, 1785
Heart 7'. State Bank. 817
Henrilcy 7'. Nicholson, 1587
Hcr.t'i T'. Riddle, 2303
V. Bishop. 253
7/. CJcalock. 1621
7'. Hall, 2147
J/. Heathe, 325
7'. Henly, 17S2, 1783
7'. Hewitt, 234, 293
T. Hubbard, 1247
z'..Knapp, J371
V. Nutter. 1041
V. Randall, 56, 2213
V. West, 201 1, 2343
V. White, 274, 581, 590, 593, 620, 621, 622,
62-;, 626, 627, 630, 633, 22S1
z-. Williamson, 1144, 2043, 2045, 2053,
2058, 2067
Heathcote v. Paignon, 519
Heatherly v. Weston, 1026
Heathman 7'. Holmes, 1385, 1390, 1391
Heathon v. Lyon, 633
Heatley v. Thomas, 1836
Heaton v. Fryberger, 1480, 1702, 1758,. 2331
V. Pralter, 2121
Hebblethwaite t*. Hepwortb, 596
Hebron v. Centre Harbor^ 2037, 2040
Hebum v. Warner, 1993
Hccht v. Ferris, 1221
Heck V. Borda, 1320
Hedge 7/. Drew, 1016
V. Rose, 2261
Hedges 7>. Bungay, 1786
7'. Everard, 964
7/. Riker, 1037, 103S
Hedffepath v. Rose, 1286
Heed 7'. Ford, 82b, 893
Heeney v. Brooklyn Society, 215, 216, 217, 221
V. St. Peters CInirch, 32, 35, 36,38
Heermance v. Vernoy, 104, no
Heermans t/. Clarkson, 2130
Heeler^'. Eckstein, 1138, 1156
Heffner v. Heffner. 883
7/. Knapp, 416
V. Knapper, 411, 414, 426
7'. Lewis, 126
Hegan v. Johnson, 1276, 1282
Hegeman v. Fox, 1456
V. McArthur, 1174
Heigate ?>. Willir.ms, 2208
Heim 7'. Vogel, 2166
Hcimstreet v. Howland, 1241, 1244
V. Winnie, 2171
Heinsben-'. Nickman, 765
Heirs of Clay 7'. Clay, 216
Heiss 7'. Murphy, 1603
Heisseltine 7j. Seavey, 1160
Heister v. Fortner, 2121, 2168
V. Futner, 2121
z/. Maderin, 2168
Helburn v. Moffard, noo
Hele V. Bexley, 1027, 2162
Helfenstein 7'. Cave, 1451, 1503, 1515, 1523
V. Garrard, 297, 1549, 1550
Helfrich v. Obermeyer, 8SS
Hellawell v. Eastwood, 117, 134
Heller, lie, 1892
Heller 7'. Crawford, 2oGr
7'. HufTsniitli, 1905
Helm z/. Frisbie, 412
Hellman v. Howard, 233S
Hclmbold 7/. Man, 520
Helmer v. Shoemaker, 311
Melmcs v. Stewart, 1221
Helms 7'. Franciscus, 648
7K May, 149
Helms' Exrs. 7/, Rogers. 17S3
Helphenstein 7>, Meredith, 725
Helwig 7^. Jordan, 1 194
Hemenway, Ex parte, 118S
Hemenway 7/ Cutler, 63
Hemmingway v. Scales, 1024, 1887, 1919, 1932,
1936, 1942, 1950. >95^
Hemphill v. Flynn, 1131. 1132, 1310, 131S
7'. Giles, 20G4, 2065
z*. Haas, 1490
V. Ross, 688, iggS
Plerapstead 71. Dickson, 319
71. Johnston, 1600, 1601, 1G77, 17S9, 1794
Henagan 7>. Harllee, Soi, 817, 2181
Henderson v. Allen, 1229, 1234, 12S7
V. Baltimore, 2355
V. Cardwell, 1267, 1269, 1301
V. Cross. 1684
V. Eason, ife94
7'. Ford, 1407, 141 1
V. Grewell, 2364
zi. Hill, 298, 336, 1560, 1709
71. Hay, 1096, 1097
71. Herderson, 1093, 1594, 1700,, 188S
V. Herod, 2106
7'. Hunter, 1849
7'. Mayhew, 1701
7>. McGhee, 2126
V. Miller, 1292
7/, Overton, 8S9, 1773
ZI. Pilgrim, 2042, 2100, 2102
7>. Squire, 1098
V. Vaulx, 536
V. Warmack, 1763
ZI. Williamson, 1596
Hendrick v. Cannon, 1310
V. Crowley, 1700
V. Judas, 1114
Hendricks v. Rasson, 1900
V. Stark, 2235
Hendrickson's Appeal, 2120
Hendrickson v. Cardwell, 1205
V. Ivins, 55
Hendrix v. McBeth, 561, Sir, 812, 838
Hendry v. Squier, 1192, 1201
Hendy v. Dinkerhoff, 139
Hene v. Brooklyn Society, 775
Henegan v. Haralles, 763, 802, 940
Henisler v. Nickum, 804, 829, 830
Henkle v. Allstadt, 2155, 2180
Henley v. Branch Bank, 1212, 1216, 1217
71. Hotaling, 2044, 2052, 2053, 2054
Henne-j 71. Hayden, 1 193
cxl
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Hennessey ?/. Walsh, 1646, 1648
Hemiesy 2/. Farrell, 2otx)
Henningz'. Burnett, 22 iS
V. Price, 755
V. Barbersoii, gSo
Henrietta v. Oxford, 1456
Henrison -v. Cloud. 2364
Henrose v, Griffith, 235S
Henry's Appeal, 1481
Henry's Case, 760, 2091, 2172
Henry v. Bell, 20S2
V. Carson, 1723
V. City of Nevvburj'port, 4
J/. Compton, 2177
V. Davis, 2015, 2016, 2o;57, 2040, 2050,
7' Henry, 962
V. Stevens, 2252, 225S
■V. Tupper, 1871, 1S72, 2032
Henshaw v. Wells, iggS, 2065, 2077
Henson v. Kinard, 1785
z'. Moore, 5S6, 893
Henstead's Case, 1026, 1294
Hcnwood V. Cheeseman, 1278, 2260, 2270, 3271
Hepburn's Case, 2169, 2328, 2333
Hepburn n. Curtis, 1517
V, Dubois, 903
V. Hepburn, 1706, 1714
Hcpsham v. Detre, 1224
Hcmd 7'. James, 62
Hcrbaugh -v. Zentmyer, 2262
Herbert's Case, 2178
Herbert v. Dupaty, 1070
V. Gray, C7£
V. Hanrick, 211, 212, 2091, 2297
?'. Herbert, 1016
t'. Kenlon, etc., Assn., 1479
%i. Wren, S14. S58, 866, 918, 932, 936, 944
Herbert, Doe, d. v. Thomas, 34S
Herbin v. Chard, J024
Herkimer r/. Rice, 719
Herkimer, Admr., v. Rice, 1912
Herlakcnden's Case, 22, 128, 134
Hermn.n v. Watts, 1988
Herndon v. Kimball, 2366
V. Pratt. 17S4
Heron 7'. Hoffner, 949
Hcrr's Estate, 1621
Herrell e/. Sizcland, 1254, 1261, 1275, 12S0, 1294,
1295, 1302, 1307, 130S, 1324, 1336
Herrick V. Craves, 1459, 1461
Herring v. Harris, 1020
%>. Wickham, 959
V. WoodhuU, 2099, 2102
Herron v. Hill, 2272
Hersey v. Gilbert, 999
Hershey v. Metzgar, 46, 47, 52
Hershizer v. Florence, 668
Hershy v. Clark, 1912, 1918
V. Shenk, 522
Herskell v. Bushnell, 1231
Hersom -v, Henderson, iGgS
Hertell 7>. Vanburen, 1841
Hertle v. McDonald, 2175, 2176
Hervey 7'. Hervey, 932, 954
Herzo V. San Francisco, 2342
Heslet 7'. Heslet, 75
Heslop T. Heslop, S94
Hess's Estate, 2177
Hess V. Marks, 1226
E/. Singler, 346, 1591, 1593, i^JZj 1&S4,
1824
Hesse v. Briant, 76
Hestell V. Bogarl, iSSS
Hester, Re^ 890
Hester v. Hester, 1752
V, Wilkinson, 1664, 1716, 1727, 1728
Heth V. Cocke. 826
11. Richmond F. & P. R. Co., 1578, 1721,
i7'6, 1759. 1764. 1777. 1779
Hetheri.ngton v. Graham, 774, 892, 894, S95,
921
Hewell V. Coulburn, 2111
Hewes V. Wiswell, 492
Hetzel V. Barber, 1165, 1808, 1809
Hewett, Ex parte ^ 1512, 1513
Hewett V. Rankin, 824, 142 1, 1425, 1432
Hewitt 7'. Foster, 1733
7/. Long, 1464
7^ Templeton, 1381, 1382, 1450, 1478
Hewlins 7/. Shippam, 475. 477. 47^, 53') 2"2,
221 1
Hext V. Gill, 84, 89, 90, 94, 2233, 223S
Hexter z*. Knox, 1085, 1086
Hey V. McGrath, 1320
». IToorhouse, 1350
z>. Sterratt, 2223
Heydon's Case, 435, 54c, 542
Heyer v. Deaves, 2154
7'. Pruyn, 2095
Heyhoe v. Burge, 1242
Heyman v. Lowell, 2151
Heysham v. Dettre, 109, 135, 138
Heyward z>. Mayor, 2325
eywood v. Heywood, 2255
V. Mayor, 2328
Hibbard v. Lamb, 1663
Hibbeler 7/. Gutheart, 1139
Hibben7/. Soyer, 1480
Hibblewhite v. McMorine, 1042, 1044
V. Nivrine, 2339
Hibberd v. Bower, 2120
Hickey v. Hazard, 69
Hicman v. Cantrell,
V, Irvine, 558, 806, S61
V. Perrin, 2 121
Hickman's Case, 2327
Hickok 11. Buck, 984
Hickox V. Low, 2031, 2053
Hicks w. Bell, 87
V. Bingham, 2091
•v. Bullock, 1900, 1923
7'. Dowling, 1 109
7.. Hicks, 491, 2040, 2168
7'. Morris, 1497
7'. Stebbius, 7S2
V. Ward, 1815, 1816, 1823
Hidden ii. Hopkins, 2088
V, Johnson, 1651, 20SS
Hieatt v. Morris, 2235, 2236
Hiester v. Maderia, 2055
7/. Shaeffer, 2262
Higbee 7>. Rice, 208, 6or
7'. Rodman, 1864
Higby 7'. Rice, 209
Higdon V. Higdon, 1647
Higghibotham v. Barton, 1992
V. Cornwell, 744. 880, 916, 934, 935,
956
V. Holmes, 26a, 272, 935
If. Short, 1973, 1979, jgSS
Higgins.7'. Breen, 714, 715, 755, 756, 769, 770
7/. Halligan. 1133, 2261
V. Johnson's Heirs, 1947
V. Kendall, 2004
V. Kusterres, 68
7", Turner, 1 164
ZK Wasgutt, 2361
V. York Buildings Co., 1027, 2163
Higginson v. Dall, 2113
Pi^'^on V Mortimer, 80
Hi^h V. Battle, 1754
Hicham v. Baker, 2216
Hi^hbergert/. Stiffler, 1735, 1769
Hi,hway, ^ff, 2325
Higley v. Millard, 1475
Higman 7/. Stewart, 2179
Hihn 7'. Peck, 576^ 1906
7'. Peek, 1853, 1855
IHhry?'. Walker, 1742
Hilbourn'E'. Fogg, 1219, 1253, 1356
Hildreth 7/._Conant, 1139, 1294
V. Eliot, 1791
V, Jones, 926
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxli
Hildreth v, Thompson, 717, 732, 733, 734, 735,
736, 739> »77
Hileman z'. Uuuslaugh, 214, 281, 424, 531, 672,
1694
Hiles z'. Coult, 217Q, 21S0
Hiley z/. Bridges, 1513
Hilhouse v. Mix, 1908
Hiirs Case, 941
Hill z'. Bacon, 1094, 144a
V. Bailey, 1781
V. Barclay. 265, 1091, 1157, 1158) 1S70,
1871, 1872
V Barrow, 416
v. Barry, Hayes & J., 983
V. Bishop of Exeier, 1626
V. Bishop of London, 347, 1631
V. Burrow, 414
V. Chambers, 58S, 651, 668, 670
V. Crosby, 2219
V. Cutting, 2212
V. Den, 1587, 1592
V. De Rocheniont, 78, 79
V. Draper, 2335 *
V. Edmonds, 2152
V. Edwards, 2031, 2104
7'. Eldred, 2002
z/. Eliot, 1623, i6g6
V. Epley, 2365
V. Fanners & Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 120,
126
V. Frazier, 1707, 1769
V. Givin, 2064
V. Grange, 2216
V. Grant, 2044
V. Gregory, 785
V. Gwin, 2022
V, Hagaman, 2242
V. Hill, 396, 1291, 1510, 1641, 2212
V. Holliday, 2170
V. Josselya, 1731
V. Kessler, 1510, 151 r, 1518
V. La Crosse & M. R. Co , 201S
V. Lancaster, 1481, 1482
V. Lord, 2213, 2214
V. Manchester & SaUord Water Works
Co., 2013, 2342
V. McCarter, 2153, 2179, 2180
z'. McRae, 247, 254, 1747, 1748
V. Meyers, 1614
V. Mitchell, 705, 707, 847, 851, 861
V. Moore, 2280
V. More, 1051, 2031, 2103
V. Newman, 2224
V. Packard, 122
■V. Reno, 1165
V. Ressegieu, 729
V. Robertson, 1998, 2078, 2131
V. Robinson, 1159
V. Samuel, 2364
V. Saunders, 1024, 1025
V. Sewald, 104, 106, 115, 133, 144
V. Smith, 2038, 2238
V. Stocking, 2274
V. Thomas, 533
V. Trustee, 2254
V. Wentmorth, 96, 116, 117, 118, 133, 144,
1046
V. White, 2172
V. Woodman, 1126, 11 75
V. Wynn, 720
Hillard v, Binford, 932, 935
Hillary v. Waller, 1743, 2094, 2291, 2292
Hilleary v. Hilleary, 717, 731, 732- 815, 820, 826
Hillebrant v. Brewer, 1248
Hillgartner v. Gebhart, 853, 854, 855
Hillhouse V. Chester, 600
V. Dunning, 2053
Hilliard z'. Scoville, 1982
Hills V. Dey, 1982, 1988
V. Doe, 1910
V. Eliot, 2147
V. Loomis, 2046
Hills 7K Miller, 22ir, 2214, 22/5, 2216
Hilsendagan v. Scheich, 1251, 1262, 1269, i28r»
1293. »327. 1329
Hilton V. Bender, 1149
V. Granville, 94
V. Merrill, 121 1
Himeswoith v. Edwards, loio, 1233, 2259
Hinchliffe v. Shea, 792, »jo6, 907
Hinchman v. Emans, 810, 1580
V. Isle, 1297
%>. Sliles, 783, 817, 928, 2164
Hinchman, Den ex. d., z'. Clark, 415, 444
Hinda[i v. Jordan, 2271
Hinde v. Chorlton, 39, S3
V. Longworth, 518, 1625
Hinds' Estate, no
Hinds V. Allen, 2146, 2156
V. Ballou, 766, 802, 8og, 8io, 826, 2097,
2100, 2103, 2104, 2130
V. Pugh, 726
V. Stevens, 886
V. Terry, 1246, 1905
Hinely z'. Margaritz, 2344
Hines v. Anient, 116, 123
V. Eallou, 2130
V. Duncan, 1397
V. J'ralliam, 2100
V. Robinson, 1969, 2226
V. Trantham, 1908
Hingham v. Sprague. 1252, 1284
Hingham & Quincy Bridge Co. u. County of
Norfolk, 2327
Hinklc*s Appeal, 1815
H inkle z/. Wanzer, 15S5
Hinkle's Lessee v. Sliadden, 236
Hinkley?'. Russell, 561
Hinkley & E. Iron Co. v. Black, 63, 139
Hinman v. Cranmer, 209
Hinsdale v. Humphrey, 1043, 1063
Hinton, Ex parte, 1677
V. Goye, 1S25
Hintze v. Thomas, 2262, 2264
Hipp z'. Babin, 1669
Hiram v. Pierce, 753
Hiscock V. Jacox, 824
V. Jaycock, 787
t/. Phelps, 167 1, 1962
Hissem v. Johnson, 142S
Hitchcock V. Carpenter, 764, 870
V. Harrington, 688, 764, 782, 783, 799, 800,
803, 804, 805, 830, 864, 867, 874, 809,
930, 1580, 2062
V. Hotchkiss, 4H5
V. Merrick. 2101
V. North- Western Ins. Co., 2116
7'. United States Bank of Pa., 2144
Hitchen v. Hitchen, 970, 973, 980
Hitchens v. Ricketts, 1039
V. Shaller, 2212
Hilchinsz'. Hitchins, 816,819, 886, 935
V. Masterson, 135
Hitchison v. Kay, 126
Hitchman v. Walton, 132, 135
V. Wilton, 968
Hith V. Cocke, 924
Hitner v. Ege, 506, 686, 693, 703
Hitt v. Holliday, 2073
Hittinger v. Eaines, 71
Hitz V. Metropolitan Bank, 641, 642, 1598
Hixon V. George, 1457
Hoadges v. Tennessee M. F. Ins. Co., 2116
Hoadfey v. Hadley, 2033, 2124
Hoag V. Hoag, 1149
V. Wallace, 211
Hoagland's Case, 2266
Hoagland v. Crum, 2260
Hoare v. Dawes, 1242
V. Osborne, 1687. 168S
Hobart v. Fnsbie, 2334
V. Sanborn, 1998
Hobbs 7'. Blanford, 65S, 794
V. Harvey, 841, 842
TABLE OF CASES,
References are
Hobbs r. Hobson, aoia
t'. Lowell, 2^02
r. Sniuh. J04
Hobday t'. Peters, iSz6
Hobert*s Case, 2176
Hobson f. Kelt's. ::io3
r*. Trevor, 1573
T*, ^^■hitlo\v. 1690
r-. Vancy. .^^52. 2250
Hoby f, Hoby, Si 1, S3o. Spi
V, Roobuck. ^^5J
Hockley r\ M.iwbev, 1S12
Hoddeil : . I'ugh. 7D
Hodge f. Oiese, 104^
r. HoUisler. 147?, 1-179
7-. Wyatt. I7v>4
Hodgen r. limteiy. 2136. 2171. 2174.
Hodges c. FJdy. j^gti, 2*07.:22k)S
f. Greew, 31
T\ Heal, K!2i
T-. Howard, qoS, 999
T*. Isaac, 325
T'- R,iyii^"ind, 2227
!■. Sliii-'lds, 1160. 1169, H70. «2i3, 1210,
r222
x». Tennessee Marine & Fire Ins. Co.,
Hodgklns c. Knnor. 2230
V. Price. 1151
r-. Robson, 1072
HodgkiiKoii r*. Crowe, 1065, 1096, 1097
f. Petitioner, igSi
Hodgnian t'. Smith, 1341, 1242
Hodgson f. Field, 90
f. Lovell, 1477
V. Shaw, 3137
Hodley :■. Taylor. 1202
Hodson :-. Sliarpe. 1353
f. Treat, 2 15J, 2156
Hoe\'eler r. Fleming, 1106, 1167, 1193
Hoff V. Bann, 1153
f. McCauley, 2i?>)
Hoffar r. Dement. 1027, ioj?
Hoffman T'. Armstrong, 20, 56
f. Burke, 3158
f- Clark, 13S0
I'. Harrington, 1999, -i4t\ -17s
T'. Hill, 1473
r*. Kuhn, 22,^5
I*. MAck.ill. i7.?S. 1756
T". McC.illuni, 1330
r. Newh.iiis. ijyL', 1403, 1414
7'. Porter, z^j^o
V. Risk. 2150
r. Savage, 725, 742
z\ Stigers, 1024, 1919, 1020, io,m. t'M-.
i.)5i, uyS, 1977
Hoffman Steam Coal Co. r*. Cumberland Coal
& Iron Co., lOiS, 161U, 1O20, 1770,
'774
Hoffstettcr v. Blattner, 1898
Hogan f . Andrews. 333, 536
f, Barry, 2S4
f. Jackson, 303, 302, 306, 309, 313, 336
t'. Jacques, u\?7, it^iS, 1700
7: Manners, gjt*, 1390, 1391, 1416, 1424,
1446
T'. Stayhorn, i(>37
Hogau's Heirs v. ^\'clcker, 281, 531
Hoge :'. Hall, iSt\t
r'. Hojre, 1433, 1424, 1699, 1701, 1703
T'. Hollister, 1450
Ho-ell ;•. Ijudell, 204S
Hogg 7', Longsiretch, 2136
Hogg, Doe d., 7'. Taylor, 130S
Hoghton 7'. Hoghton, iSoi
Hogsbooni 7'. Hall. 1S72
Hngsett 7'. F.llis, 2ob^
Hogle 7', .Stewart, SS3
Hnit 7'. Russell, 2039
Hoitt 7'. Webb, 137^, 1412, 1433, M45. "r^'O,
1707
Hoke r, Henderson, 2334, 2320, 23,11
Hoker r*. Boggs, 646. 047. 103S
Holbrook r. American Ins. Co., 3089,3116
f. Bitton, 2015
f. Chamberlin, isa, 1224, 2013
r. Dickenson, 2120
f. Finney, 7^2, 70,;. 705. 700, 7S5, S05,
Si 7, S20, 1492, igio. 2357
r. Xicliol. 23tx>
Holconib 7'. Holcomb. 2149. ^155
Holcombe v. l^ikc, 401, 423
Holciafi 7'. King. 22o^
Holden f. Cox; 2272
7'. New York C^!; Frie l>ank, 1760
T'. Pike, Sio, 2097, 2153
7'. Pinncy. 1444, 1449
7*, ^tate. 1003
Holder x: Coates, 56, 57
T'. Taylor, 23^2
Holderby t*. Siutforth. iSja
Holderness r. Carmarthen. 24, 435
Holdfast 7'. Marten. 311, 312
7'. Morten, 202
Holdrich 7'. Holdrich, o>S, 944. gt'5
Holding f. Holding, v^;S
Holdridge r. (.'.illcspic, 170S, 19^1^, 1996, 30(;t;,
^l^S
Holdship 7'. Patterson, 2S4, 273, 500, 1674,
1675
Hole r. Rittei house. 517
T'. Thomas. 570
Holford 7'. T^unnett. 1067
7'. Hatch. UV3
Holifield 7'. Robinson. 16S7
7', White, 1245
Hollaik^ 7'. l^arnes, 1033
7', T'onis. 1 t;4o
t'. Ciliiens' Sav. Bank, 2095, ^137, 2160,
2l^2
7'. Criift. 445, ^(xi, 2101
r-. Fuller, 780. 1964
7', Hodgson, 103, 120, 122, 125. 126, 127
7'. Hoyt, 1041
7'. Mayor. 07^
HoUbrook 7'. Chamberlin, loiS
HoUenbeck 7'. McDonald, 38, 9S3. 3221. 2243
HoUey 7'. Glover, 7S5
7". Ha\v!c>', iSg7, 1899,
7'. MetcaU. 1334
Hollida z', Shoop. i('4r, 1642, 1652. 1634
Holliday r-. Camsell, 1246
7-. Cromwell, 2rg5, 2366,
c. Mai^hall, 1091
7'. Overton. 22S
Hollifield V. Stell. 415. 419
HolUmanr'. Smiili, 1445. 14(15
HolUngs 7'. Mead. 2344
Hollingsworth r-. Floyd, 2177
7'. Stennelt. i2tK). 1270, 1271, 127S, 12S4,
12I.JO
7'. Trueblood, 075
Hollis's Case, i 7S3
HoUis r. lUirns. 1327, 132S, 1329, 1330, 1340
„ ... ''■ I'^^ll; '--V- ;-(M. i35o. '354, i355
HoIhster7'. Sliaw. 183^
Hoilocherv. Holiocher. 1700
HoUoman 7'. Holloman. St>o, S64
H olio way t'. Brinkloy. 1:13^
?'. HoUoway, 1380, 1402
7' Sherman. isiS
Hollowell 7', Simon^son. 040
Holly 7'. Brown, 208, 113S, 1293, 1396
p. no]l\'. 22';i, 2250
Holman r. Hailev. 2i;7.'3i2S
f. Creagmlles, 1093
7'. llnlman, 849
T', Loynes, 76
Holmes* Case. 617
Holmes 7', Best, 1804, 1895
7'. Pilogg, 1031
7'. Hridgnian. 479
;'. Charleston ^lutual Fire Ins. Co., 1701
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxliii
Holmes r. Cleveland, 2303
v. CogluU, 4S7, 1S20, 1825, 1S40
V. Crowell. 2302
7'. Day. 1307, 1320, 1336, 1343
V. Field, 271, 2S9, 596, 636, 663, 664, 751,
757, 75S, 795i So2, 1093
z>. Fisher, 2033
z'. Fregh, 2052
V. Gardner, 2107
V, Goring, 2242
V. Grant, 2039, 2040, 2042, 2044, 2052,
2053. 2054
V. Holmes, K173. 1979
t'. Johnson, 5^2
V. Kring, S3 7
V. McGee, 714, 725
V. McGinly, 2105, 2107
«'. McMaster, 993
V. Mead, 154S
7; Old Colony R. Co., 1241, 1243
r', Pattison, 337
z'. Rerason. 367, 720, 2057, 22S8
z'. Seeley, 221S
z'. Seely, 1023
z'. Shepard, 1151
V. Tallada, 1430
z: Tremper, 105, loS, 124, 144
z'. Turners Falls Lumber Co., 215S,
2160
V. Williams, 340
Holridge V. Gillespie, 1769
Holroy r-. Marshall, 2017
Holsman zr. Abrams, 1315, 1317
:'. Boiling Spring Co., 2225
Holsmans z/. De Grey, 2262
Holt I'. Creamer, 2030
z'. Holt. logo
V, Rees, 102S
v. Sargent, 2206
Holt, Doe d., 7'. Harrocks, 607
Holthaus 7'. Hombostle, 1402
Holzderber v. Forrestal, 996
Home T. Home, 926
Home Life Ins. Co. z'. Sherman, 1127, 1167,
116S, 1 170, 1 172, 225S
Homeopatliic Rlut. Life Ins. Co. .-. Marshall,
2136
Home Protection of Northern Alabama t\
Caldwell, 631
Homer z\ Den ex d. Leeds, looi
z>. Homer, js%! 1^-^. i*J&S> 1690
z'. Shelton, 351
Homes z\ Burt, 1425
Homestead Cases, 13S0, 1512, 1513, 1517
Homestead Assoc, z'. Knslow, 1450, 1467
Hon 7'. Hon, 1652
Hone V. Van Schaick, 19S0
p. Woolsey, 1795
Honore z\ Bakewell, 2006, 2007, 200S
f. Hutcliings, 2043, 2054
V. Lamar Ins. Co.. 2113, 21 17
Honywood z'. Hoiiywood, 559, 560, 561
Ho'.izik z: Delngise. 123
Hoonberry z>. Harding, 297,298,336,499, 1560,
1700. 171-
Hood 7'. Hartshorn, 1051
zi. Hood, 76, 662, 771, 919
V. Mathis, 1213
7'. Oglander, 1627, 1633
Hoofnagle ?'. Anderson, 2304
Hook 7'. Mowre, 1626
Hooker 7-. Hooker, 0Q4, S16, 886
7'. New Haven & N. Co., 2327
Hooks z: Lee, 645
Hooper 7'. Cummings, 1849, 1850, 1S51, 1855,
iS'v. "072
V. Dwiiinell, 996, 12S3
V. Faniswcrtli, 1014, 1015
r. Henrv, 2^01.
v. Hooner, S65, 868
c Robinson, 631
V. Wilson, 2063
Hoopes 7'. Bailey, 2044
V. Carver, 2295
Hooton 7'. Holt, 997, 1283, 12S6, 1305
Hoots 7'. Graham, 731, 733, 734,735. 739. 74».
S3 4
Hoover t, Landes, 941
7'. Samaritan Society, 1828, 1829, 1830
V. United States, 1035
Hope 7'. Cason, 1291
7J. Johnson, 1605
V. Rusha, 415, 418
7'. Stone. 2009
Hope ex d. Brown 7'. Taylor, 306, 309
Hopewell 7'. Ackland, 307
Hopkins z'. Carey, 1579
?'. Dumas. 1649
7'. Frye, 671, 781
V. Gavrard, 2006
V. Gihnan, 10S6
V. Helmore, 2255
V. Hopkins, 1551, 1552, 1557, 1558, 1564,
17S2
7'. Myall, 1831
7'. Robinson, 2295
V. Stevenson, 2oiiS
7'. Threlkeld, 456, 464
7'. Toll, 19S1
7'. Ward, 1744, 2147
T*. Wolley, 217c), 21S0
V. Wooley, 2154
Hopkinson 7'. Dumas, 761, 763, 781, 788,827,
831, 15S0, 1622, 1646
Hopper 7'. Childs, 1211
V. Cummings, 1S61
V. Dwinnell, 1304
V. Hopper, S6S. 869
7'. Parkinson, 1497
Hopper, Den ex d., 7/. Demarest, 598, 603, 604,
614
Hoppock 7'. Ramsey, Sio
Horn 7'. Baker, 125
V. Cole, 2302
7'. Indianapolis Xat Ek., 2073, 2074,2171,
t'. Jones, 2149, 2151, 2152, 2171
7'. KeteUas, 1702,2045,2048
V. Taylor, 2222
V. Tufts. 1425, 1444
Hombeck z>. Westbrook, 266, 2356, 2361
Hornberger 7'. Hornberger, i686
Hornbrook 7'. Lucas, 2273
Hornby 7'. Houlditch, 2263
7>. MuCuUough, 2241
Home 7f. Howell, igoo
7'. Lyeth, 1(^109
Homer 7'. Den ex d. Leeds, 1003
7'. Dipple, 2343
7'. Horner, 753
T'. Swann, 1S44
7'. Watson, 91, g2. 2233, 2237
V. Zimmerman. 2156
Homsey z-. Casey, 935
Horser r'.Hoag. 22S9
Horsey v, Hoi-sey, 1308
Horsley 7'. Chaloner, 325
Horstman 7'. Gerger, 2147
7'. Gerker, 21 10
Horton z'. Cook, 435
7'. Cooley, 22'ii
7>. Horton, 288
7: McCoy, 94, 05
c. N. V. Cent. R. R. Co., 1138, 1139,
i'57
v. Sledge, 207. 2316
Horwitz 7'. Davis, 22OG
7'. Noriis, iSjy
Honvood 7'. West, 1.47, i6;,2
Hosea 7'. Jacobs, t(>y2
Hosford 7'. Ballard, 2262
7'. Merwin, 1975
7'. Nichols, 3^7, 720, 920, 2057, 205b, 22SS
V. Wright, 730
cxliv
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Hosier, Doe ex d., v. Hall, 1773
Hoskin V. Woodward, 132
Hoskins v. Litchdeld, 1407, 140S, 14931 i494>
1495, 1506
V. Rhodes, 1230, 1231, 2254
Hosmer v. Carter, 2015
V. Wallace, 2306, 2307, 2308
Hosser's Succession, 2282
Hoston V. Seeley, 839
Hot 7/. Master, [814
Hotchkiss V. Clifton Air Cure, 2161
V. Elting, 1808
Hotham v. East India Co., 1855
Hotley V. Scoft, 1040
Houble V. Volkening, 2131
Houck V. Ritter, 652, 670
V. Yates. 68
Hougan v. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 2230
Hough V. Bailey, 2027, 2034, 2095
V. Birge, 1276
V. City F. Ins. Co., 2113
•u. Osborne, 2106, 2111, 2147
Houghtaling v. Houghtaling, 2213
Houghton, /i^/Jari'^, 1173
Houghton V. Cliicago R. Co., 69
V. Hapgood, 679, 680, 689
V. Houghton, g6i, 962, 1957
V. Kendall, 234
V. Lee, 1503, 1697
V. Mfgrs. Ins. Co., 21 15
House V. Burr, 2262, 2263, 2264
V. Hoose, 96, 127, 510, 5ir, 802, 803, 8r8,
1646
V. Jackson, 711, 712, 761, 779, 780, 815
V. Palmer, 211
Houser v. Lament, 2039
Houston V. Brown, 587, 588, 670
V. Farris, 1159, 1212, 1220'
V. Hughes, 288, 289, 1594, 1711
V. Lafee, 2226
V. Laffes, 2212
V. McCluney, 1893
V. Newsome, 1393
V. Nowland, 1750, 1794
•V. Smith, 711, 712, 759,760, 761
V. Spruance, 1855
z>. Winter, 1394
Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Winter, 1445
Houts V, Showalter, 46
Houx V. Seat, 144
Hovell V. Barnes, i6og
Hovenden v. Annesley, 601, i6i5,"r785
V. Knott, 2172
Hovey v. Chase, 986, 1886
V. Hill, 2iog
V. Hobson, 986, 987, 1034, 2345
How z/. Broom, 1173
V. Kennett, 1301, 1306
V. Stevens, 39
V. Vigures, 1996
V. Whitfield, 181S
Howard v, Aiken, 1782
V. Ames, 2163
•V. Carpenter, 993, 1350, 1354, 1355
V. Carusi, 1627
V. Cavendish, 776, 778, 859
V. Chase, 2125
V. Davis, 2x63
V. Dill, 2273
V. Donohue, 1897
V. Doolittle, 1054, 1175, 1197
V. Fessenden, 141, 2021
V. Ellis, 1103, 1184
V. First Parish of North Bridgewater, 31,
32, 35. 36, 38,40* 83
•V. Francis, 936
V. Gresham, 2129
V. Handy, 2149
■V. Harris, 2051, 2068
V. Henderson, 297, 298, 1560
•v. Hillbreth, 2095
V. Hcey, 1199
Howard v. Hopkins, 1872
•u. Houghton, 2077
V. Howard, 2128
V. Logan, 1461
V. Merriam, 1137, 1252, 1263, 1266, 1269,
i27i,r,i284, 1293, 1294, 1322
V. Miner, 1S65, 1S66
V, Moale, 468
V. Norfolk, 372, 1212, 1226
zi. Priest, 786, 824, 825, 1957, i960, 1963
V. Reedy, 2296
zj. Rhodes, 1600
V. Robinson, 199S
^^ Runsen, 2270
Howard v. Terry, 1223, 1259, 1282, 1290, 1292
V. Wemsley, 1311
Howard Co. v. Kyte, 1184
Howard College v. Amory, 1719
Howard Fire Ins. Co, v. Bruner, 2116
V. Chase, 1667, 1668
Howard Ins. Co. v. Halsey, 1777, 2022, 2120,
2154, 2179, 2180
Howe, Matter of, 1355
Howe V. Adams, 1452, 1483, 1514, 1515
V. Batchelder, 51, 53, 55
V. Burr, 1320
V. Howe, gS6, 1032
V. Jackson, 787
V. Lemon, 2072, 2176
11. Lewis, 2r28, 2129
•u. Russell 2037
V. Scannett, 1025
•V. Starkweather, 42, 817
ZK Stevens, 31, 32, 36,38
V. Wilder, 2134
HowcU V. Barnes, 181 1
V. City of Buffalo, 2335
V. Earp, 225
V. George, i486
V. Harvey, 1244
V. Howell, 1277, 1646
ZI. McCork, 2225
V. McCrie, 1490
V. Price, 1994, 2010, 2082
ZI. Ripley, 1027
z). Schenck, 45, 47, 102S, 1209
ZK WoUfort, 485
Howell, Den ex d., w. Ashmore, 1220
Howell, Den ex d., v. Howell, 1293, 1294, 1295,
1296, 1297
Howeth V. Anderson, 1181
Howey v. Goings, 661, 662
Howland -u. Coffin, 1071, 1072, 1074, 1075, 1077,
1118
zf, Howland, 2
ZI. Shurtleff, 2093, 2095, 2146
Howton 7', Frearson, 2220
Hoxie ZI. Carr, 825
zf. Ellis, 1985
ZI. Hoxie, 1614
Hoxsie v. Ellis, 717, 731, 732
Hoxton ZI Archer, 403, 404
Hoy V. Eramhall, 2153, 2166
z). Bramhalt, 2068, 2069
z}. Gronoble, 1245, 1247
V. Hoh, 1069, 1098
V. Sterrett, 2233, 2292
Hoye V. Swan, 211, go8
Hoyle V. Cazabat, 2128
V. Jones. 325
V. Plattsburgh & M. R. Co., 98, 112, 113,
20i8, 2019, 2021
V. Stowe, 1026, 1031, 1925
Hoysradt zj. Holland, 2150
Hoyt V. Bradley, 2032
V. Davis, 892
z}. Hillon, 2335
z>. Home, 1519
V. Howe, 1386, 1442, 1501, 1502, 1504,
^»5'8
z>. Jaques, ]8r6, 1832
V. Kimball, 261, 1&67, 1873
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxlv
Hoyt V. Martense, 2016
Hubbard v. Bagshaw, 105
V. BurrelT, 1623, 1765
ZK Chenango Bank, 233
V. Coolidge, 1758
V. Cummings, 2011
z'. Elmer, 1832
•u. Goodwin, 218
7'. Harrison, 2106, 2111
V. Hubbard, 936, 1154, i860, 1868, 1980,
2031, 2033
V. Jarrell, 1758
V. Knous, 902
V. Morton, 829
V. Ricart, igSo
V. Savage, 2029, 2030
V. Shaw, 545, 1223, 2090
V. Smith, 1277
V. Town, 2223
Hubbell V. Broadwell, 909
V- Canady, 1386, 1407, 1408, 1431, 1441
V. East Cambridge Five Cent Savings
Bank, 106, 109, 122, 132
V. Medbury, 1621, 1781
V. Moulson, 800, 1993, 208s, 2184, 2185
V. Sibley, 2147, 2175
Hubby z'. Nubby, 2125
Hubee v. Hubee, 516
Huber's Appeal, 1655
Huber v. Huber, 648
V. Reiley, 2324
Huckabee v. Billingsley, 1712, 1722, 1760, 1778,
180 1
Huckins v. Straw, 2063
Huddleston v. Lazenby, 216
Hudnall v. Burkle, 719
Hudnit V. Nash, 2148
Hudson V. Coppard, 1184
V. Dismukes, 199
V. Poindexter, 2633
V. Porter, 1205
V. Putney, 2180
V. Revett, 2339, 2340
V. Steere, 711, 776
V. Treat, 1945
V. Wheeler, 1263, 1269, 1293
Hudspeth w. Harrison, 1430
Huebsch v. Scheel, 520,810
Huebschmann v. McHenry, 61
Huerstel v. Lorillard,
HuS V. Earl, 1620
V. Farwell, 2155
V. McAuley, 54, 55, 2214, 2240, 2313
Huffell V. Armistead, 1311, 1327, 1330, 1342,
1343
Huffman v, McDaniel, 1003
V. Starks, 1010, 1013
Hufrman v. Starks, 2259
Huger V. Dibble, 1301, 1303, 1315
Huggins 7- Hall, 214S
Hugh V. Eirge, 1202
Hughes V. Blackwell, 2095
V. Boyd, 271
V. Brown, 1660
V. Carne, 1985, 1986
V. Chatham, 1273, 1288, 1289
V. Devlin, 1980
V. Edwards, i860, 1863, 1995, 2000, 2014,
2027, 2037, 2042, 2046, 2048, 2049, 2078,
2094, 2095, 2146, 2168, 2174
V. Graves, 2155, 2299
V. Holliday, 1908
V. Hughes. igo8
V. Kearney, 852, 2008
V. Lane, 909
V. Palmer, 1058, 1138
V. Parker, 999
V. Patterson, 2149
w. Providence, 2206
V. Robotham, 1165
V. Shaw, 795
V. Sheaff, 2043, 2044, 2053
10
Hughes V, Vanstone, 1152
V. Watson, 905, 968
V, Watt, 1 159, 1502
V. Wood, 1066, 1245
7/. Worley, 2030, 2140
Hughes, Den. ex. d., v. Shaw, 914
Hughlett V Harris, 573, 574, 577
V. Hughlett, 1735
Hugley V. Gregg. 764
Huguein v. Baseley, 1801
Hugunin v. Cochrane, 832
V. Dewey, 1481
Hukill V. Myers, 1151
Hulburt V. Emerson, 405
Hulett V. Inlow, 1024, 1919, 1941, 1945, 195c
V. Nngent, 1310
Hulick V. Scovil, 2347
Huiings V. Guthie, 2120
Hull z/.Hull, 662, 1359
V. Culver, 488
Hull, Doe d., V. Greenhill, 1579
Hull, Doe d., V. Wood, loSo, 126^, 1306, 1320,
1325
Hullenbeck v, ^McDonald, 225
Hulme V. Tenant, 1373, 2012
Hulseman v. Griffiths, 2268
Hulsey v. Hulsey, 661
Hultain v. Munigle, 1274
Humas v. Scruggs, 931
Humberston v. Humberstou, 1693
Humble v. Bowman, 337
V. Langston, 1073
Hume V. Beale, 1661
V. Gossett, 1407, 1503
V. Horn, 645
V. Tenant, 1836
V. Taylor, 1044
Humes v. Scruggs, 792, 853, 915
V. Providence Washington Ins. Co., 631
Hummer v. Schott, 2008
Humphrey v. Brown, 1018
V. Phinney, 823, 841, 843
V. Wait, 1197
Humphreys z/. Brogden, 2231, 2232,2233,2234
V. Frank, 1317
V. Harrison, 576
z/. Hurd, 1999, 2063, 2094
V. Newman, 2121
Humphries v. Brogien, 64, 92, 93, 94, 199
V. Humphries, 539, 540, 1256, 1261, 1275
1281, 1324
V. Hoffman, 2296, 2298
V. Rogden, 66
V. Smith, 1323
Humphries, Den d., v. Humphries, 1303
Hungerford v, Anderson, 308
Hungunin v. Cochrane, 832
Hunnewell v. Taylor, igSi, 1982
Hunsucker v. Smith, 801
Hunt v. Acre, 733, 736, 2146
V. Adams, 1701
V. Allgood, 336
z'. Amidon, 1074, iioi
V. Bailey, 1131, 1133, 1315, 1316, 1348
V. Bass, 1756, 1766, 1767
V. Bay State Iron Co., g6, 97, 116, 141,
142
V. Benson, 825
V, Browne, 1185
V. Coison, 1289
V. Comstock, g8i. 12S4
V. Cope, 1174
V. Crawford, 1756
V. Danforth, 1075
V. Ellison, 2175
V. Frazier, 2331
V. Hunt, 2, 806, 808, 8og, S.10, 1464, 1580,
2016, zoqi, 2094, 2095, 2096, 2097,
2102, 2321, 2363
V. Johnson, 647, 2315, 2358
V. Mattliews, 795
V. Maynard, 2184
cxlvi
TABLE OF CASES.
Rvferences are
to pages.
Hunt V. McConnell, 2155
V. Morton, 1131, 1135, 1254, 1255, 1319
1337
V. Moore, 1646
V. Mullanphy, 105, 108, 112, 116, 122, 135,
138, 144, 145
V. Rousmanier, 1804, 1830, 1840, 1843
V. Stiles, 2157
V. Thompson, 662, 771, 920, 1072, 1115,
1717. 1757.2257
7;. Watkins, 47, 509, 510, 511, 537, 539
V. Wing, 1245
V. Wolfe, 1 132
V. Wright, 1858, 1972, 1973
Hunter, Matter of, i486
Hunter z/. Bilyen, 1649
1/. Chrisman. 2298
V. Dennis, 2170
V. Fisher, 1757
V. GalUers, 1141
V. Jones, 1158, 1208, 1209
V. Macklaw. 2149
V. Martin, 1963
V. Osterhoudt, 1156, 1861, 1868
V. Parker, 1042
V. Potts, 368, 719, 753, 2057, 2288
V. Silvers, 1052
7f. Stembridge, 1629, 1631
V. Watsou, 292
V. Whitfield, 2272
V. Whitworth, 592, 593, 620, 623
Huntington z/. Allen, 2298
V, Asher, 2212, 2214
V. Legroes, 1947
V. Russell, J2I, 549, 553, 564, 1153
7/. Smith, 2104
Huntzinger v. Philadelphia Coal Co., 42
Kurd V. Cass, 585, 588, 670, 679, 1514
V. Coleman, 2174
V. Curtis, 1069, 1070
V. Cushing, 47:;, 477, 478, 481, 521
V. Grant, S61, 864, 867, 870
7/. Miller, 2271
zi. Robinson, 2027, 2029
V. Whitsett, 1315, 1316, 1327, 1329, 1331
Hurdle v. Outlaw, 2
Hurlbert v. Post, 992, 1169
Hurlburt v. Emerson, 414, 415
Hurlbut w. Post, 1128
Hurleman v. Hazlett, 708
Hurley v. Bannan, 2050
V. Estes, 1994
Hurly V. Bamed, 2048
Hum V. Keller, 2333
V. Soper, 2349
Huron College v. Wheeler, 2109
Hurrell, Doe d., v. Burrell, 309
Hurst V. Bell, 2020
V. McNeil, 1298, 1558, 1559
V. Rodney, 1075, 1117, 2262, 2263, 2264
V. Wilson, 2099
Hurtt v. Fisher, 76
Huss V. Stephens, 214, 672
Hussey v. Jewett, 1031
Husted*s Appeal, 840, 841
Huston "u. Curl, 1947
V. Markley, 1594, 1963
V. Neil, 824
V. Seeley, 733, 735
7'. Springer, i8gi
V. Wickersham, 520
Hutching^s 7/. Carleton, 8og
7;. Dixon, 645, 653
V. Heywood, 298, 299, 1558, 1579, 1746
V. Hutchings, 759
V. Kimmell, 596, 751, 756
7'. Lee, 1616
7'. Lowe, 2308
Hutchins z'. Byrnes, 2013
V. Carleton, 2103, 2111
V. King, 54, 55, 2015, 2022, 20S0
V. Masterson, 103, 107,116, 117, 135, 20S0
Hutchins 71. Shaw, 129
V. State, 817
V. State Bank, 42, 43, 1835
Hutchinson. Re, 1591, 1824
Hutchinson's Case, 641
Hutchinson 71, Brown, 1033
V. Chase, 1969
7>. Copestake, 2246
7'. Dearing, 2064
V. Ford, 2020
V. Kay, 109. 120
V. Lloyd, 1714
V. Lord, 1714, 1724
V. Potter, 1274
V. Tindall, 1592
Hutchinson's Case v. Bradley's Case, 641
Hutchman 7). Waltam, 1993
Huth V. Carondelet, 1029, 1158
Huttemeier v. Albro, 2241
Hutton 7>. Benkard, 1807
V. Duey, 1561
V. Moore, 2007
Huxford V. Milligan, 397
Huxtep V. Brooman, 307
Huyck V. Andrews, 2211, 2215
Huyler v. Atwood, 2070, 2072
Huyser 7/. Chase, 1283, 1327, 1329, 1335, 1336
Hyatt 7/. Griffiths, 1316
V. James, 2059
V. Pugsley, 2297
V. Spearman, 1496, 1504
V. Wood, 1285, 1351, 1356
Hyde v. Barney, 686
V. Cookson, 62
71. Goodnow, 2056
V. Hyde, 1464
V. Hyden, 1648, 1700
V. Olds, 1794
V. Skinner, 1009
V. Stone, 1246, 1904, 1905, 1969
V. Warren, 2159
V. Woods, 74, 254, 274
Hydraulic Works Co. v. Orr, 199
Hyman ?/. Devereaux, 2159, 2160
V. Devereux, 2105, 2107
7). Kelly, 1999
Hyndman v. Hyndman, 2055, 2163, 2168
Hynes v, McDermott, 596
V. Redington, 1721
I.
laege 7*. Bossieux, 836, 838, 839, S61, 862, 882,
891, 909
Ibbetson 71. Beckwith,zo3
Iddings V. Bruen, 1769
V. Nagle, 1205, 1207
Ide V. Harwood, 3
V. Ide, 319, 322, 415, 416
Idle v. Cook, 372, 40S
Iggulden V. May, 1008, 1009, 1098
Iglehart ?'. Crane, 2183
Iken V. Olenick, 1378, 1387, 1388, 1390, 1445
llderton v. Ilderton, 751
lies V. Martin, 1703
Illingworth v. Miltonberger, 1151
Illinois & Mich. Canal Co. v. Chicago, 197
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Thompson, 2261
Illinois Midland R. Co. v. People, loig
Illinois F. Ins. Co. v. Station, 2114
Illinois R. Co. v. Indiana A. R. Co., 2361
Imboden 71. Hunter, 1770
Imlay 7/. Huntingdon, 1373, 1562, 1608, 1694
Imperial Fire Co. 71. Dunham, 2113
Importers & Traders' Ins. Co. v. Christie, 1143
Inches v. Leonard, 2093, 2094, 2146
Indiana Ins. Co. v. Coquillard, 2116
Indianapolis Manufacturers & Carpenters*
Union v. Cleveland C. C. R. Co.,
nil, 1121, 1122, 1141
Ingalls V. Morgan, 2154, 2179, 2180
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxlvii
Tngals V. Plamondon, 2235
Inge 7'. Boardman, 936
Ingersoll v. Ing^rsoll, 665
V. Sargeant, 2253
21. Sargent, 2262
V. Sawyer, 2i6g
V. Sei-geant, 59, 251, 1071, 2253
Ingham z>. White, 646
Inglebright v. Hammond, 1209, i6gS
Inglehart v. Arminger, 2007
V. Grain, 2153
V. Crane, 2180
Inglis V, Trustees of Sailors' Snug Harbor,
Ingraham v. Baldwin, 986, 987, 1148, 1213, 1309,
2345
21. Drennell, 224S
■V. Edwards, 1041
V. Fraley, 1593
V. Hutchinson, 2223
V. Kirkpatrick, 1795
7/. Wheeler, 1795
Ingram v. Little, 2339
f . Morris, 778
Inhabitants of Cheshire v. Inhabitants of
Shutesbury, 2021
Inhabitants of Reading v. Inhabitants of
Weston, 2046, 2047
Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Inhabitants of Stow,
202
V. Jones, 61, 62, 63
Inhabitants of West Roxbury v. Stoddard, 70,
71
Inhabitants of Windham v. Portland, 737
Inmau z/. Jackson, 335, 1810,
Innes v. Crawford, 1925,
Innis Z'-. Campbell, 522
/« re Commercial Bulletin Co., 2263
/« re Fowler, 2260
/« re Frith, 1974
J« re Rensselaer & S. R. Co., 2237
/n re Locke, 2253
/« re Roper, 1836
Insurance Co. v. Addicks, 206S
V. Scott, 120 r
International Life Assoc. Co. v. Commissioners
of Texas, 1554
International Life Ins. Co. &. Scales, 2123
Inwood V. Twine, 1022
Ireland v. NichoUs, 1058, 1155, 1156
V. Woolman, 2153
Ireson v. Wenn, 1250
Ironsides z*. Ironsides, 633
Irvin's Appeal, 291
Irvin V. Armistead, 711
V. Greever, 682, 699, 1640
V. Wood, irgg, 1202
Irvine v. Dunham, 1659
V. Hanlin, 1894, 1895
V. Irvine, 2301
7J. Marshall, 1585, 1639, 1652, 1661
•V. Scott, 1304
V. Sullivan, 1628
Irving z/. Richardson, 2089
Irvins zi. Irvins, 865
Irwin's Appeal, 1734
Irwin V. Bank of United States, 59, 251
V. Govode, 479, 494, 495, 561, 811, 812
V. Cox, 1336, 1337
V. Dixion, 572
v. Dunwoody, 414
■V. Ivers, 778, 1610,11638, 1641, 1696, 1697,
i6g_9
V. Lewis, 1499-
Isaac V. Clarke, 1213
Isaacs -ZI. Gearheart, 1309
Jsenliart v. Brown, 936
Isham V. Bennington Iron Co., 2013, 2342, 2366
V. Delaware & L. R. Co., 1792
V. Iron Co.. 42
Isherwood v. Oklknow, lo^o
Isom 71. First National Bank, 1777
Israel v. Israel, 1894
1st V. Morgan, 1292
Ivas, Re, iitt
Ive 7', King, 1884
Iverson v. Shorter, 1511
Ives, Ke, 1114
Ives V. Ashley, 1776
V. Davenport, 183 1, 1832
V. Ives, 1282, 1356
V. Mills, 1461, 1490
V. Sawyer, 1349. 2346
V. Williams, 1131, 1317
Ivey V. Lalland, 2056
Ivie 7J. Ivie, 491
Ivimey 71. Stocker, 2226. 2229, 2244
Ivory V. Burns, 1592, 1797
Izard V. Bodine, 1894
Izon V. Gordon, 1343
V. Gorton, 1083, 1177, 1179, 1200, 1254,
2270
Jack V. Dougherty, 2348, 2349
V. Nabor, 136
Jackling, Denn d, v.. Cartwright, 1334
Jackman 71. Hallock, 2007
7'. Ringland, 1647
Jacks V. Dyer, 718, 733, 733, 739
Jackson 71. Adams, 215
V. Aldrich, 1269, 1284, 1285, 1293
V. Allen, J058, i86r, 1862, 1868, 2364
V. Andrews, 564, 2322, 2331
V. Ashburner, 991, 993
7'. Babcock, 338, 2213
7'. Bain, 2272
V. Ball, 535
V. Kateman, 1613
V. Bard, 2353
V. Beach, 236
V. Berner, 2296, 2297
7>. Billinger, 415
V. Birner, 2297
w. Blodget, 2107
V. Blodgett, 2111
V. Bowen, 2029, 2303
V. Bradt, 973, 1255, 1261, 1269, 1271, 1278,
1293, 1320
V. Brown, 2014, 2016
71. Brownson, 555, 557, 558, 2000
V. Brush, 1625
V. Bryan, 1256, 1271, 1280, 1299, 1319,
1337
z/. Bull, 340, 342, 343
71. Burtis, 1813
,7* Cairnes, 1364
V. Carswell, 1999
V. Carry, 1556, 1559
V. Catlin, 1543
•v. Cator, t;64
V. Churchill, 865, 866, 867, 868, 915, 916,
917, 918
V. Chrysler, 1868
V. Clark. "1755
V. Cleveland, 1646
V. Coleman, 1815
V. Collins, 1144, 1154
V. Cooley, 13 14
v. Coombs, 1023
V. Crafts. 2 13 1
V. Crcigiiton, 1380
V. Crysler, 1861
71. Cuerder 1149
V. Davis, T149, 1217, 1348
7>. Deese, 1980
V. Delacroix, looi
V. Delancey, 2065
V. Delancy, 202, 307, 311, 1149
7J. Dewitt, 829, 2074, 2182
V. Dillon, 2318, 2348
v, Dobbin, 1223
cxlviii
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Jackson v. Dominick, 2060
V, Dubois, 2077
V. Dunsbagh, 236, 237, 830, 1569, 2318,
2319, 2320
V. Dysling, 2247
V. Eddy, 1 128, 1168, 1 169
V. Edwards, 726, 746, 747, 886, 887, 893,
1808, 1809
V. Ellis, 1273
V. Estey, 2335 ^
V. Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Com-
pany, 729, 1092
V.
Feller, 1648, 1653
V.
Ferris, 1730, 1810, 1814, 1843
V.
Fitzsimmons, 217
V.
French, 1270
V.
Gardner, 1160
V.
Gamsey, 202
V.
. Given, 1663
V.
Graham, 202
V.
. Groat, 255
V.
. Harder, 1976
V.
. Harris, 332. 34^, 342, 343
V.
. Harrison, 1060, 1061, 1123, 1138, 1150,
V.
I '54, "55. 1204
V.
. Harsen, 970, ggo, 1108
V.
. Hartwell, 1540, 1555
V.
. Hathaway, 89
V.
Hendricks, 359
V.
. Henry, 2159
V.
. Hinman, 1222
V
. Hixon, 865, 878
V.
. Hobbhouse, 252, 257
V.
. Hodges, 652
V.
. Holloway, 1368
V.
. Howe, 207, 209
•V.
. Hubble, 2322, 2323
V.
. Hughes, 1266, 1306, 1313, 1337
. Hull, 2077
V.
V.
. Ingraham, iS, 195, ig6
V.
. Jackson, 1633, 1640, 1884
V.
. Jansen, 1810
•V.
. Johnson, 693
V.
. Joy, 212, 2295
. King, 1034, 2345
V.
. Kipp. 764, 780, 1060
V.
, Kniffen, 234
V.
. Lawrence, 2168, 2170
V.
. Leonard, 2299
V.
. Littell, 2301
V.
. Lodge, 2045, 2050
V.
. Losee, 2152
•u.
. Lunn, 216, 2014, 2347
V,
. Massachusetts Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,
V.
2115, 2116, 2118
v.
. McCall, 517
•V.
. McConnell, 1024, 1940
V.
. McKenny, 237, 2319, 2320, 2358
V.
. McLeod, 1310, 1355
V.
. Mancius, 1142
V.
. Martin, 340, 342
•u.
. Matsdorf, 1640, 1647, 1740, 1764, 1777
V.
. Mayo, 103 1
•u.
. Mersereau, 2099
V.
. Merrill, 305* 307, 309. 312.331, 335, 34°,
V.
341, 342, 1770
Jackson
. Meyers, 281, 285, 477, 521, 522
Jackson
. Miller, 1271, 1290
Jackson
. Moore, 1723
Jackson
. Morse, 1614, 1635, 1638, 1641, 1648
Jackson
. Mowrey, 2260
Jackson
. Newton, 211
V.
. Neeley, 2359
Jackson
. Newcastle, 2248
Jackson
. Odell, nog, 11 68
Jackson
. O'Donaghy, 874
Jackson
. Parker, 202, 975, 2295
. Parkhurst, 1346, 1347, 1350
Jackson
. Patterson, 1133, 1135, 1316
Jackson
. Pesked, 553
Jackson
, Phillips, 1685
Jackson
. Phipps, 1016, 2034
Jackson
Jackson
V. Pierce, 1261, 1713, 1742
Pixley, 517
Porter, 2296
Post, 2364
Price, 517
Richards, 2045
Robbins, 317, 319, 337, 33*
Robins, 1S15
Rogers, 209, 1145, 1266, 1273, 1280,
1286
RounesviUe, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 83
Rowland, 1149
Salmon, 1134, 1254, 1315, 1318, i334
Sample, 1287
Schauber, i6og, 1663
Schoonmaker. 210, 2338, 2355
Scliultz, 245. 267
Scissam, 1223
Sebring, 2316
Sellick, 605
Sharp, 212, 2295
Shauber, 2094
Sheldon, 2353
Shelton, 1423, 1424, 1505
Shepard, 2335
Schultz, 263
Silvernail, 255, 1204
Slyck, 1707
Smith, iSgS
Spear, 1217
Sprague, 2357
Staats, 322, 340
Stackhouse, 2129
Stautts, 237
Stephens, 2295
, Sternbergh, 161 5
, Stevens, 1643, 1940, 1952
Stoats, 2319
Swart, 237
, Thomas, 2296
Tibbits, 1897, 1917
Todd, 2343
Topping, 266, 555, 564, 565, 1139, i8s9,
1862
Torrence, 1949
Trullinger, 2211
Van Zandt, 227, 228, 401, 471
Veeder, 1807
, Vincent, 970, 1140
, Walker, 1747
, Walsh, 176S
, Warren, 1998, 2076, 2157
, Waters. 18, 2297
Welden, 1149
. Wells, 533
Westerfieid, 267
, Wheat, 2295. 2296, 2297
Whedon, 1148, 1213
Whitbeck, 1915
Willard, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2107
. Williard, 2103, 2104
Wilsey, 1269, 1293, 1299, 1319, 1344.
, Winne, 752
, Wood, 517, 2094, 2174, 2318
, Woodman, 209
d. Henderson v. Davenport, 1843
d. Van Vechten v. Sill, 2047
ex d. Allen v. Florence, 2318
exd, Anderson 71. McLeod, 1350
ex d. Ballou v. Campbell, 2101
ex d. Barclay v. Blodgett, 2099
Hopkins, 2097
ex d. Bartolmew v. Hughes, 1307
ex d. Bauers v. Crafls, 1869
ex d. Rayard v. Blodget, 2101
ex d. Beekman v. Sellick, 600, 602, 603,
612, 613, 806
ex d. Benson v. Matsdorff, 830
exd. Benton v. Langhhead, 1076, 1269
ex d. Blanchard 7k Allen, 1155, 1156
ex d. Bleecker v. Whitford, 1213, 1223
ex d. Bogert v. Schauber, 1806, 1810
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxlix
Jackson ex d. Bradstreet v. Huntington, 211,
212
Jackson ex d. Pratt v. Tibbitts, 1913, 1914, 1916
Jackson ex d. Erayton v, Burchin, 9S5, 986
Jackson ex d. Brouck 71. Crysler, 1861
Jackson ex d. Brown v. Hininan, 1148
Jackson ex d. Browne v. Hinman, 114S
Jackson ex d. Bush v. Coleman, 338
Jackson ex d. Cadwallader v. Walsh, 2163
Jackson ex d. Caldwell v. King, 986
Jackson ex d. Campbell v. HoTloway, 1025
Jackson ex d. Church v. Brownson, 543, 544, 806
z>. Miller, 1256, 1344. 1807
Jackson ex d. Clark v. O'Douaghy, 717, 718,
834
Jackson ex d. Clows 7/. Vanderheyden, 718,
733, 736. 739. 1215
Jackson ex d. Colden i'. Brownell, 1238
Jackson ex d. Colton v. Harper, 1213, 1220,
1222, 1223
Jackson ex d. Corilandt v. Parkhurst, 1354
Jackson ex d. Culverhouse z'. Beach, 1657
Jackson ex d. Curtis v, Bronson, 2100, 2101,
21 II
Jackson ex d. Davy v. De Walts, 1223
Jackson ex d. Dunbar v. Todd, 1031
Jackson ex d. Erwin v. Moore, 514, 1588, 1590,
1923
Jackson ex d. Gansevoort v. Lunn, 1656, 1657
Jackson ex d. Gillespy v. Woolsey, 517
Jackson ex d. Gouch v. Wood, 501
Jackson ex d. Gratz v. Catlin, 1544
Jackson ex d. Hammond v. Veedcr, T823
Jackson ex d. Hardeiiburgh v. Schoonmaker,
489, 514, 630
Jackson ex d. Harris v. Harris, 536
Jackson ex d. Haverly v. French, 1309
Jackson ex d. Herrick v. Babcock, 302, 306, 311,
1815
Jackson ex d. Hopkins z>. Leek, 2318
Jackson exd. Houseman v. Sebring, 2316,
2318
Jackson ex d. Hudson </. Alexander, 2318,
2360
Jackson ex d. Hull v. Babcock, 2212
Jackson exd. Hunt v. Luquiere, 535
Jackson ex d. Jadwin v. Joy, 518
Jackson ex d. Jones v. Striker, 518
Jackson ex d. King v. Burts, 1843
Jackson ex d. Limerick t. Voorhis, 2095
Jackson ex d. Livingston v. Bryan, 1146, 1269
V. Delancy, 2084, 2085, 2104
V. Kipp, 1 155
V. Krisselbrack, 993
exd. Locksell v, Wheeler, 1146, 1150,
1269
ex d. Loucks v. Churchill, 940, 944,
945, 946, 955, 965
exd. Ludlow v. Meyers, 531, 532,
1556, 1557. 1559. 1566
ex d. Mackey v. Salter. 2075, 2095
exd. Marritt v. Gumaer, 2345
ex d. Martin v. Pratt, 2004
ex d. McCrackin 71. Wright, 829
ex d. McCraev. Mancius, 4S9, 497, 501,
5M- 515. 576, 744
Dunlap, 1016
ex d. Merritt v. Gumaer, 986
ex d Murphy v. Van Hoesen, 496, 499,
502
ex d. Newkirk v. Embler, 533
ex d, Norton 7/. Sheldon, 1156
Willard, 2101, 2111
ex d. Ostrander v. Rowan, 1283,
1298
ex d. Pearson v. Housel, 2, 305, 307,
308,309, 310
ex d. Phillips v. Aldnch, 1296
ex d, Pintard v. Bodle, 1019
ex d. Randall v. Davis, 2132
ex d. Rosevelt v. Stackhouse, 2132
ex d. Ruggles v. Martin, 341
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
"05,
13
Jackson ex d. Russell ?/. Rowland, 1148, 1220,
134S
Jackson exd. Sagoharie zk Dobbin, 1213
Jackson ex d. Salisbury v. Fish, 2318
Jackson ex d. Saunders v. Caldwell, 2318
Jackson ex d. Schaick v. Davis, 1150
V. Vincent, 48S
Jackson ex d. Schuyler v. Corliss, 1056,
1113
Jackson ex d. Seelye v. Morse, 1356, 1635
Jackson ex d. Shaw z>. Spear, 1160
Jackson ex d. Sitzer v. Wallermire, 712
Jackson ex d. Smith zi. Adams, 672, 673, 1657
V. Stewart, 1213, 1268, 1272
Jackson ex d. Stansbury 7>. Farmer, 1356
Jackson ex d. Stevens zi. Silvernail, iio4j
v. Stevens, 1074, 1930
Jackson ex d. Stewart ?'. Kingsley, 1283
Jackson ex d. Stoutenburg ?'. Murray, 518
Jackson ex d. Suffern 7/. McConnell, 1024, 1930,
1931. 1933' 1945
Jackson ex d. Swartwout zl Johnson, 489, 513,
51:7. 589. 590. 592, 593. 598,602,603,
604, 605, 607, 608, 612, 614,621,622,
623, 624, 629, 630, 602, 2291
Jackson ex d. Ten Eyck z>. Richards, 48S, 1016
Jackson ex d. Totten v. Spell, 71S, 733, 734, 736,
739- 741
Jackson ex d. Trowbridge -u. Dunsbagh, 1566,
20S4, 2120. 2358
Jackson ex d. Van Allen 71. Rogers, 1270
Jackson ex d. Van Cortlandt v. Parkhurst, 1270,
1271. 1355
Jackson ex d. Van Denburg t, Rradt, 1270, 1271
Jackson ex d. Van Rensellaer v. Andrew, 565
V. Collins, 488, 1146, 1148
Jackson ex d. Van Schaick 7>. Davis, jio8
v. Vincent, 1140, 11441 im*^' 1^49
Jackson ex d. X'iely?/. Guerden, 1273
Jackson exd. Wadworth 7'. Wendell, 501
Jackson ex d. Wallace v. Carpenter, 985, 986,
1030, 1 05 1
Jackson ex d. Walsh v. Colden, 2120
Jackson ex d- Webber t. Hareen. 981, 2314
Jackson ex d. Weidman 7/. Hubble, 1074
Jackson ex d. Weldon 7' Harrison, 1104, 1107,
1155
Jackson ex d. Wells v. Wells, 536
Jackson ex d. AVhitbeck v. Deyo, 1282
Jackson ex d. White z>. Cary, 1557
Jackson ex d. Wliittick v. Deigo, 1309
Jackson ex d. Williams ?'. Miller, 1108, 1113,
114S. 1348, 1586, 1638, 1645, i6g6
Jackson ex d. Wills v. Stiles, 1148, 1213,1218
Jackson ex d. Winthrop z'. Ingraham, 2276
Jackson ex d. V/ood z'. Salmon, 1 135, 1307
7'. Swart, 1063, 2316, 2319, 2320, 2362
Jacob V. Rice, 634
V. State, 706
Jacobs V. Allard, 2225
V. Miller, i9r9, 1932
7'. Turpin, 2155
Jacomb 7/. Harwood, 1021
Jacoway ?/. Gault, 2037, 2364
V. McGarrah, 718, 737, 838
Jacques z'. Edgell, 1766
V. Ennis, 630, 949, 652
V, M. E. Church, 2012
V. Short, 1075, 2262, 2359
Jacquith v. Hudson, 1872
Jaffe V. Hr.rteau, 1054, 1066, mo, 1126, 1175
v. Skae, 2257
Jaggers v. Estes, 282
Jakques 7/. Millar, 999
Jamaica 7*. Hart, 1139
Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corp. v. Chandler,
283, 969, 2211, 2245
James' Claim, 416
James v. Allen, 1638, 1683
V. Bion, 2i6g
7/, Cowing, 1703
V. Crawford, 3304
cl
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
James v. Dean, 1294, 1708
V. Dubois, Den ex d., 401, 448, 450, 475
V. Field, 8di
V. Finney, 994
V. Frearson, 1733
V. Fulcrod, 1697, 1699
V. Fuste, 2140
V, Hubbard, 2154
V, Jacques, 2177
•a. Johnson, 809, 2096, 2109, 2110, 2121
V. Johnston, 2(542
V. Mayrant, 1375
V. Mooray, 520
V. Morey, 692, 803, 80S, 809,810,811, 1047,
1163, 1164, 1579, 1580, 2095, 2096,
2097, 2109, 2110, 2121
V. Patterson, 1215, 1284
V. Rice, 2002
V. Roberts, 2060
V. Rowan, 763
V. Thomas, 2057
7*. Worcester, 2086
Jameson v. Smith, 1605, 1806, 1810
Jamieson v. Bruce, 1997, 1998, 2076
Jamison v. Glasscock, 1577, 1620, 1644, 1766,
1769, 1707
V. Graham, 1922
Janes v. Janes, S83
V. Jenkins, 2223, 2224
V. Throckmorton, 1783
Janesan v. Janeson, '2302
Jansey -v. McCahill, 1044
January v. January, 1517
V. Martin, 175S
Jaques v. Gould, 1181, 2251, 2259
V, Methodist Episcopal Church, 1373
•V. Miller, 1017
V. Weeks, 2031, 2120, 2168
Jarboe v. Maulry, 999
Jardain v. Savings Fund Assoc, 1428
Jarechi v. Philharmonic Society, log, 121, 135,
T38. 139
Jarmon v. Wiswall, 2166
Jarratt v. McDaniel, 2020
V. Steele, 29
Jarstadt v. Smith, 2241
Jarvis v. Brooks, 130, S24
V. Dutcher, 2002, 2003, 2015, 2120
V. Moe, 1391, 1392, 1457, 1465, 1504, 1576
V. Prentice, 1576
V. Woodruff, 2174, 2175
V. Wyatt, 439
Jason w. Eyres, 216S
Jasper v. Maxwell, 1577
Jaycox V. Collins, 670
Jecko V. Taussig, 22S
Jee V. Audley, 407
Jefferson v. Coleman, 2151
Jeiferson Branch Bank v. Skelly, 1516
Jefferson Ins. Co. v, Cotheal, 2115
Jefferson Medical College Case, 2254
Jeffords. Ringgold, 1031
Jeffreys. Honywood, 324, 325
V. Neale, 1102
Jeffries v. Whittick, Doe d., 1309
V. Williams, 94
Jeliett V. Rhode, 1323
Jencks v. Alexander, 779, 1658, 1843
Jeneson v. Jeneson, 2151
V. Graves, 1612
Jenki is v. Clement, 304, 305, 306, 309, 335
V. Compton, 1821
V. Continental Ins. Co., 2137, 2138, 2172
V. Eldridge, 992, -1616, 1644, 2046, 2048,
2049
V. Fahey, 21, 640, 1981, 1986
V. Freyer, 1980,2154
V. Frink, 1619, 1622, 1738
V. Gething, 120, 126
V. Green, 2083
V. Harrison, 1485
V. Holt, 897, 964
Jenkins v, Hopkins, 1003
V. Jenkins, 282, 721, 756, 769, 799, 1060,
* 1061, 2256
•V. Jones, 2161
V. Kemishe, 1626
V. McCurdy, 100
V. Pye. 1639
V. Redding, 1288
V. Smith, 2148
V. Stetson, 2031, 2033
V. Volz, 1425
V. Walter, 1719
V, Young, 1553, 1556, 1557
Jenks V. Backhouse, 18S5, 1968
V. Central Ins. Co., 2073
V. Ward, 729, 1092, 1093
Jenne v. Marble, 647, 648
Jenner v. Clegg, 2252
V. Morgan, 1172
V. Turner, 270
Jenners v. Howard, 1032, 1033
Jenness z/. Robinson, 1921
Jennings v. Alexander, 1107, 1124, 1132
V. Bragg, 1034
V. Conboy, 1807, 1808, 1809
V. Jennings, 2154
V. McComb, 995, 996, 998, 1262, 1284,
1 3 OS
V. Smith, 75
V. Teague, 1842
V. Ward, 2051
Jennison v. Hapgood, 30T, 814, 817, 1455, 2163
V. Walker, 2218, 2228, 2245, 2247
Jennor v. Hardie, 1816
Jenny zk Andrews, 1821, 1825
V. Jenny, 728, 794, 893, 913, 1576
Jepson zi. Patrick, 1718
Jerman v. Orchard, 2358
Jerome v. McCarter, 2149
Jerritt v. Weare, 210
Jervaise v. Clark, 1037
Jervis v. Berridge, 554
V. Bruton, 442, 443
Jervoise v. Northumberland, 1693
Jeslyn v. Wyman, 2128
Jessen z/. Swelgert, 1197, 1198
Jesser v. Gifford, 553
Jessup V. Bridge, 2018
Jesus College v. Bloom, 577
Jeter v. Fellowes, 368, 2058, 2289
V. Hewitt, 1516
V. Penn, 1237, 1239
Jew V. Wood, 1 148
Jewell's Estate, 504, 509
Jewell V. Warner, 252, 396, 401, 402, 447, 470
Jewett V. Bailey, 2043
V. Berry, 105 1
V. Brock, 1451
V. Burroughs, 234
ZK Davis, 591
V. Draper, 2068, 2069, 2070
%!. Hussey, 2298
V. Jewett, 2246, 2247
V. Keenholts, 47
V. Miller, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1770
V. Ricker, 2361
V. Siddons, 976
Jewett's Trustees v. Perrette, 1981
Jiggetts V. Davis, 416, 447. 472
V. Jiggetts. 794, 795, 913, 914
Jdlson V. Wilcox, 405, 416
Joar V. Hodeg, 299
Jobe V. O'Brien, 2181
Jochen v. Tibbells, 1219
Joel V. Mills, 1677
Joest 71. Williams, lo'^'^
John & Cherry St., Re, 2327, 2328
Johns V. Church, 2027, 2028, 2029
7/. Johns, 42, 45, 817
V. Reardon, 882, goo, 2122
Johnson's Appeal, 2282
Johnson's Petition, 278, 279
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cH
Johnson v. Baker, 2354
V. Eantock, 2323
V. Bartlett, 2102
V. Bates, 2263, 2264
v. Bean, 210
V. Beasley, 2358
V. Beauchamp, 1276
r-. Bennett, 75, 76
7'. Blydenburgh, 2016
V. Boyles, 2349
V. Bradley, 666
V. Branch, 2354
V. Brown, 2148
ZK Burford, 1947
V. Candage, 2074. 20-'!;. ->ni3
V. Carter, 1023, 1352, 221^
v. Carpenter, 2109
V. Clark, 2051
T'. Collhis, 1095
z'. Connecticut Eank, 1746
V. Cornet, 2103, 2111
V. Crowley, 2071
V. Cummings, 66g
V. Cummins, 588, 678, 679, 1361, 2012
v. Gushing, 1825
V. Delony, 1592, i6go
V. Dixon, 1202
7'. Donnell,, 2142, 2144
z'. Dougherty, 1622
v. Elking, 1427
I/. Elkins, 1430
V. Elliot, 858
V. Elwood, 2336
V. Fleet, 1574, 1582, 158.^, i6ji, 1612
V. Fritz, 656, 678, 679, 684, 695
7'. Futch, 2258
v. Gallagher, 2013
V. Gaylord, 1521
v. Gurley, 1138, 1150
». Hannahan, 1351, 1357
v. Harmon, 2174
V. Hart, 195, 236, i933j 1939, 2107
V. Harris, igog. 1919
V. Harrison, 1451
z/. Hines, 432, 22^0
V. HoUfield, 16S6, 1687
z'. Hoffman, 1231
V. Hosford, 2074, 2171
z/. Houston, iggg, 2078
V. Johnson, 297, 328, 411, 420, 422, 541,
542, 543, 54S> 546, 552» 556, 557, 558,
575, 715. 757. 758, Sgg, 958, 1254, 1256,
1259, 1262, 1275, 1281, 1294, 130s* '320,
1548, 1551, 1639, 1652,2331
V. Jones, 1923, 1928
V. Jordan, 2207, 2224
V. Kerman, 307, 310. 312
7/. Kessler, 1425, 1426
v. Leman, 1751
V. Leonards, 79g, 2076, 2100
z;. May, 1424, 1425
V. Mcintosh, 14, 196, 197
V. McGrew, 2004
V. Miller, 791, 892, 1240, 2066, 2087
s*. Monell, 2068, 2069, 2150
z/. Morse, 731, 734, 848, 851
z/. Morton, 331, 333
V. Moore, 741
V. Moser, 1420
V. Mosier, 1435
z/. Muzzy, 1063
z>. Nash, 22gg
. v. Neil, 847,851, 852
7/. Neill. 856
z>. Nyce, 730
z/. Oppenheim, 2223
V. Packer, 1030
z>. Parcels, 831
V. Parley, 807. 841
». Phcenix Life Ins. Co., 999
z/. Plume, 760, 763
z/. Quarles, 1646
Johnson 7/. Rankin, 2325
z/. Rayner, 2021
V. Rice, 2176, 2184
V. Richardson, 21, 976, 1424, 1425
V. Rogers, 646
V. Ronald, 1590
V. Shank, 1184
z/. Sherman, iioS, nog, 1117, 2050, 2129,
2264, 2265
v. Shields, 731, 733, 736, 739
V. Skillman, 2213
z/. Smith, 504, 1 120, 2045
7/. Stagg, 2036, 212), 2365
V. State, 755
V. Stewart, 1274
V. Stillings, 647
V. Sundry Articles of Mdse., 1456
V. Swains, 1904
V. Tatlinger, 135
V. Taylor, 1408, 1472, i486
V. Thomas, 874, 875
zf. Thompson, 2071
V. Thwatt, 1625
z: Thweatt, 1777
V. United States, 2306
•V. Watson, 688
V. Watts, 1349
V. White, 2081, 2187
V. Whiton, 234
z/. Williams, 2153, 2178, 2180
zf. Wilson, ig77
V. Wiseman, 131, 133
z/. Zink, 215a
Johnson's Exrs. v. Wiseman's Exrs., 112, 113,
115, 121, 127, 128, 136
Johnston v. Bates, 1159, 2263, 2265
V. Bush, 1466
V, Donvan, 2151
z/. Eason, 1756
zf. Gray, 1996, 1997,2050,2051
z>. Gwathmey, 1777
7*. Hargrove, 1154
Zf. Harmon, 2158
V. Hastie, 1194, 1195
z/. Humphrey, 17S2
z>. Johnston, 647
z'. Martin, 1384
7>. Morrow, 2021
V. Riddle, 2065
V. Turner, 1407, 1410, 141 1 1
zi. Van Dyke, 725, 842, 844, 893
2/. Zane's Trustees, 247, 254, 1748
Johnstone v. Huddlestone, 1162, 1254, 1308,
1343
z/. Hull, 1185
Johnstown Cheese Mfg. Co. v. Veghte, 2226
Johnstown Iron Co. z/. Cambria Iron Co., 88,
2189
Jones' Appeal, 595, 1732, 1734
Jones, /r jr iarie, 456
Jones's Will, 249
Jones V. Andover, 2104
V. Bacon, 318, 1814
V. Barclay, 1955
ZI. Barmbelt, 533
V. Barter, 588, 1058,
V. Bennett, 2285
7'. Berkshire, 2038
V. Bird, 2232
V. Blumenstein, 1456
1138
V. Brandon, 1513, 1516
V. Brewer, 716, 718, 737, 739, 835, 849,851,
854, 860, 861
V. Bright, 1200
V. Britton, 1451
V. Brown, 645, 655, 678, 683
V. Bush, 1574
V. Butler, 1031
V. Cable, 1882
V. Caldwell, 76
V. Candage, 214S
clii
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Jones V. Carter, 1862
V. Chandler, 1932, 1952
V. Chapelle, 565
V. Chappell, 549
•u. ChesapeakCj etc., R. Co., 1869
V. Chiles, 210
V. Clark, 1149, 2065
V. Clerk, 1294
V. Clifton, 647
V. Cohen, 1904, 1905
V. Conde, 2009, 2158
u. Crane, 1969
%i. Crittenden, 1517
V. Crow, 2242
V, Davies, 592, 624, 633, 670
V. Davis, 2243
&. Detroit Chair Co., 106,122, 132, 133,
134, 1 164
v. Devore, 8gi
V. Dexter, 1620, 1622
V. Doe, 1857, i860
V. Dougherty, 1703, 1794
V. Fenno, 2045
V. Fleming, 769
V. Flint, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54
V. Fritchey, 1033
V. Gardner, 729, 730, 1092, 1093, 1094
V. Gerock, 720, 86g, 877
V. Goff, 1485
V. Gibbons, 2109, 2110
V. Gillman, 2156
V, Green, 1872
V, Gregg, 2038
V. Guaranty & I. Co., 2023
V. Guedrin, 2254
V. Gundrin, 1925
V. Habersham, 257, 1657, 1659
V. Harraden, 1967
V. Harridan, 1896
V. Harris, 1373
V. Hart, 1499
V. Hill, 2258
V. Hockman, 2296, 2297
V. Hughes, 815, 820, 826, 888
V. Hunt, 504
V. Hunter, 757
V. Hurst, 1806
V. Hutchinson, 1276, 2261
V. Jones, 236, 345, 445, 577, 751, 757, 759,
769, 850, 853, 856, 957, 959, 1259,
1269, 1277, 1282, 1290, 1754, 1768,
1822, 2005, 2025, 2334, 2349, 2353
V. Doe d. Jones, 1261, 1275
V. Jones' Exrs., 340
V, Lackland, 2252, 2259
V. Lapham, 2002, 2150
V. Lewis, 1664, 1725, 1728
V. Lipton, 2270
V. Lloyd, j6go
V. Lock, 1739
V. Maffett, 1788
V. Manley, 733, 736, 739, 838
. "v. Massey, 1S94, 1S95
V. Morgan, 446
V. Marcey, 997
V. Mills, 1308, 1311, 1331, 1336, 1337,
1341, 1342
V. Morgan, 421, 425, 443, 1693
V. McDougal, 1676
•v. McKee, 1701
V. McMasters, 1657, 2014
V. Myrick, 2155, 2180
V. Neil, 865
V. Nixon, 1314
1). Oberclaim, 648
•V. Patterson, 870, 1364
V. Percival, 2205, 2208
V. Perry, 2324, 2329, 2331, 2332, 2333
V. Phelps, 2124, 2125
V. Porter, 211, 2297, 2298
V. Potter, 1920, 1933
V. Powell, 880, 898, 918, 944, 952, 954
Jones V. Price, 1818
V. Read, 2235
V. Redder, 1623
V. Reddick, 758
V. Reed, 1060, 1151, 1154, 115S
V. Rice, 1817
V. Richardson, 2020
V. Roberts, 794
V. Robin, 2194
V. Roe, 1571, 1572, 1849
1;. Salter, 270
V. Say, 300, 1606
V. Say and Seal, 1560
V. Shay, 1264, 127S, 12S0
V. Sherrard, 509, 511, 519, 746, 2182
V. Slubey, i6gi
V. Smith, 1773, 1776, 2110
V. Stanton, 1990
V. Statham, 2049
V. Steinberg, 2166
V. Tapling, 2246
V. Timmons, 46
V. Tipton, 1276, 2261
V. Todd, 90S
z;. Towne, 33, 36, 39, 40
V. Trawick, 2047
V. Vemey, 1039
V. Wagner, 91, 92, 2233, 2237
V. Walker, 1869
V. Webster, 2271
V. Weed, 2157
V. Whinnipeack Bank, 2101
V. Whitehead, 566
V. Williams, 2093
V. Willis, 13 19, 1324, 1327, 1329
v. Wilson, i6go
V. Winwood, 1S44
V. Wood, 1837
V. Yoakam, 1488
V. Zoller, 769
Jones' Admr. v. Smith, 984
Jones' Assignee v. Clifton, 1825
Jones, Ex parte^ v. Stiles, 1533
Jongsma v. Jongsma, 202, 307
Joor V. Hodges, 1553
Jooss V. Fey, 1941
Jordan v. Cheney, 2095, 2108, 2148
V. Clark, 771
V. Corey, 2346
V. Forlong, 811
V. Godman, 1449, 1450, 1455, 1461, 1469,
1478
V. Holkman, 271
V. Mead, 1262
V. Money, 1701
V. Peak, 1488, 1490
V. Pollock, 2354
V. Roache, 321,402, 423, 447, 448, 470
V. Savage, 932, 955
V. Smith, 2133
V. Staples, 1233
V. Stevens, 2319
V. Stickland, 1411
V. Wilker, 1025
Jorden v. Jorden, 2260
Jordon v. Attwood, 2208, 2209
Joseph V. United States, 290
Joslin V, Rhoades, 1815
Joslyn V. Joslyn, 1904
V. Parlin, 2101
7'. Wyman, 2127, 2134, 2140
Josselyn v. Edwards, 2150
■V. McCabe, 122, 123, 142, 145
Jourdan v. Jourdan, 2346
Journeay v. Brackley, 1108, 1114, 1115
V. Gibson, 904
Joy V. Campbell, 1733
V. McKay, 1293
Joyce V. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 1400
Joyner v. Conyers, 493
V. Speed, 713, 723, 737, 742, 806
V. Statham, 2035
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clii
111
Judd V. Arnold, 1018, 1041
V. Bushnell, 1847, 1850
V. Fairs, 13 19
V. Lawrence. 672, 673
V. Mosely, 1643
V. Seekins, 810, 2097
Judson V. Dada, 2072
V. Gibbons, 178S
Julian V. Boston, C. F. & N. B. R. Co., 884
V. Woodsmall, 71, 72
Juliand v. Rathbone, 1795
Jumel V. Jumel, 2178, 2179, 2180
Junction R. Co. v. Harris, 590, 665, 1363, 1369
Justice V, Lowe. 1141
Juzanx &. Toulmin, 1716, 1717, 1728, 1735
K.
Kabley v. Worcester Gas Light Co., 992, 1000,
lOOI
Kade v. Lauber, 759, 772, 821
Kahn v. Gumberts, 1623
V. Lovez, 1 196
Kain v. Fisher, 723, 724, 821
V. Hoxie, 1073, iiig, 1121, 1129
Kaiser z*. Seaton, 1503
Kalis w. Seaton, 1 197, 1198
Kalshmer z'. Upton, 2137, 2171
Kamena v. Huelbig, 2100
Kampf u. Jones, 322, 324, 1692
Kane v. Bloodgood, 1615, 1781
V. Goot, 75, 1549, 1680, 1681, 1798
V. Mink, 1280, 1285
V. Sanger, 1093
V. Vanderburgh, 572
Kane County v. Herrington, 924
Kansas City Elevator Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co.,
1140, 1154
V. Union Pac. R. Co., 1139, 1155
Kansas City Land Co. v. Hill, 2162
Kansas City, S. & M. R. v. Weaver, 493
Karnes v, Lloyd, 1998, 2077
Kashaw v. Kasliaw, 636
Kasterz/. McWilliams, 1420, 1433, 1459
Kastor v. Newhouse, 1191, 1201, 1202
Kauffelt V. Bower, 2004, 2005
Kaufman z'. Crawford, 17 16
V. Myers. 2254
V. Peacock, 818
Kavanagh v, Gudge, 1138
Kavish, Ex parte, 1432
Kay V. Jones, 905
V. Scates, 4i5j 417. 418, 421, 500, 1603,
1607, 1655, 1673, 1674, 1694
V. Whittaker, 2148, 2149
Kean v. Connelly, 1894
V. Hoffecker, 2279, 2288
Kearly v. Duncan, 136
Kearney v. Kearney, 534, 563
V. Macomb, 1754. 2044
V. McComb, 2053
V. Taylor, 1774, 2333
Kearney's Executors v. Kearney, 506, 513
Kearsley v. Woodcock, 1677
Keates v. Cadogan, mo
Keating -v. Congdon, 1249, ^250
Keating Implement & Machine Co. v. Marshall
Elec. L. &P. Co., 45
Keaton v. Cobb, 1774, 1766
V. Terry, 1989
V. Thomasson's Lessee, 1285
Keats V. Hugo. 2223, 2224
V. Rector, 2172
Keay z/. Goodman, 1120, 1126, 1347, 1350, 1352
V. Goodwin, 1976, 2074
Keble v. Thompson, 1608, 1733, 1735
Keckeley v. Keckeley, 802
Keeble v. Cummings, 1032
Keech v. Hall, 1169, 2074
V. Sanford, 1623
Keech d. Wame v. Hall, 1279
Keegan v. Cox, 201 1
V. Grahty, 2283
Keeler v. Talwell, 908
V. Davis, 1 139
V. Eastman, 555, 556
V. Fassett 1023
V. Keeler, 121
V. Tatnell, gog
Keely v. Harrison, 774
V. O'Connor, 976, 1201
Keemler v. Ferguson, 2349
Keen z'. Hartman, 924
Keenan v. Keenan, 217
Keene v. Munn, 2154,2179, 2180
Keene d. Byron v. Deardou, 1743
Keepers, etc., Harrow School v. Alderton, 572
Keiffer v. Barney, 1399, 1402
V. Starii, 2024
Keir V. Peterson, 83. 84, 88, 494, 561, 983
Keisel V. Earnest, 136, 1905
Keith V. Horner, 2004, 2007
v. Hyndman, 1388
V. Reynolds, 2357
V. Swan, 1028
V. Trapier, 841
Kellam v. Janson, 1355, 1357
Kelland v. Fulford, 77, 95
Keller v. Auble, iggo
V. Keller, 1642
V. Klopfer, 1290
V. Michael, 890, 927
V. McMicliael, 888
Kelleran z;. Brown, 2039, 2043
Kellersberger v. Kopp, 1426
Kellett V, Kellett, 306
Kelley v. Babcock, 1690
V. Ball, 936
z/. Canary, 1946
V. Jenness, 1646
V. Mayor, 1194
V. Meins, 317, 1815
V. Todd, 1205, 1206
V. Whitmore, 1^52
Kellog V. Dickinson, 31, 32, 37, 38, 40
V. Hale. 298, 1560
Kellogg V. Ames, 2130
V. Blair, 305, 306, 308, 311, 312, 337
V. Fi'azier,'2027
V. Griswold, 1242
V. Groves, 1309
V. Kellogg, 1282
V. Loomis, 2364
V. Rand, 2154
V. Robinson, 1074
z/. Rockwell, 2085, 2087, 2184, 2185
Kellum V. Smith, 15S6, 1635, 1645, 2050
Kelly V. Baker, 1387, 1392, 1392 1436, 1446
V. Bryan, 2047, 2052
V. Dutch Church, 1245
V. Harrison, 893
V. Johnson, 1612, 1615, 1646
V. Kelly, 366, 2138
V. Love's Admrs., 1684
V. Medlin, igoo
V. Mills, 2120
V. Nichols, 1686, 1729
V. Patterson, 1264, 1310, 1316
V. Roberts, 2072
71. Seward, 2301
z/.-Stimson, 916, 934, 955, g^S
V. Strange, 890
V. Thompson, 2039, 2053
V. Weston, 1232
V. Whitney, 2134
Kelsey- v. Dunlap, 2364
V. Durkee, 123
z/. Hardy, 2279
V. King, 5, 121
Kemble Coal Co., w. Scott, 1002
Kemp V. Cassart, 650
V. Derrett, 1302, 1312, 1328. 1339
V. Holland, 933
cllv
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Kemp V. Porter, 1794
■V. Sober, 1185
Kemper v, Hughes, 2365
Kempner v. Comer, 1489
Kendall v. Garland, 978
V. Clark, 1501, 1502, 1518, 1519
V. Eyre, 416, 447, 472
V. Gleason, 1802
V. Granger, 163S, 1685
•u. Honey, 874
V. Lawrence, 985, 1030, 2343
v. Mann, 1643, 1646
V. Moore, 1136, 1304, 1417
V. Neebuhr, 2179, 2180
7J. Treadwell, 2144
Kender v. Milward, 1649
Kenege v. Elliott, 58, 2253
KeiUey v. Hudelson, 1399, 1402, 1451
V. Kenley, 883
Kena v. Nugent, 1267
Kennard tj. Brough, 135
V. Harvey, 2272
Kennedy, In re, 1510
Kennedy "O. Brown, 2070, 2072
V. Fury, 1706, 1744
2/. Johnston, 941
V. Kennedy, 444, 761, 780, 788, 1402, 1621,
1975
V, Mills, 916, 933, 935, 954
V. Nedrow, 749, 919, 936, 956, 964
V, Nunan, 1637, 1746
V. Price, 1646
V. Reames, 2272
V, Robinson, 54
V. Stacey, 1450, 1467, 1475, 1478
V. Taylor, 1652
Kennerly -v. Burgess, 2187
V. Missouri Ins. Co., 714, 721, S50
Kennett v. Plumraan, 1999
V. Plummer, 2062, 2063
Kenniston v. Leighton, 1538
Kennon v. McRoberts, 307, 321, 334
V. Wright, 2272
Kenrick v. Beauclerck, 299, 1606, 1609
Kent IK Agard, 2050
•V. Beaty, 1454
V. Dunham, 1604
V. Hartpoole, 694
V. Lasley, 2043, 2048
V. Morrison, 1815, 1816
•V. Plumb, 1777
V. Waite, 2218
V. Watson, 2301
V. Welch, 1989
V. Well, 492
V. Welsh, 2362
Kensington v. Bouverie, 509
V. Dollond, 1371
Kentucky River Nav. Co., v. Commonwealth,
1 139, 1146
Kentzinger's Estate, 662
Kenvon v. Nichols, 2242
Keofe V. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co., 198
Keogh V. Daniel, 122, 129, 146, 1158
Kepple's Case, 348
Keppell 7'. Bailey, 1070, 1074, 1078
Kem V. Myll, 1045
Kemochan v. 'Ne-w York Ins. Co., 2118
Kemochan 7/. N. Y. Bowery Fire Ins. Co., 2117
Kerr v. Clark, 981, 1013, 1284, 1322, 13^/
z'. Connell, 54
v. Day, 1078
z/. Freeman, 2321, 2322
V. Gilmore, 2046
V. Kingbury, 131, 1188, ii8g
v. Kitchen, 1777
v. Merchants' Exchange Co., 1015, 1016,
1176, 1 180
». Moon's Devises, 368
V. Moon, 720, 2057, 205S, 2288, 2289
V. Read, i6go
V. White, 1777
Kerrians v. Perple, 1273, 12S7, 128S, 12S9
Kershaw v. Kelsey, 672, 673
V. Thompson, 2145, 2156
Kessler v. Draub, 1403, 1454, 1459
Kester v. Stark, 1983
Ketchem v. Crippen, 2136
z/. Jauncy, 2141
Ketchum v. Evertson, 729
V. Shaw, 715, 802, 803, 806, 926
z/. Walsworth, 1920,1930, 1931, 1932, 1940,
1951
Keteltas v. Coleman, 1152
Ketsey*s Case, 1030
Kettlewell v. Watson, 832, 2008
Key V. Davis, g86
V. Jennings, 2310
Keyes v. Bump^ Admr., 2030
v. Carlton, 1091, 1792, 1798
V. Dearborn, 1003
». Keyes, 751
V. Powell, 988
7/. Rines, 1500, 1503
7/. Scanlon, 892, 1407 '
V. Wood, 2103, 2105, 2106, 2108
Yieynerv. Summer, 2209
Keys 2>. Goldsborough, 403
Keyser's Appeal, 501
.Keyser v. Evans, 1915
v. Hitz, 2oi66
V. Mitchell, 500, 1748
7'. Nicholas, 500
V. Philadelphia, 970
Keyte v. Perry, 669
Kezer v. Clifford, 2079
Kibbey v. Jones, 1513, 1516 ■<
Kibbie v. Williams, 633, 1364, 1366
Kibbler z/. Miller, 182 1
Kibby v. Chitwood's Admr., 2332
Kidd z>. Dennison, 555, 556, 561, 1227
z/, McCormick, logi
V. Treple, 1993, 1999, 2015, 2063
Kiddal v. Trimbell, 865
Kidder v. Blaisdell, 864
V. Rexford, 1922
Kidwell V. Brumagin, 1652
V. Kidwell, 2251, 2257, 2258
Kieffer v. Imhof, 2211
Kiersted v. Orange R. Co., 2271
Kieth 2'. Paulk, 2257
Kilborn v. Robbins, 805, 806, 8og, 2153, 2178
Kilbum V. Mullen, 596
Kile V. Biebner, 122
Kilgour V. Ashcom, 2236
V. Crawford, 1983, 1986
Kilkenny Gas Co. ». Somerville, 1139
Killeran v. Brown, 2049
Killinger v. Ridenhouser, 794, 796, 913
Kilmer 7f. Smith, 2330, 2331
Kilmore ?/. Howlett, 54, 56
Kilpatrick v. Henson, 2079
V. Kilpatrick, 2006
Kilpin v. Kilpin, 1647
Kilsley v. Ames, 2160
Kimball v. First Parish of Rowley, 32
V. Ives, 1782
V. Kimball, 764
v. Lewiston, 2187
z>. Lockwood, 1118, 2065
V. Lohmars, 2298
v. Master Grand Lodge of Masons, no
7J. Morton, 1699, 1738
z>. Myers, 2027, 2031
V. Pike, 1 121, 2251
V. Redding, 1714, 1717, 1718, 1719, 1721,
1720
z/. Rowland, 1061, 1344, 1345
V. Sattley, 2020
V. Second Parish of Rowland, 32, 37, 38,
V. Stormer, 2298
■V. Sumner, 1921, 2251, 2257, 2258
Kimber v. Barber, 1621
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clv
Kimbrel z-. Willis, 1403, 1404
Kimmell v. Benna, 2301
1'. Willard, 2073
Kimpton z'. Rallaymy, 2199
V. Walfer, logg
V. Walker, 1067, jo6g, 1098, 2362
Kincaid's Appeal, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41
Kiuchelve v, Tracewell, 2298
Kincks z>. Stubbin, 768
Kindberg t'. Freeman, 2152
King z'. Ackerman, 305, 795, 1823
z'. Anderson, 2251, 2252, 2257, 2258
V. Aldborougli, 1107, im, iiiS, 1123
t'. Baldwin, 2136
V. Barnes. 532
V. Bellovd, 1S27
z'. Bill, 1662
V. Boys, 1554
z'. Burcliall, 250, 252, 266
V. Castle, 260
V. Cole, 341, 342
V. Connolly, 1274
Z-. Cotton, 795
v. Deedham, 2331
■z'. Dodd, 1242
Z-. Donnelly, 1599, 1788
z'. Dunsford, Sii
V. Duntz, 1755
v. Fowler, 1267
V. George, 2
v. Gunnison, 890
z'. Howard, igSo
z'. Husatonic R. Co.. 225S
V. Inhabitants Bosworlh, 1273
Z'. Inhabitants of Herstmonceaux, 1302
V. Insurance Co., 20S0
v. Johnson, 129, 139, 140, 141
V. Jones, 1077
v. Kelstem, 1273, 12SS
V. Kenan, 1625
7'. Kerr, 730
V. King, 314, 315, 505, 74S, 749, 792, 802,
915. 2357
z'. Langnville, 1273
z>. Large, 26S
V. Lawson, 1294
z'. Leach, 1885
z'. Little, 2252, 2257, 2259
zi. Longnor, 1044
V. Lucas, 1562
2-. McCarley, 1383, 1519
V. McVickar, 2120
v. Mailing, 421, 422
7/. Merchants' Exchange Co., 2148
V. Milkridge, 1273
V. Minister, 1273
V. Mitchell, 1591, 1592, 1637
z'. Morford, 1292
V. Morris, 511
zf. Murray, 1144, 2254
z'. Newman, 2043, 2168
V. New York Cent. & H. R. Co., 1194,
"95
V. Nutall, 517
V. Oakley, 1022
v. Otley, 123
V. Paddock, 2346
V. Parker, 1796, 18S6
V. Patsrson & H. R. R. Co., 43
z/. Pedly, 1202
z>. Portis, 2 1 19
z'. Rea, 294, 296, 2301
v. Reed, 1988
V. Reynolds, 1055
V. Rundle, 1637
z'. Shrives, 307
V. State Mut. F. Ins. Co., 2113, 2114,
2117, 2118
V. Stetson, 766, 829
V. Stock, 1272
V. Talbot, 691;, 1664, 1721
V. Topping, McClell. & Y., 250
King zf. Utley, 439
z>. Weeks, ^24
v. Welborn, 13S3, 1392, 1417, 1418, 1438
V. Wilcomb, 61, 119
7j. Withers, 1572
V. Woodruff, 13 16
V. Yarborongh, 2293
King of Spain zk Machado, 753, 755
Kingdom v. Bridges, 1647
z>. Briggs, 779
Zf. Noddle, 2362
Kingham v. Lee, 1364
Kingman 7A Graham, 2302
z>. Higgins, 1464
V. Pierce, 2173
V. Sparrow, 779, 822
Kingsbiuy v, Buckner, 2073, 2172
z'. Burnside, 1589, 1592, 1690
V. Collins, 538, 1205, 1206, 1254
V. Westfall, 1175
Kingsland v. Clark, 1127, 1129, 1167, 1170, 2268
Zf. Rapelye, 421, 423, 426
7'. Ruckman, 1026
Kingsley v. Holbrook, 51, 53, 55, 2354
V. Kingsley, 1399, 1426, 1432
V. Smith, 588, 651, 670, 671, 68i
Kingsman v. Loomis, 2303
V. Rouse, 2176
Kingsmill z'. Millard, 1215
Kingston Building Association v. Rainsford,
1046
z'. Lorton, 1630
Kinloch z'. I'On, 1757, 1764
Kinn v. Smith, 2102
Kinna z>. Smith, 1995, 20S5, 2104, 2105, 2147
Kinnard v. Thompson, 1794
Kinnear 7'. Lowell. 1094, 2178
Kinnen v. Maxwell, 2011
z'. Slattery, 1898, 1900, 191 5
Kinney v. Watts, 1082, 1245
Kinnier 7'. Rogers, 1807
Kinsell f. Billings, 127
7/. Daggett, 2295
Kinsey v. Lardner, 315
V. Minnick, 1335, 1342, 1343
Kinsler v. McCants, 787
Kinsley z>. Ames, 1350, 1354
z'. Abbott, 1885
Kinsloving v. Pierce, 930
Kinsmen v. Green, 1017
Kinter v. Jenks, 1593, 1632
Kintz V. Long, 485, 2334
Kipp V. Kipp, 1920
Kirby v, Boylston Market Assn., 1202
ZI. Chetwood's Admr, 2323
7'. Dalton, 804, S52
z'. Moody, 1947
V. Potter, 43
V. Reese, 2170
V. Vantreace, 781
V. Webb, 1649
Kirk V. Dean, 928
V. Houston Direct Navigation Co., 1947
V. King, 2303
V. Talliaferre, 1211
7/. Webb, 1700
Kirkaldie v. Larrabee, 1467
Kirkham 7' Booth, 1715
z'. Boston, 2004, 2007
V. Dupont, 2171
Z'. Jarvis, 1168
V. Sharp, 2220
z/. Smith, 446
Kirkland v. Cox, 289, 335, 1796
Kirkman z>. Bank of America, 2177
Kirkpatrick z'. Caldwell, 2.20
V. Mathiot, 1921
■V. Peshine, 268
Kirkwood v. Doman, 1952, 1953
V. Thompson, 2086
Kirtland v. Pounsett, 1292
Kirwan v. Latour, 105, 126, 135
cl
VI
TABLE OP CASES.
References are
to pages.
Kisler &. Kisler, 1611, 1635
KisU:ig V. Shaw, 1735
Kissaii V. Barclay, 122
Kister v. Reiser, 283
Kitchell V. Burgwin, 137S, 1397, i3gS, 1461
z/. Mudgett, 2136
Kitchen v. Bedford, 1592
V. Pridgen, 1260, 1269, 1280, 1293, 1302,
1306, 1524, 1333, 1334
Kites V. Cliurch, iSgo, 1894, 2249
Kitner z'. Ege, 10S3
Kitterlin v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Mutual
Insurance Co., 1470, 1479
Kittle V. St. John, 1160
V, Van Dyck, 766, 1492
Kittridge v. Locks & Canals Merrimack, igg6
V. Woods, 46, 78, 79, 103, 106, 135, 567
Kitzmiller v. Van Renselaer, 907, 911
KJapp's Assignees v. Shirk, 1795
Kleemauz'. Frisbee, 2106
Klenck v. Knoble, 1446
Klein v. Isaacs, 2071
V. McNamara, 2045, 2312
Klinck V. Keckeley, 766
V. Keckey, 926
V. Price, 2001, 2046
Kline's Estate, 960
Kline v. Beebe, 600, 603,612,614, 985, 1031
V. Cline, 960, 961
V. Jacobs, 10S3, 1292, 1905
V. McLain, 1196
V. Moulton, 1020
V. Ragland, 1932
Klock V. Walter, 2045
Klopfer V. Keller, logo
Klotenbrock v. Cracraft, 641, 642, 666
Klumpe V Baker, 2300
Klutts V. Klutts, 799
Knabe v. Femot, loig
Knachbull v. Hallett, 1621
Knapp V. Brown, 1211
v. Hungerford, 1983
V. Maltby, 2339
V. Marlboro, 1080
■V. Smith, 1035
Knappen v. Freeman, 1046
Knarr v. Conway, 20S1
Knatchbull v, Hallett, 1761
Knecht v. Mitchell, 996
Kneeland v. Moore, 805 •
V. Schmidt, 1161
Kneil v. Egleston, 646
Knickerbocker v. Seymour, 820, S21, 913
Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 2069
V. Patterson, 2263
Knight V. Barber, 817
V. Bell, 1371
V. Bennett, 1322
V. Bowyer, 76
V. Buckley, 1254
V. Crockford, 998, 1043
V. Duplessis, 673
V. Dyer. 2042
V. Gould, 1 838
V. Indiana Coal & Iron Co., 88, 1251
1263, 1280, 1293
V. Knight. 346, 347, 1627, 1632, 2073
V. Majoribanks, 2086 .
•v. Manils, 764
V. Mann, 766
V. Mosely, 561
V. Pursell, 2236
Knight, Doe d., v. Nepean, 522
Knight, Doe d., v. Quigley, 1068, 1278, 1283
Knipe v. Palmer, 1034
Knobb V. Lindsay, 1758
Knoll's Case, 562
Knott V. Lawton, Doe d., 312
V. Receivers of Morris Canal Co., 1036
Knouff z/. Thompson, 2302
Knowlden v. Leavitt, 292
Knowles v. Carpenter, 8ri, 2098
Knowles -v. Hull, 1354, 1355
•u, Lawton, 810, 2151, 2155
V. Rablin, 2 171
Knowlton v. Bradley, 1714, 1715, 1718, 1719,
1721, 1724, 1728
V. Redenbaugh, 671
7'. Walker, 2094, 2095, 216S, 2175
Knox V. Easton, 1997, 1998, 2065, 2077, 2078
V. Flack, 2343
V. Galligan, 2108, 2147
V. Gye, 76, 1614
V. Hester, 2269
V. Hexter, 1085
V, Hunt, 2273
V. Hydrick, 56
7'. Knox, 1627, 16S5
V. Marshall, 1234, T909
V. McFarran, 1690
V. Silloway, 492
Koch V. Briggs, 2140
Koehler v. Black River Falls Iron Co., 76 "
Koenig's Appeal, 1787
Koenig v. Craft, 534
V. Haddix, 2234
Koester f. Burke, 1777
Kohl V. United States, 197
Kohler v. Knapp, 2251, 2259
Kohlheim v. Harrison, 2175
Koltenbrock v. Cracraft, 516, 517
Konigmacher ?'. Kimmel, 1733
Konvalinka v. Schlegel, 918, 944, 945
Koplitzz'. Gustavis, 1135, 1136, 1264
Kopmeir w. O'Neil, 2158
Kopp V. Gnnther, 1792
Korn V. Cutler, 2S9, 349
Kornegay v. Collier, 2251, 2257
Koms V. Shaffer, 1770, 2163
Kortright v. Cady, 688, 799, 2062, 2085, 2105,
2t2g, 2131
K-Oser, Ex parte, igS
Kramer v. Cleveland & P. R. Co., 2328
%'. Cook, 1052, 10S2, 1126, 1175
V. Knauff, 2217
V. Rebham, 2156
z;. Trustees of F. & M. Bank of Steu-
benville, 2141
Kratmeyer?'. Brink, 1290
Krause's Appeal, 975
Krause v. Beitel, 880
Keigler 7/. Day, 664
Krentz v, McKnight, 1154
Kresin t. Man, 1419, 1439 ,
Krevet v. Meyer, 1057, 1356 1
Kreutz v McKnight, 11 53 ^
Kriger v. Day, 663
Krister v. Miller, 1160
Krogan v. Kinney, 219
Kronskop 7/, Shontz, 2012, 2013
Krouse V. Ross, 122 ^
Krouskop V. Shontz, 8g6
Krueger v. Farrant, igS, 200, 1197
7/. Pierce, 1483, 1484, 1500
Kruse v. Scripps, 2024, 2112
Krulz V. Fisher, 1621, 1643
Kublerz'. United States, 1036
Kuevan v. Specker, 1481
KMgler V. United States, 1316
Kuhlmanj/. Hecht, 2217
Kuhlmann v. Meier, 145
Kuhn V. Newman, 1655, 1674, 1742
Kuhns 7.'. Bankes, 2107
Kulinger v. Redinhaur, 728
Kull V. Kull, 221, 222
Kunkle v, Franklin, 1517
V. Wolfersberger, 2040, 2066
Kuntz V. Kinney, 1483, 1514, 1515
Kunzie v. Wixon, 1309, 1350
Kurtz z'. Sponable, 2105,2106
Kurz V. Brusch, 1384, 1386, 13S7, 1416, 1420,
1436, 1442, 1476
Kutch V. Holley, 1455
Kutterz/. Smith, 129, 146, 1204
References are
to pages.
Kutz' Appeal, 1781
Kygerz/. Ryley, 1999, 2078
Kyle z'. Barnett, 1715
V. Kavanagh, 2322
V. Kyle, 87s
V. Roberts, 1030
Kyne v. Kyne, 943, 955
Kyner 7'. Kyner, 2177
Kyte 7'. Commercial U. Assr. Co., 631, 632
;'. Keller, 1184, 1233, 1234
L.
L'Amoureux t>. Van Rensselaer, 1798
Labare v. Colby, 2012
Laberee y, Carleton, 1852, 1863, 1S67
Laberge v. Chauvin, 2105
La Blanc, jRe, 1762
Lacey, Ex parley 1621, 1770, 1771, 1772
1-achland v. Downing, 411, 1447
Lacon v. Allen, 2002
V. Davenport, 1997, 1998
V. Higgins, 753
Laconia Savings Bank v. Rollins. 1502
Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake Guano &
Fertilizer Co., 4, 51, 143
Lacy V. Anderson, 953, 957
ZK Clements, 1407, 1411, 1425
Laddt'. Abel, 48
7'. Dudley, 1512
V. Harvey, 470
v. Jackson, 1723
7'. King, 1699
V. Ladd, 1810, 1828, 1829, 1831
7'. Perley, 1979
V. Riggle, 1 141
V. AViggin, 2101
Lade v. Holford, 1743
Ladley v. Creighton, 1047
Ladue v. Detroit & M. R. Co., 2104, 2105
V. Railroad Co., 2099
Lady v. Madison's Case
LafFan p. Naglee, 259, 1076, 1067
La Farge v. Mansfield, 979
La Farge Ins. Co. v. Bell, 2154
Lafayette, etc., R. Co. v. Geiger, 2328
Laffite 7'. Lawton, 646
laflin V. Griffiths, 113
Lafrombois v. Jackson, 2291
Lagow 7'. Badolett, 1764,2008
Laguerenne 7'. Dougherty, 1132, 1135, 1315, 1317
Laiiy 7/. Holland, 1722, 1723
Laidlaw v. Organ, mo
Laidler v. Young, 402, 415,447, 456, 466, 467
V. Young's Lessee, 414, 464
Laidley v. Kline, 839
Laight V. Pell, 2158
Laing z<. Eariowe, 306
V. Byrne, 2072
7'. Fidgeon, 1200
7'. Harbour, 202
Lair 7/ . Hunsicker, 1595
Laird v. Hedges, 2056
Lake v. Campbell, 1044, 1046
7'. De Lambert, 1658
7', Dowd, 2001, 2038
V. Freer, 1690
7'. Gaines, 2272
7'. Gray, 2364
V. Thomas, 2004 -^
Lakeview v. Rosehill Cemetery, 4
Lakin v. Lakin. 774, S87, 894, 920, 921
Lallande v. Wentz, 1902
Lamar v. Miles, 122
V. McNamee, 1163
Lamb v. Burbank, 1096
V. Danforth, igo8
V, Davenport, 2308
V. Fames, 1828
V. Jeffery, 2172
V. Lamb, 697
TABLE OF CASES.
clvii
Lamb v. Lathrop, 1865
V. Montague, 2074, 2075, 2137, 2173
V. Pierce, 1047
V. Richards, 2137, 2170
V. Scott, 707, 718, 720, 731, 733, 736, 739,
S60
V. Turner. 2359
V. Wogan, 1463
Lamb, Estate of, 1477
Lambe v. Eames, 346, 1084
Lambert v. Blumenthal, 19S2
V. Borden. 1317
v. Kinnery, 1502, 1519
V. Monis, 2252
V. Paine, 201, 203, 1823
7'. Wanier, 742
Lambert's Lessee v. Paine s, 202, 204, 305, 312
Lambertons 7'. Stouffer, 1207, 2255
Lambertville National Bk. v, McCready Bag&
P. Co. (N, J.), 2147, 214S, 2172
Lambson, Re, 1401
Lamkin v, Knapp, 771
Lammer v. Missen. 2293
Lammott 7/. Gist, 1163
Lamont v. Cheshire, 2152
Lampel's Case, 900
Lampert z'. Hydel, 1677. 167S
Lampet's Case, 1250, 1570
Lamphere v. Lowe, 122
Lampleigh v. LampleigH, 1538, 1648
Lamp man 7/. Milks, 20, 2211,2216, 2224, 2232,
2236, 2241
Lamprey v. Nudd, 2:04
Lamson v. Clarkson, 1219
7'. Drake, 2074, 2169, 2173
Lanahan v. Sears, 1502, 2038
Lancashire v. Mason, 2251, 2257
Lancaster v. Detaford, 999
V. Dolan. 1375, 1560, 1583, 1673, 1674,
167s. 1799
V. Lancaster, 748
V. Seay, 1983
V. Thornton, 1605, 1811
•V. Washington Life Ins. Co., 523
Lancaster Bank v. Myley, 286, 1963
Lancaster County Bank 7/. Stauffer, 589, 590,
616, 635, 636, 637, 1363, 1364
Lance v. Gorman, 2170
Lanchester 7/. Eve, 117
Land Co. v. Gas Co., 1474. 1476
Lander Contract, In re, 1097
Landers %>. Beauchkamp, 133*
Landes v Brent, 2015
Laudon v. Burke, 2144
V. Hooper, 2086
V. Piatt, 1 1 86
•V. Watson, 1149
Landsberger v. Magnetic Tel. Co. 1247
Landsell v. Gower, Doe d., 1309
Lane v. Baker, 1403
V. Bobyns, 1901
V. Cowper, 1030, 1031
V. Debenham, 1663
V. Dickerson, 2052
V. Dighton, 1623, 1649, 1760, 1761
V. Dorman, 2324, 2332, 2333
V. Erskine, 2149
V, Ewing, 1593, 1702, 1739
V. Gould, 210, 212
V. Hitchcock, 2186, 2187
V. Husband, 1793
V. King, 45, 47, 688, 1206, 2065
V. Lane, 249, 1614
V. Ludlow, 2009
V. Mutual F. Ins. Co., 21 16 ^
V. Osment, 1141, 1150
V. Shears, 799, 2039
V. Tyler, i960, 1963
V. Wick, 1^16
Lanfair 7/. Lanfair, 2015, 2031, 2040, 2041
Lang 7'. Barnes, 1933, 1952
V. Hitchcock, 634, 635
clviii
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Lang V. Ropke, 1682
V. Warring, 736, 824, 1961
V. Wilbraham, 1682
Lang's Heir v. Waring, 1957, 1959, 1960, 1963
Langdale, ^-r/(zWe, 1241, 1242
Langdon v. Buell, 2ogg, 2101, 2107
V. In^m*s Guardian, 259, 261, 263
V. KeitJi, 2105, 2107
V. Mayor, 2294
V. Paul, 2187
V. Poor, 2335
V. Potter, 1913
V. Stevens, 850
V. Strong, 671
langeleyz/. Hammond, 2216
Langfordz*. Eyrie, 1831
V. Frey, 985
V. Gascoyne, 1733
V. Selmer, 2301
V. Selmes, nog, 1121
Langley v. Furlong. 563
y. Hammond, 2211
V. Ross, 1138
V. Vaughn, 2024
Langston v. Horton, 2017
V. Norton. 2044
Langworthy v. Heeb, 831
Lanier v. Booth, 2243
V. Driver, 1795
V. Hill, 1221
Lanigan v. Kille, 1190
Lankford v. Green, 2270
Lanphere v. Lowe, 126
Lansing v. Goelet, 1996, 2144, 2146, 2157
V. Pine, 1163
V. Smith, 2304
V. Stone, 568, 1181, 1183
V. Van Alstyne, 226S
V. Wiswall, 2218, 2241
I,antshery v. Collier, iSii
Lapham v. Norton, 135, 139, 1290
Lapice v. Gereandeau, 720
Lapish V. Bangor Bank, 99
Lapman v. Milks, 2241
Lappen v. Hill, 2071
Lapsley v. Lapsley, 411, 414
Large's Case, 259, 263, 1687, 1858
Large ?'. Van Dowen, 2031, 2134
Larkins' Estate, 1449
Larkin v. Ames, 2360
V. Avery, m,i3. i29q» i3o7) i3i9> ^337
Lame v. Farren Hotel Co., 1202
Lamed v. Bridge, 31S, 319
V, Hudson, 1257, 1258, 1261, 1270, 1274,
1278, 1280, 1344
Larney 7/. Mooney, ir66
Laroe v. Douglass, 1734
Larrabee v. Eambert, 125S, 1272, 1285
V. Lumbert, 1277
V. Tucker, 2286
V, Van Aylstyne, 880, 917, 918, 938, 942,
944. 952
Larreau v. Davignon, 1657
].arrowe v. Beam, 841
Larson v. Reynolds, 1409, 14501 i473» i475. 1478.
1479, 1485, 1489, 1493, 1523
Larwell v, Stevens, 2296
Lary v. Dunham, 730-
Lasala v. Holbrook, 92, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234
Lasare v. Rochereau, 2149
Lash V. Lash, 1954
Lasher 7/. Lasher, 708, 917, 918, 942
Lassell v. Reed, 78, 79, 103, 106
Lassells z'. Comwallis, 1825, 1840
Lassen v. Vance, 766, 1492, 1497, 1591
Latch V. Bright, 1047
Latham v. Atwood, 53
V, Blakely, 104
V. Henderson, 1646
7'. Lawrence, 1770
Lathrop v. Arnold, igot, 1902
», Atwood, 2025, Z026
Lathrop v. Bampton, 1739, 1740, 1759, 1760
zK Blake, 113
V. Clewis, 983, 2249, 2257, 2272
V. Commercial Bank, 118, 458
V. Foster, 807, 835, 868, 896, 900, 909
V. Rogers, 1236
V. Scotia Bank, 224
•V. Singer, 1403
V. Smalley, 1715, 1721, 1722
Latimer v. Elgin, 719
Latimore v. Moore, 2087
La Touche v. Earl of Lucan, 1793
Latouche v. Dunsamp, 2139
Latrobe v. Tieman, 1731, 1732, 1734
Lauchner -v. Rex, 46
Laud V. Parker, 2297
Laughliu v, Fream, got
?/. Wright, i3g2, 1416, 1418
Laughter's Case, 1863, i86g
Laughter v. Humphrey, 2253
Laughnian v. Thompson, 890
Laughran z/. Smith, 996,998, 1043, 1134, US'?.
1300, 1322, 1327
Lauriat v. Stratton, 2172
Laurie, Re, 2266
Lausman v. Drahos, 989, 1214, 1222
Lautz V. Buckingham, 2059
Lavender v. Abbott, 2004
V. Lee, 1825
Lavery z'. Egan, 291
Laverty v. Woodward, 2251, 2258
Law's Estate, Re, 1720
Law V. Butler, 1468, 1473, 1474, i479> M^o
1}. McDonald, 2226
V. Paterson, igrs
Lawes v. Lumpkin, 1165
Lawney's Trustees v. St. Louis, 1134
Lawrence v. Bartlett, 645
V. Brown, 716, 718, 737, 740, 780, S63
V. Burrell, 1166
V. Cooke, i68g
■u. Cornell, 2176
V. Dale, 1770
V. Davis, 1795
V. Fox, 2072
V French, 1128, 1168, 1174
u. Heister, 903
V. Kemp, 109, III, 121, 123, 139
V. Knapp, 2ogg, 2104, 2106
V, Knight, 1159
V. Lawrence, 415, 465, 965
7/. Mayor of Savannah, 1157
V. Miller, 714, 716, 738, 838, 893, 1149,
1220
•V. Obee, 2245
V. Shipman, 1193, 1194
V. Smith, 55
V. St. Mark's Ins. Co., 1224
ZK Stratton, 2055, 2103, 2134
V. Tayloa. 1042
V. Taylor, 1041
V. Towle. 2069
zj. Tucker, 2023
V. Wardell, 1246
Fawry v. Tilleny, 2296
Lawson v. Cunningham, 1259
V. Love joy, 985
7/. Morten, 781, 789, 841, 842, 857
Lawther v. Corill, 998
Lawton v. Adams, 1904
V. Buckingham, 2349
V. Ford, 1782
V. Giles, 199
z>. Lawton, 123, 124, 12S, 129
V. Rivers, 2217, 2218, 2219, 2220, 2221
V. Salmon, 107, 128, 130, 137
V. Savage, 1294
Lawyer v. Cipperly, 34
V. Slingerhand, 1450, 1473
Lay 7/. Gibbons, 1758
Laylinz'. Knox, 2172
Layman z*. Shultz, 2012
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clix
Layman v. Throp, 1309, 1348
Layne v. Pardee, 1456
Layson v. Grange, 1454, 1495, 1496
Layton v. Butler, S64, 867, S74, S75, 876
V. Field, 1270
Lazarus z*. 'Commonwealth Ins. Co., 631
Lazear v. Porter, 806, 8go, 927
Lazell V. Lazell, 1392, 1417, 1418, 1461
V. Pinnick, 1033
Lea V. Hernandez, 1281, 1294
V, Netherton, 1150
Leach v. Duvall, 794
V. Leach, 585, 58S, 670, 711, 761, 776
V. Pillsbury, 1456
Leek V. Richmond Co., 1804
Leadbeaterw. Roth, iio6, 116S
Leaders*. Homewood, 115, 145, 1186
Leak v. Gay, 1380
Leake z-. Watson, 1661, 1668
Lean, Doe d., z>. Lean,
Lear v. Leggett, 253, 260, 272, 1056, 1113
Learned v. Cutler, goi
V. Foster, 2151
V. Fritch, 1253
Leary v. Patiison, 1151
7/. Meier, 133S
Leathers t'. Furr, 2246
V. Gray, 439, 440
Leavittz'. Beime, 273, 1739, 1747
V. Bevine, 254
V. Fletcher, 1068, 1083, 1099, iioo, 1106,
1175, 1183, 1200
Z-. Lamprey, 733, 736, 739, 798, 867, 874,
875.
V. Leavitt, 1257, 1260, 1299, 1319, 1322,
1335. 1338,2316
V. Pell, 1828, 1829, 1832
V. Pratt, 2130
V. Wooster, 307, 340, 342
Leaycraft v. Hedden, 1373, 1562
Lebanon Mutual Fire Ins. Co. &. Erb, 631
Le Beau z>. Glaze, 2129
Le Breton v. Nouchet, 775
Lebtnards'. White, 89
Lecatt V. INIerchants' Ins. Co. 643
Lechmere v. Carlyle, 1784
V. Lavie, 347, 1627, 1630, 1632
Lecompte v. Wash, 894
Ledbetter z'. Cash, 1979
V. Gash, 1975, 1986
V. Quick, 2272
Ledwich, /« re, 1599
Ledyard v. Butler, 1997, 2063 )
V. Chapin, 2129, 2134
V. Phillips, 47
z/. Ten Eyck, 2294
Lee V. Adkins, 2363
v. Baumgardener, 84, 88, 89
zf. Browder, 1633, 1645, 1648
V. Evans, 1996, 2045, 2050
V. Fletcher, 2034, 2056, 2061
V. Fox, 1990
V. Hanison, 1677
■V. Jeddo Coal Co., 2336
1/. Kilbum, 2044
V. Kingsbury, 1413, 1480, 1488; 1504, 2158
v. Kirby, 1697
V. Lee, 1020, 1716
V. Lindell, 725, 785, 786, 886, 887
7/. McElvy, 4ir, 413, 415
V. Miller, 1443
z/. Moseley, 1395, 1458
z'. Muggeridge, 1836
2/. Payne, 1122
V. Risdon, 119, 127, 145, 1186
Zf. Selleck, 2056
z;. Smith, 976, 2288
V. Stanley, 1456
2/, Stiger, 2068
V. Stigner, 2069
z>. Stone, 2140
V. Summers, 1282
Lee V. Turne, 1902
V. Woodworth, 2024
V. Zabriskee, 1920
Leech v. Leech, 759
Leed v. Beene, 1782
Leeds zr. Cheetham, 1098, 1179, 1181
V. Gifford, 2066
z'. Wakefield, 1830
Leefe, Matter of, 221, 645
Leesz/. Nuttall, 1617,- 1644, ^645, 1708, 1771
Le Farge F. Ins. Co. 7/. Bell, 2197, 2180
Lefever v. Lefever, 918, 944
V. Witmer, 1366, 1377
Leffingw.ell v. Elliott, 1095
V. Warren, 1516
Leffler v. Armstrong, 1755
Legard z>. Hodgers, 1665, 1690
Legge V. Legge, 495
V. Strudwick, 1300, 1307, 1313, 1314, 1321,
1322
Leggett V. Bullock, 2126
z>. Dubois, 218, 1635, 1680
z/. Hunter, 1599, 1798
v. Hyde, 1241, 1243
Zf. McClelland, 670
v. New Jersey Mfg. & Bkg. Co., 2342
V. Perkins, 299, 1374, 1559, 1606
z/. Steele, 842
Le Gierce v. Green, 2263
Lehigh Valley R. Co. z/. McFarlan, 2292
Legro V. Lord. 1480, 1481
Lehman v. Br)'an, 1457
V. Lewis, 1635
z'. McQueen, 2109
z'. Tallahassee Mfg. Co., 2065
Leiby v. Wilson, 121 1
Leicester, Doe d., v. Briggs, 1560, 1574, 1607
Leiderkranz Society v. Beck, 863
Leigh z/. Balcarres, 1040
z/. Barry, 1732
7/. Dickeson, 1891
Zf. Hammer's Case, 750
z>. Harrison, 1678
V. Loyd, 2159
Zf. Shepherd, 1927
V. Smith, 178-1, 1785
Leighton v. Preston, 1998, 2079
Zf. Shapely, 2129
v. Theed, 1267
Leishman v. White, 1128, 1167, 1173, 1174
Leitch V. Boyington, 2251, 2257, 2258
V. Little, 1889
Leitensdorfer z/. Delphy, 2S4
Leith V. Irvine, 2051
Lekeux ?/. Nash, 1074, 2265
Leland z'. Adams, 307, 309, 312
z/. Garrett, 63
z'. Gassett, 62, iig, 2213
' z'. Loring, 2157
Le la Zerge z/. Kom, 1246
Lemar v. Miles, 126
Lemmond z'. Peoples, 1637
Lemon z>. Graham, 284
z>- Hayden, 2206
Zf. Lemon, 965
Lempet's Case, S85
Lench v. Lench, 1623, 1642, 1644, 1700, 1761
Lenfers z/. Henke, 561, 811, S12, 847, 851,852,
Lenihan v. Hamann, 2152
Lenmau z/. Lewis, 1633
Lennox z/. Reed, 1999, 2149, 2151
Lentz'. Howard, 1798
Lentz 7'. Lentz, 18S2
Leonard z/. American Bapt. Home Mission
Soc, 1809
V. Bell, 1603, 1680
V. Burgess, 2251
7J. Burr, 179S
7'. Countess of Sussex, 1609
71. Diamond, 1604, 1753
V. Henderson, 1139, 1151
clx
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Leonard v. Leonard, 849, S50, 1899, 2299
V, Pitney, 1268, 1272
V. Scarborough, 1246, 1905
V. Steele, 942, 946, 949
V. Stickney, 135, 136, 137
V. Storer, 1085, 1199, 1201
Leonis v. Lazzarovich, 2331
Leppitt V. Hopkins, 536
Lesesne v. Witte, 1593
Leshey v. Gardner, 1697, i6g8
Lesley v. Randolph, 1254, 1271, 1300, 1303, 1308,
1315, 1320, 1325, 1328, 1335, 1336, 1338,
1339
Leslie v. Pounds, 1196
Lessley v. Phipps, 1499, 1512, 1513, 1517
Lester v. Garland, 1005, 174S
V. Hardesty, 2262
Lestrade v. Earth, 2331
Letchford v. Gary, 1442, 1499
Letheullier v. Tracey, 370, 373
Le Toureau v. Smith, 1338
Levering v. Heighe, 954, 956
Levett V. Eickford, 1138, 1139, 1154
V. United States, 1036
Levi z". Erooks, 1194
Levicks v. Walker, 1506
Levins v, Sleator, 670, 771, 920
Levitzki z'. Canning, 1166, 1168
Levy V. Brush, 1559
V. Dyess, 1068, 1098, logg, 1105, 1181,
1183
"u. Lane, 2080
V. Levy, 1603
V. Twiname, 2272
Lewes v, Lewes, 260, 272, 273, 1677
V. Ridge, 1849
Lewinz/. Atkinson, 1984
V. Mody, 2358
Lewis V. Baird, 1786, 2366
V. Beall, 2320
V. Branthwaite, 988
V. Chisholm, 1166
V. City of St. Louis, 1140, 1151
V. Clark, i8g6
V. Coxe, 903, 927
V. Day, 2068
V. De Forrest, 2022, 2027
V. Hawkins, 15S5, 1736, 1782
V. James, 842, 844
V. Jones, 80, 566, 567, 1184
V. Lewis, 730, 933, 941, 1617
z'. Lyman, 79, 1184, 1238, 1239
V. Maddocks, 1761
V. Malone, 2272
V. McNatt, 51, 983, i2og
V. Merserve, 764
z'. Mobely, 522
V. Naugh, 2073, 2170
V. O. N. P. Co., 1188
V. Palmer, 339
z'. Payn, 1129, 1166, 1174
V. Rickey, 240
V. Simon, 1949
V. Smith, 917, 918, 925, 935, 936, 941, 942,
944,_ 946
V, Wilkins, 2251, 2254
Lewis, Doe d., v. Reed, 1306
Lewis, Doe d., v. Rees, 1215
Lewis ex d. Ormond v. Waters, 424
Lewis' Heirs v. Ringo, 975
Lewiston v. Proctor, 2206
Lexington Life F. & M. Ins. Co. z-. Page, 1737,
1738
Leyman v. Abeel, 2191, 2200
L'Hussier v. Zallee, 1066
Libby v. Clark, 228
V. Hopkins, 1762
V. Staples, ggS, 1043
V. Tolford, 1066, 1191, i2or
I.iddard v. Liddard, 1630
Lidderdale v, Robinson, 2177
Liebschultz v. Moore, 1164
Liefe v. Salingstone, 319, 487
Lienow v. Ellis, iri8
Liesz/. De Diablar, 1450, 1463, 1467, 1471, 1473
Life Ins. Co. v. Cole, 2359
Liford's Case, 60, 442, 443
Liggins V. Inge, 2243, 2246, 2247
Light V. Light, 949
V. Scott, 1791, 1792
Lightfoot V. Wallis, 2060
Lightgow z>. Cavenagh, 342
Ligon V. Spencer, 741
Like V. McKinstry, 996, 1205
Liles V, Fleming, 955, 963
Lllford's Case, 55
Lilley v. Fifty Associates, 1157, 2254
Lillianskyoldt v. Goss, 1884
Lillibridge %>. Adie, 417
Lillie V. Dunbar, 54
Lilly ZK Palmer, 810, 2070, 2130, 2178
Lime Rock Bank v. Phettleplace, 7S6, 825
Lime Rock Nat. Ek. v. Mowry, 2096
Linch V. Broad, 1896
Lincoln v. Buckmaster, 1034
V. Edgecomb, 211, 2298
V. Emerson, 2091
■V. French, 1800
V. Hapgood, 1456
V. Lincoln, 2, 310, 315, 660
■V. Newcastle, 1693
V. Wright, 2049
Lincoln & K. Bank v. Drummond, 1861
Linden v. Graham, 740
V. Hepburn, T112
Lindley v. Groff, 1882
V. Kelley, 1231, 1232
Linde z'. Belisario, 595
Lindsay v, Limbert, 11 15
V. McCormack, 305, 306, 335, 336, 340,
342
V. Murphy, 1457
Lindsey v. Bates, 2099
V. Delano, 2175
V, Leigliton, 1045
V. Lindsey, 1956
7'. Miller, 2304
V. Platner, 1612, 1615
IJndsley v. Coaies, 11 8, 458
Line zi. Stephenson, 1080
Lines v, Darden, 1561, 1654
Lingen v. Lingen, 368
Lingenfelter, z'. Ritchey, 1700
Link V. Edmonson, 780, 885
Linkenhoker's Heirs v. Detrick, 1506
Linker z/. Benson, 1897, 1915
V. Smith, 795
Linn z'. Alexander, 425
V. Ross, 1083, 1098, 1126, 117s, 1177
Linn Co. Bank xl Hopkins, 1439, 1440
Linnell v. Lyford, 2168
Linsley v. Tibbals, ggg, 1002
Linton v. Wilson, 578
Linville v. Savage, 2008
Linzee v. Mixer, 267, 268
Lion V. Eurtiss, 447, 471
Lippen v. Eldred, 310
Lippett V. Hopkins, 321, 332
Lippit V. Huston, 448
Lipsky V. Borgmann, 61, 63
Liptrotz/. Holmes, 1597, 1796
Lisburne v. Davies, 1215, 1306
Lishy V. Perry, 1481
Lisle, Goodright d., v. PuUin, 424
Lisloff V, Hart, 1642, 1643
List 1'. Rodney, 407
Litchfield v. Cudworth, 634, 636, 637
V. McComber, 1517
%'. White, 1713,1714, 1723, 1728
Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 333, 340, 402, 414, 415,
447, 466, 591, 2346
V. Moody, 1285, 1310
Litscombe, Doe d.. v. Yates, 265
Littell & Smith Mfg. Co, v. Miller, 1949
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxi
Litterer v. Berry, 2064
Little V, Bennett, 1631
v. Birdwell, 1858
v. Dodge
V. Duncan, 103 1
2K Libby, 210, 211, 212, 973, gSo, 1149
71. Palister, 1253, 1266
V. Pearson, 1276, 1292, 2270, 2271
7/. Snedecor
Littlefield v. Brooks, 1456
V. Nichols. 2124
Littleton z>. Littleton, 727, 728, 794, 796,
912
Littlewort v. Davis, 2045
Litton 7'. Baldwin, 1375
Lively Z'. Ball, 1213
V. Paschal, 907, 939
Livennore v. Aldrich, 1648
Livingston v. County of St. Clair, 2293
V. Ketcham, 547
V. Livingston, 647, 648, 962, 1640, 1647
V. Miller, 2258
V. Moingona Coal Co., 2238
V. Murray, 1754, 1S20
V. Potts, 1162
7'. Peru Iron Co., 2297
V. ReynoldS) 546, 554, 556, 1223, 1229
z'. Stickles, 250, 255, 266, 1143
V. Story, 1994
V. Tanner, 1317, 1344, 1348, 1350, 1354,
1355, 1356
». Tenbrock, 2199, 2201
V. Tompkins, 1146, 1872
Livingston, Jackson ex d. v. Bryan, 1146, 1269
V. Krisselbrack, 993
Ller V. Routh, 2295
Llewellyn v. Mackworth, 1782, 1783, 1785
Lloyd z/. Branton, 267,270
V. Carter, 1648, 1649, 1696
71. Conover, 785, 786, 787
V. Cozens, 1122, 1123, 1298, 1300, 1308,
1314, 1315, 133s. 1336
V. Chrispe, 1143, 1163
V. Gordon, 1915, 1976
V. Hart, 95
V. Holly, 1847, "850
z>. Lloyd, 202, 271, 307, 1637, i68q, 1858
z/. Lynch, 1588, 1590, 1650, 1653, 1882,
1990
V. Malone, 862
V. Read, 1646, 1647
V, Spillett, 1537, 1538, 1611, 1637
7'. Tomkies, 1166
Lloyd, Doe d., v, Passingham, 1556, 1558, 1559,
1583, 1655'
Loach V. Famum, 1044
Loader v. Kemp, 1086
League v. Memphis, 2260, 2261
Loan Association v. Watson, 1384
Lobdell V. Hall, 2240
V. Hayes, 731, 782, 828, 831, 893
V. Lobdell, 1697
V. Simpson, 2238
Lobenthal v. Raleigh, 1816, 2167
Lochenour v. Lochenour, 1647
Lock V. Fulford, 2153, 2178
V. Lock, 518
V. Turze, 1092, 1190, 1245
Locke 7/. Alexander, 1923
7*. Barbour, 323, 500
v. Caldwell, 2175
V. Coleman, 1017, 1047
V. Frasher, 1281
V. Homer, 805, 2068, 2069
V. Matthews, 1293, 1295
z>. Palmer, 2055
V. Rowell, 146X
V. White, 2301
Lockey v. Lockey, 1615
Lockhardt v. Hardy, 2181
Ix>ckhart v. Wyatt, 1600, 1704
Lockitt's Admr. v. James, 9x4
11
Lockwood V. Lockwood, 106, 981, 1254, 1255,
1264, 1300, 1322
V. Marsh, 2137
V. Nelson, 1794
V. Sturdevant, Sio, 2096, 2098
V. Thunder Bay Co., 2271
Lockwood, Doe d., v. Clark, 1076
Lockyer v. Savage, 1677
7'. Sinclair, 594
Lodge V. Patterson, 1914, 1915
V. Simonton, 1756, 1759
Loeb V. McMalion, 976, 1408
Lofland z'. Emory, 1319
Lofft V. Dennis, 1177, 1179, 2270
Lofsky V. Maujr, 2066
Loftis V. Glass, 76
Loftus' Case, 1024
Logan V. Bell, 1829
7/. Green, 1165
7/. Herron, 1125, 1131, 1271, 1300, 1308,
1310, 1315, 1335, 1336, 1337
V. McGill, 58S
V. Phillips, 898
v. Simmons, 659, 794, 795
71. Smither, 2107, 2151, 2166
V. Walker, 1646
7/. Walton, 722
Logue V. Batenian, 1821, 1822
Logwood V. Hussey, 2044
Lomax v. Bird, 2169
V. Gendele, 1S83
Lombard 7/. Kiiizie, 776, 1014
Lombrat v. Kinzie, S44
Lomers v. Johnston, 1046
Londendyck v. Anderson, 2245
London z*. London, 794
V. Richmond, 2265
London Chartered Bank of Australia z/. Lem-
priere, 1826
Londonberry v. Chester, 596, 751
Long 7'. Barnes, 1940
7/. Blackall, 2280
V. Cason. 1782, 1785
7'. Fitzsimmons, 5G3, 1083, 1202, 1228
V. Graeber, 664
7/. Green, 1207, 1231
z'. Kinney, 646, 895, 1938
V. Millar, 999, 1043
V. Moler, 1094
t', Mostyn, 1479
Z'. Wade, 2065
V. Whidden, 1032
7>. White, 1371
V. Woods, 1138
Longbottom v. Berry, 105, 125. 127, 132, 133
Longfellow v. Longfellow, 1160, 12 13, 1218,
1220
V. Quimbly, 1901
Longford v. Eyre, 1831
Longley v. Longley, 1637
Longqiiet 7'. Scawen, 2010
Longstretcher-7/. Pennock, 2266
Longstaff 7/. Meagoe, 132
Longwith V. Butler, 59, 2160
Loomer v. Dawson, 1000
7'. Wheelwriglit, 811, 201 1, 2099
Loomis V. Bedell, 1166
7/. Brush, 648
7'. Gerson, 1504
V. Lincoln, 2272
V. Marshall, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243,
1244
V. Pingree, 2355
7/. Riley, 2152
7/. Spencer, 2345
V. Wilbur, 545. 546, 554
Lord V. Carbon Iron Co., 198
V. Crowell, 2083
7/. Ferguson, 1617
V. Folmer, 2354
V. Lord, 936, 94o,<955. 957. '4i8
V. Morris, 2095 ■
clxii
TABLE OF OASES.
References arc
to pages.
Lord V. Parker, 646, 1514
V. Ramsey, 233S
V. Wardle, 60
Lord de la Warre's Case, 277
Lord, Doe d., v, Crage, 1265, 1320, 1324
Lord HoUis' Case, 1783
Lore V. Pierson, 2261
l^orentz v. Lorentz, 1647
Lorieux z-. Keller, 1521
Lorimer v. Lewis, 1035
Loring v. Bacon, 64, 65, 507, 1891
V. Blake, 1682
V. Cooke, 2139
V, Elliott, 1637
V. Loring, 163 1
V. Manufactures Ins. Co., 2119
V. Marsh, 1662, 1814, 1842
•V. Melendy, 1225
V. Palmer, i6gi, 1705
•V. Salisbury, 1749
V. Steineman, 522, 523
v. Stuart, 1949
Lorman v. Benson, 68, 6g, 70, 194
Losee v. Buchanan, 198
V. Morey, 1697
Losey v. Simpson, 2365
Lothrop 7). Clewis, 2274
V. Thayer, 1277
V. Wightman, 1964
Lett V. Thompson, 234
V. Wyckoff, 370, 390
V. Wykoff, 415, 447, 471
Lottman u. Bamett, 1194, iig6
Loubat V. Nourse, 786, 824, 825, ig6o, 1963
Loucks, Jackson ex d., v. Churchill, 940, 944,
945- 946. 955- 965
Loud V. Lane, 809, iSto
V. Loud, 896, 897
Loudon V. Warfield, 574
Loughborough's Ex. v. Loughborough's De-
visees, 75
Loughbridge z*, Harris,
Loughmiller z*. Harris, 1763
Loughran v. Ross, 115, 131, 146, 147, "89, 1224
V. Smith, 1017
Louisville C. & C. R. Co. ik Letson, 1540
Louisville R. Co. v. Covington, 2245
Louke V. Woods, 2206
Lounsbery v, Snyder, 1013, 1128, 1169, 1322,
1323
Lounsbury v. Purdy, 1559, 1613, 1615
Loupe V. Wood, 1054
Loury v. Coulter, 50
Louther w. Corrill, 1017
Lovaller v. Menard, 1973
Lovat V. Lord Ranelegh, 1841
V. Ranelegh, 1157, 1158
Love V. Buchanan, 1648
V. Dennis, 1213
V. Edmonston, 1140, 1259, 1269, 1290
z;., Gates, 1349
V. Howard, 1102
V. Law, 1315, 1316,2272
V. Mining Co., 2001
V. Robertson, 1947
Love, Den ex d., v. Edmonston, 1282, 1297,
1309
Loveacres v. Blight, 302, 338, 344, 1594
Loveday v. Winter, 1040
Lovelace's Case, 1044
Lovelace v. Webb, 2065
Lovell V. Briggs, 1766
V. Leland, 2157
Lover v. Bessenger, 1479
Loveridge v. Cooper, 2124
Lovering v. Levering, 1080, 1082
V. Worthington, 323, 1682
Lovett V. Gillender. 249
V. Lovett, 780, 788, 815, 820, 826
Lovingston v. County of St. Clair, 2293, 2294
Low V. Burron, 490
V. Burrow, 788, 820, 821
Low V. Griffith, q88
V. Henry, 2054
z". Holmes, 1894
V, Mumford, 1901
V. Peno, 2016
•V. Smart, 2137
Lowe's Case, 1S4
Lowe V. Brooks, 1729, 1882
V. Cloud, 265
V. Grinnan, 2161
V. London & N. W. R. R. Co., 1331,
133Z
V. Miller, 1234, 1247, 1884, 1904, 2213
Lowell's Appellant, 18S6, 1919
Lowell V. Daniels, 924, 2345
V, Middlesex Ins. Co.j 200S
V. Shannon, 1419
Lowell Meeting House v. Lowell, 64
Lowenstein v. Chappel, 1247
Lowndes v, Chrisolm, 2088, 2090
Lowrey v. Byers, 2136, 2150
V. Fulton, 1599
Lowry ^^ Bradley, 1456
V. Fisher, 792, 914
V, Steele, 607, 60S, 609, 615, 654, 693,
1372
V, Tew, 1269
Lowther v. Corill, 1042
»z/. Lowther, 1758
Loyd V. Read, 1634
Lozo V. Sutherland, 1425, 1426
Lucas V. Brooks, 1214, 1274
•u. Cobbs, 1349
V. Commerford, 1083
V. Dorrien, 2002
V. Harris, 2104, 2106
V. Lockhardt, 1593, 1627, 1629, 1630, 163 1
V. Lucas, 588, 648
V. Peters, 1989
V. Rickerich, 1363, 1368, 1369
V. Sawyer, 709, 721, 725, 893
V. Wasson, 1246
Luce z*. Stubbs, 835, 868, 860
Lucena v. Crauford, 631, 1668
Luch's Appeal, 2003, 2004
Lucier z/. Marsales, 2258
Lucius Hart Manf. Co., Re, 2266
Luckett V. Townshend, 2055
V. White, 1870
Lucy V. Levingstone, 1S69
Lud V. Hoff, 1919, 1931, 1934
Ludlamz*. Ludlam, 217
Ludlow V. Cooper, 786, i960
V. Hudson R. Co., 2232
Ludlow, Jackson ex d., v. Meyers, 531, 532,
1556, 1557, IS59. 1566
■u. New York &. H. R. R. Co., 272,
1058, 1840, i860, 1863, 1867, 1868
Lufkin V. Curtis, 591, 900
V. Preston, 2250
Luhrs V. Eimer, 221, 775
Luigart v. Ripley, 965
Luige V. Ducbesi, 1739
Lull v. Matthews, 1998
Lumb V. Jer.kins, 660, 672
V. Milnes, 1371, 1372
Lumis z*. Reily, 191 1
Lumley z/. Hodgson, 1120
Lumley, Doe d., v. Scarborough, 1845
Lummus v. Mitchell, 340
Lunay v. Vantyne, 2282
Lund V. Lund, 688, 1992, 2039, 2054
V. Parker, 212
Lundberg v. Sharvey, 1438
Lunhamz'. Blundell, 1720
Lunling v. Brady, 2151
Lunn V. Gage, 1085, 1086
V. Thornton, 2020
Lunsford z*. Turner, 1148, 1169, 1170, 1219,1348
Lunt 7'. Lunt, 2111
Luntz V. Greve, 66g
Luptou V. Lupton, 2181
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxiii
Lurch's Appeal, 2004
Lush r'. Wilkiiisou, 1626
Lusher v. Banbong, 373
Lusk z/. McNamar, 1763
V. Smith, 749
Lute V. Reilly, 1502, 1519
Luther zk Arnold, 1923, 1924
V. Borden, 1516
V. Winn isim met t Co., 2230
Luttrell's Case, 2222, 2247
Lycoming v. Union, 1517
Lycoming F. Ins. Co. z/. Jackson, 2114
Lyddall v. Weston, 85
Lyde v, Russell, 130, 145, 146, 1187, 1224
Lydston v. Powell, 2159
Lyford v. Thurston, 1622, 1746
V. Ross, 799
Lykes %'. Schwarz, 1132
Lyle V. Burke, 1592, 17S6, 1788
V, Richards, 401, 462
z>. Palmer, 123
Lylerly v. W'^:eler, 2355
Lyles 7'. Dlcgie's Lessee, 533
7'. Lyles, TS95, 2260
Lyman v. Cessford, 1626
V. Fiske, 1456
V. Gedney, 2096
z'. Hale, 56, 57
V. Hollester, 744
V. Lyman, 2155, 2180
7'. Seames, 2358
V. United Ins. Co., 1649
Lynch v. Baldwin, 1166
V. Clarke, 217
V. Clements, 1590
V. Onondaga Salt Co., 1098
V. Pace, 1401
V. Ulica Ins. Co., 2036, 2123
Lynd v. Menzies, 34
Lynde v. Hough, 1104, mi, 1112, 1113, 1118,
1141, 1867
V. O'Donnell, 2154
V. Rowe, 133, 2065,
V. Russell, 104
Lyne's Exrs., 1376
Lynn's Appeal, 494, 544, 553, 555, 55S, 561
Lyon V. Adde, 252
V. Cunningham, 1027, 125S, 1269, 1271,
1289,1290, 1292, 1305
V. Ilvaine, 1580
V. Kain, 908
V. La Mastem, 1213
v. Lyon, 1776
V, Mcllvane, 8ro, 2039, 2058, 2130
V. Marsh, 305, 317
V. Marclay, 178^
V. Robbins, 2075, 2172
Lyons v. Adde, 2262
Lysaght v. Edwards, 434
Lysle V. Williams, 1005
Lyster 'o. Kirkpatrick, 1884, 1888
Lylle V. Arkansas, 2306, 2307, 2308
M.
Maberly v. Strod, 315
Mabie v. Katingter, 2133
Mably v. Stain back, 201, 202
Mabone v. Williams, 2087
Kabury v. Rutz, 1466
Macauly v. Porter, 2052
Macdonnell v. McKay, 54
Macdonough v. Elam, 1488, 1502
Mace V. Ramsey, 1247
Macey v. Shurmer, 1629
Machell v. Clarke. 455
Macher v. Foundling Hospital, 1871
Machette v. Wanless, 2027
MachiU v, CHark, 387
Machir v. May, 1723
Mack V. Burt, 1133
Mack V. Grover, 2149
V. Patchin, 1082, logi, 1190, 1245, 1248
V. Roch, 585
Mackasou's Appeal, 1748
Mackay z'. Bloodgood, 501
V. Macieth, 975, 1306
Mackey v. Collins, 730
V. Dillon, 2192
V. Proctor, 597, 608, 615, 692, 703
Mackie v. Smith, 106
Mackinnon ^^ Stewart, 1793
Mackintosh v. Trotter, 145
Macleay, Re, 258, 261, 262, 263
Macklot V. Dubreuil, 2295
Macknet v. Macknet, 938, 948
Mackreth v. Symmons, 832, 200S, 2009
Mackubin v. Whatcroft, 1059, 1060, 1139
Macnab v. Whitbread, 1627, 1629
Macnamara v. Jones, 347, 1632
Macomber v. Cambridge Mut. F. Ins. Co.,
2116
•0. Godfrey, 2228
V. Parker, 2020
Macreth v. Symmons, 2004, 2124
Macy V. Combs, 1243, 1244
Madden v. Madden. 1489
Maddisoii v. Chapman, gi8, 944
Maddocks v. Jellison, 740
V. White, 1 184
Madden v. U'hite, 1301, 1306
Maddox v. Dent, 76
V. Maddox>,27o, 1858
•V. Simmons, 1032
V, White, 1 104, 1107, 122S
Madigan v. McCarthy, 2021
V. Welsh, 730
Madison Avenue Baptist Church 77. Baptist
Church on Oliver Street, 35, 2295
Madison & J. R. Co. v. Whiteneck, 212S
Madison, etc., Plank Road Co. %\ Watertown
Plank Road Co., 2014, 2016
Madland 7>. Benland, 2336
Madox tf. Humphries, 2254
Maedar v. City of Carondelet, 1082
Magaw V. Cannon, 1284, 1308, 1321, 1323
V. Lambert, 1098, 1160, 1166, 1179, 1182
Magdalene Hospital «'. Knott, 1019
Magee v. Leggett, 2177
V. Magee, 210, 211, 1492, 1497, 1498, 2295,
2297
V. O'Neill, 265
7'. Mellon, 923
V. Young, 714, 721, 725, 769, 850, 882, 893
Maggart i>. Hausbarger, 1000, irSr
Magill V. De Witt Co. County Sav. Bank,
2137
V. Hinsdale, 2065
Magnay 7*. Edwards, 1173
Magniac v. Thompson, 1561
Magnolia v. Marshall, 6g
Magnusson v. Johnson, 2053
Magoun v. Lapham, 207
Magruder v. Peter, 204
V. State Bank, 2025, 2059
Maguire v. Maguire, 594, 893
V. Park, 123
Magwood V. Johnson, 1562
Mahagan v. Mead, 2153
Mahan v. Brown, 2223, 2224
Mahe v. Reynolds, 1135
Maher v. Lanfrom, 2060
V. McConaga, 1462
Mahew v. Hardesty, 1117
Mahon v. McGraw, 1621
V. Smith, 708
Malione v. Brown, 83
Mahoney v. A. & St. L. R. R. Co., 976
V. Young, 789, 797, 821, 822, 841, 937, 945
Mahomer v. Harrison, 1653
Maigly v. Hauer, 1538
Main v. Featliers, 1075, iioo
V. Festhers, 2262
clxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Main v. Green, 799, ii3g
V. Schwarzwaelder, 104, 120, 137
Mainwaring 7/. Giles, 30, 33
Major V. Buckley, 1777
V. Chadwick, 2226, 2229, 2361
V. Lansley, 1371, 1562
Makspeace v. Rogers, 17S2
Wakinz'. Watkinson, 1084, 1097
Malcolm v. Allen, 2131
V. Malcolm, 411, 413, 415
V. Rogers, igoi, 1927
Iilalim V. Barker, 1630
V. Keighley, 347, 1628, 1630, 1632
Malin v. Clout, 804, 962
V. Malin, 1588, 1653
Mallalieu v. Wickham, 2170
Mallett V- Page, 2134
Mallinson v. Mallinson, 1464
Mallon V. Gates, 1409, 1452, 1524
Malloney v. Horon, 792, 793, 905, 906, 907, 915,
923, 924
Mallory v. Berry, 1483, 1484
V. Clark, 1751
V. Hitchcock, 810, 2097, 2098
V. Russell, 824
V. Stodder, 1016
V. Westsbore R. Co., 2070
Malmsby v. Milne, 96
Malone v. Majors, 933, 947
V. McLaurin, 587, 598, 604, 608, 612, 6ig,
686, 638, 692, 693, 703
V. O'Connor, 1630
Malpas V. Ackland, 1038, 1778
Maltby's Appeal, 339
Manahan v. Manahan, 2ior
Manchester v. Doddridge, 1258, 1269, 1281,
1282, 1289, 1293, 1294, 1928
V. Durfee, 41G, 465
Manchester Bond W. Co. v. Carr, 1153
Mandel v. McClave, 708, 715, gn, 929
V. McClure, 726
Manderbach v. Bethany's Orphan Home,
2216
Manderschild v, Dubuque, 2206
Mandeville v. Solomon, iggo
V. Welch, 2002
Mandlebaum v. McDonell, 245, 24g, 252, 255,
2gg, 263, 266, 444, 4g9
Manes v. Durant, 795
Manhattan Co. v. Evertson, 915
V. Osgood, 1625
Manhattan Life Ins. Co., v. Crawford, 2069
Manhattan R. Co. v. N. Y. Elevated R. Co.,
1019
Manice v. Brady, 2249, 2254
V. Manice, 75, 299, 1606
V, Millen, 11 56
Manietf. Myers, 2223, 2292
Manifee v. Manifee, S47, 861, 866
Manion v. Titsworth, 1781
Manks v. Enloe, 1967
Maulone v. Komrumpf, 1457
Manly v. Hunt, 1751
V. Pettel, 1976
V. Scott, 1034
V. Slason, 832, 2005, 2006, 2008
Mann's Appeal, 1362, 1366,1370, 1376
Mami V. Best, 2160 ^
V. City of Utica, 15 17
V. Darlington, 1623
V. Eckford's Exrs., iioi
V. Edson, 760, 764, 766, 7S1, 915
V. Falcon, 2000
V. Lovejoy, 1264, 1324, 1325
V. Mann, 964, 1648
V. Rogers, 1394
z-. Taylor,vi264, 1324, 1325
V. Young, 2301
Manners v. Phila. Library Co., 1603, 1604, 1681
Manning's Case, 606, 1250
Manning v. Hayden, 1621, 1644
V. Labore, 783, 797, 819, 841, 842, 844, 870
Manning v. Manning,i7i5, 1716
•u. Markel 2073
V. Smiili 2247, 2361
V. VVasdale, 2214, 2226, 2227
Mannolt v. Brush, 1979
Manriquand v. Hart, 1415
Mansell's Estate, 2182
Mausell v. Mansell, 1761
V. Vaughan, 18 17
Mansfield v. Alwood, 1714
V. Blackburne, 142
V. Doolin, 1051
V. Hawkes, 2191
V. Mansfield, 1804, 1833, 1842, 1843, 1844
V. Mclntyre, 771, 772,920
V. Pembroke. 877
Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. R. Co. ^ . Drinker,
594
Manser's Case, 2352
Mansur v. Willard, 1593
Hanson v, Phcenix Ins. Co., 2113
Mansony v. U. S. Bank, iggi
Mansur &. Pratt, 2015
Mantle v. Wellington, 1026
Mantz V. Buchanan, 710, 801, 802, 817, 849,
860
Manvillc's Case, 775, 883
Manwaring %>. Jenison, 116, 117
V. Powell, ig32, 2o6g, 2072
V, Tabor, 401;, 4og, 411, 413
Maples ?'. Medlin, 1764, 1765
V. Millon, 119, 132
Mapps V. Sharpe, 2104, 2106
V. Tyler, 1754, 1755
Marable v. Jordan, 589, 1367
Marble v. Lewis. S43, 844
V. Price, 2298
Marburg v. Cole, 1024, igig, 1931, 1932, 1942,
1950, 1951
Marcy v. Marcy, igts, 2296
Marden v. Chase, 2317, 231S
■V. Jordan, 1253
Margraf v. Muir, 1697
Margrave v. Archbold, loog
Mariner z/. Saunders, 1931, 1934
Mark v. Mark, 1864
V. Murphy, 744, 891, 922, 2151
Markel v. Evans, 2156
Markell v. Erchelberger, 2133
Markham v. Guerrant, 247, 254, 1748
V. Howell, 1039, 1804
V. Merritt, 786, 787, S41, 905
Mariner z*. Burton's Admr., 1290
V. Crocker, 11 19
MarkilUe v. Ragland, 305
Markland -v. Crump, 1074, 2251
Marks v. Gartside, 1141
V. Marks, 1572
V. Marsh, 1454
V. Pell, 2095, 2175
V. Sewall, 1924
Marlatt v. Warwick, 4
Marlborough v. Godolphine, 1812
Marler v. Tom.Tias, 1697
Marley v. Rogers, 1149
Marmiche v. Roumien, 1331
Marmon v. Marmon, 2013
Marple v. Myers, 1165
V. Scott, 1094
Marquart v. Bradford, 2303
Marquette R. Co. v, Harlow, 2270
Marquis of Camden, The, z/. Batterbury, 1301
Marr v. Gilliam, 1915
V. Lewis, 2164
Marriot v. Marriot, 1738
Marriott v. Abell, 1909
V. Edwards, 1149
V. Givens, 1712
Marryat v. Townly, 315
Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 274, 592, 617, 618, 619,
620, igSo
Marsh v. Austin, 2031, 2032
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxv
Marsh v. Butterfield, 1172
V. Hand, 1S96
V. Higgins, 671
V. Lee, 2139
V. Marsh, 1465
V. Pidgeway, 2158
V. Pike, 2o6g, 2072, 2112, 2150, 21(36
V, Towuer, 2005
Marshall v. Barr, 1450, 1473, 1475
V. Berridge, 999
V. Carson, 1644
z>. Christmas, 2008
V. Conrad, 216, 2014
7'. Crehore, 19S2
V. Crutwell, 1647
V. Davies, 2071, 2089, 2150, 2165, 2166
V. Ferguson, 51, 52
V. Fish, 297
7'. Fiske, 149, 1548,2316, 2364
V. Green, 55, 56
V. Joy, 162 1
V. King, 715. S5 1
V. Lippman, 2262
v. Marshall, 754, 755
V. Moore, 2153
V. Peters, 71, 72
V. Ruddick, 2136
V. Seare, 14S1
z'. Stephens, 1375, 1562, 1621, 1717
V. Stewart, 2039, 2040, 2055
v. Wood, 2097
Marshall Co. High School v. Evangelical Synod
School, 1856
Marshall County v. Schenck, 1041
Marsham v. Hunter, 2202
Marston v. Bradshaw, 2365
V. Marston. 265, 1850, 2158
Martien v. Norris, 945
'Martin v. Baker, 1075
z'. Ballou, 1857
V. Beatty, 2017
V. Benoist, 1194, 1196
V. Blanchett, 998
V. Dicksin, 2250
V. Dwelly, 1450, 1478, 2011
V. Fridley, 2085
V. Funk, 1587, 1594, 1655
V. Goble, 2222
V. Hughes, 1419, 1509, 1513, 1517
V. Hurlburt & R. Sav. Ek., 1428
V. Jackson, 1781, 1933, 1940
■V. Knapp, 1257, 1267, 1278
V. Knowlys, 1969
». Kirkpatrick, 1513
V. Lincoln, 744
V. Maguire, 1044
V, Margham, 260, 272
V. Martin, 647, 714, 755. 883. 896, 9io> 956.
960, 1128, 1168, 1174, I557» 1773) 2250,
2257, 2268, 2348
V, Mayo, 103 1
V. McReynolds, 1885, 2104, 2105, 2107,
2148
V. Mitchell, i486
V. Morris, 2151
•V. Nixon, 2060
V. Noble, 915
2/. O'Connor, 1077, 1112, 1122
D. Ogdon, 198
V. Pensacola & G. R. Co., 135
V, Pond, 2142
■v. Reynolds, 1886
V. Robinson, 669
J'. Robson. 587, 588
V. Rce, 108, 109, 110, 121, 131, 147. "37)
1187
V. Searcy, 11 64
V. Smith, 1323, 1559, T876, 1878, 1883
V. Steams. 1159. n^i
V. Sterling, 516
V. Strachan, 454. 459
•V. Tenison, 1689
Martin v. Thompson, 47
V. Tobes, 1 1 18
V. Waddell's Lessee, 196
V. Walker, 1396
z', Williams, 1020, 1021
Martin, Doe d., v. Watts, 1299, ^307i ^307. 1308,
1318, 1319, 1320, 1325, 1337
Martin Clothing Co, v. Henly, 1439
Martin, Heir of Fairfax, z/. Hunter's Lessees,
673
Martindale v. Price, 1047
Martineau v. McCullum, 2107
V. Steele, 2263
Martinez v. Thompson, 1201
Martins v. Bennett, 795
Martyn v. Knowllys, 1926
Marvel ik Outlip, 12S2
Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining Co., 90, 92,93,
2232, 2233, 2237
V. Schilling, 2170
•V. Smith, 839
V. Trumbull, 1963
Marvin Safe Co. v. Norton, 2056
Marx V. Davis, 2082
z/. McGlynn, 216
Marx Frankel v. Marx, 1028
Maryland Fire Ins. Co. v. Dalrymple, 1703,
1705, 1769, 1770
Maryland Mutual Benevolent Society v. Clen-
dinen, 1822
Maslin v. Thomas, 252, 396, 407, 408
Mason's Estate, 20
Mason n. Ainsworth, 1670
V. Anderson, 2303
V. Bascom, 1169, 1170
V. Daly, 2060, 2061
V. Day, 1091
V. Deese, 645
V. Denison, 1350
z>. Fenn, 145, 147, 1188, 1204
V. Finch, 1904
V. Fuller, 720
V. Grant, 2055
V. Haile, 1512, 1517
V. Hill, 72, 2225, 2226
V. Holt, 1357
V. Homer, 720
z/. Jones, igSo
V. Lord, 1580
V, Martin, 176S
V. Mason, 907, 1580, 1784
V. M. E. Church, 1555
V. Meyers, 1205
7J. Moody, 2036, 2037
V. Morgan, 1361
V. Moyers, 12x0
V. Payne, 2153. 2180
V. Philbrook, 2302
V. Pomeroy, 1752
V. Smith, 1 173
V. White, 2358
Mason's Lessee v. Sexton, 903
Massachusetts Hospital Life Insurance Co. -n.
Wilson, 1 1 19
Massey v. Banner, 1664, 1713, 1714, 1720, 1724J
1728
V. Farmers' Bank, 974, 975
V. Hudson, 322
V. O'Dell, 1782, 1783
V. Papin, 2015, 2080
Massie v. Long, 1026, 2356
V. Watts, 1585, 1643
V. Wilson, 2155
Massie's Heirs v. Long, 1923
Massot V. Moses, 983
Master z/. Master, 66r
V. Miller, 2338
Masters-^/. Madison Co. Ins. Co., 239
V. Pollic, 56, 57
Masterton v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 1247
Mastin V. Barnard, 1814
V. Halley, 2364
clxvi
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Masury v. Southworth, 1063, 1070, 1071, 1074,
107S, 1 103
Mather v. Chapman, gS, gg. 2332
V. Fraser, 103, 120, 125, 126, 133, 1186
V, Kunke, 2254
7/. Norton, 1S06
Mathews v. Aiken, 2126, 2178
z>. Bennett, 643, 1781
V. Heyward, 1623
v. Stephenson, i57g
Mathewson w. Phoenix Iron Foundry, 752
%i. Thompson, 1339
Mathis V. Stifflebeam, 1646
Matlack v. Roberts, 414, 418, 467
Matlock V. Fry, 50
V, Lee, 733, 735, 739
V. Matlock, 786, 824, 1961
Matney v. Graham, 837
Mattack v. James, 786
Matter of Albany Street, 2324
Bull, 1S04
Eddy, 2269
Latham, 1980, igSi
Orr, 1521
Prentiss, 1979
Matterson v. Thomas, 2150, 2153
Matthew z>. James, Baxter, 1033
Matthewman's Case, 2012 ■
Matthews v. Duryee, 708, 709, 716, 727, 813,
818, 925, 926, 2164
V. Light, 1620, 1643
V. Mayor, 1029
V. Memphis, 2087, 2088
V. Porter, 2047
V. Puffer, 2345
V. Wallwyn, 1995
V. Ward, 194, 195, 298, 1261, 1294, 1548,
1558, 1713, i742» 1750* 1800
Matthewson v. Smith, 801, 802
Maitice v. Lord, 1059
Matti:igly v. Speak. 2331
Mattis V. Robinson, 1160, 1212, 1222, 225S
Mattison v. Marks, 2138
Mattock V. Hightshue, 2261
V. Stearns, 616, 635, 636, 637, 661, 769,
1364
Mattex V. Hightshue, 1291, 1924
V. Weand, 2008
Matts V. Hawkins, igo3
Mauckz/. Mauck, 7S6
Mauldin v. Armistead, 1794, 1885
Maule 7'. Ashmead, 1067, 1080, 2362
V. Stokes, 2254
•u. Weaver, 59, 1063
Maull V. Wilson, 567
Maund's Case, 1050
Maundrell v. Mauudrell, 1807, 1816, 1826, 1844,
1S45, 1919
Maunsell v. Hart, 564
Maury V. Mason, 2175
Mauser v. Dix, 1740
Maverick v, Donaldson, 995
V. Grier, 1718
V. Lewis, 979, looi, 1127, ir69, 1233
Mnxan v. Scott, 2012
Maxey v. Loyal, 1503, 1517
Maxfield v. Hoecker, Z059
%>. Patchen, 2055
Maxon v. Gray, 716, 734^ 735, 741, 848
Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co., 70
zi. McAfee, 72
V. Brooks, 2121
zi. Maxwell, 1975
V. Reed, 1506
May V. Calder, 735, 1023
?'. Duke, 1718
V. Hook, 2344
V. Joyes, ^87
V. Le Claire, 1661, 1761, 2322
V. May, 645, 873, 877
ZI. Parker, 1900, 1901
V. Rawson, 2151
May z>. Rice, 1027
V, Rumney, 711, 7t7, 870, 871
V. Slaughter, 1723
V. Taylor, 1707
V. Tillman, 764
Mayberr>' w. Johnson, 1284
V. Brien, 762, 766, 824, 829, 866, 940, 1492
z'. Bryan, 783
Mayer v. McLure, 354
V. Moller, ro66
V. Mordecai, 1664
Mayers v. Paxton, 1383, 1467
Mayfield v, Maasden, 1420
Mayliam v. Combs, 2008
Mayhew v. Cricket, 2172
V. Durfee, 1895
Mayho v. Buckhurst, 1074
V. Cotton, 1419
Mayn zk Mayn, 1884
Maynard v. Esher, 2223
zj. Hunt, 2128, 2129
V. Maynard, 216, 1016, 1243, 2014, 2035
V. Valentine, 5
Maynes z/. Moore, 1517
Mayo V. Blount, 2357
V. Carrington. 2, 307, 309, 310
V. Cartwright, 2302
V. Fletcher, 2065, 2066, 2077, 2186, 2187
zt. Judah, 2051
V. Merrick, 2108
V. Newiiolf, 1 186
V. Shattuck, 2261
Mayor v. Athrop, 2332
V. Colies, 1197
V. Darmon, 2332
V. Elliott, 1555
V. Latton, 1019
V. Mebie, 975, 982, 983, 985
V. Pearl, 2273
V. Wylie, 1020
Mayor of Baltimore v. Warren Mfg, Co., igS
Mayor of Hamilton v. Hudson, 202. 307
Mayor of Hull v. Homer, 22151
Mayor of Kingston v. Horner, 518
Mayor of Lpndon v. Tench. 1040
Mayor of New York v. Exchange Fire Ins. Co.,
1189
V. Lord, 5
v. Mabie, 1065, 1080, 1081, 1082
V. Slack, 5
ZK Stuyvesant, 1851
Mayor of Philadelphia v. Permanent Bridge
Co., 1223
Mayor of Stafford z>. Till, 1332
Mayor of Thetford 7'. Tyler, 1133, 1317
Mayor, etc., of Colchester zi. Lowton, 2331, 2342
Mayson v. Sexton, 456, 463, 464
Maywood v. Johnston, 1375
V. Logan, 1197
Mazyck zj. Vanderhost, 383
McAdam zi. Walker, 595
McAfee v. Eettis, 929
V. Ferguson, 794
McAlesterz*. Landers, ri66
McAHster v. Hovauger, 892
V. Montgomery, 1965
McAllister 7/. Commonwealth, 1719
V. Shaw, 233s
V. Tate. 345
McAlpin w. Powell, 1082, 1182
McAlpine zi. Burnett, 2006
v. Woodruff. 2268
ZI. Zitzer, 2079
McArthur v. Carrie, 872
V. Franklin, 840, g25, 926, 2073, 2173
V. Gordon, 1665, 1724
V. Schenck, 2071
V. Scott, 1682
V. Sears, logg
McBee, Ex parte, 76
McBeth V. Trahue, 1923
McBrayer v. Cariker, 1578
References are
to pa^es.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxvii
McBiide's Estate, 650, 652
McBride v. Smyth, 1673, 1675, 1797
T. Williams. 645
McHuniey zf. Mclntyre, 1104, 1113
McCabe v. Bellows, 802, 840, 873, 879, 926, 927,
92S, 1494, 2074
z/. Grey, 212 1
V. Mazzuchelli, 1421, 1422
7/. Swap, S03, 805, 806, 80S, 809
McCable v. Hunter, 501
McCaffarty v. Griswold, 1245
v. McCafferty, 769, 771, 772, 920, 1376
V. Spuyteii Duyvil, 1194, 1195
McCatTery v. Woden, 2020
McCaffrey v. Woodiu, 1051, 2017, 2018
McCain v. Pickens, 1794
McC-iU V. Cawthorn, 2064
7'. Lenox, 2064
V. Walter, 123
v. Yard, 2147
McCall's Lessee 2>. Carpenter, 1973
McCallam v. Carsell, 1783
V. Carswell, 17S1
McCalUster v. Brand's Heirs, 945, 947, 948
7>. Willey, 1637
McCallum v. Germantown Water Co., 2238
McCammon v. Wheeler & Wilson Go., 998
McCampbell v. RlcCambell, 497, 645
McCandless' Appeal, 1988
McCandless' Estate, 1781
McCandless v. Warner, 1691
McCann v, Rathbone, 1140, 1266, 1294
McCanna z*. Johnston, 13 10
McCants v. Bee, 1707, 1708, 1759. 1764, 1766,
1776
McCardley v. Barricklow, 2242
McCarron v. Cassidy, 208S
McCartee 7>. Camel, 522, 523
V. Campbell, 522
V. Ely, 987
V. Teller, 899, 929, 933, 951, 953, 954, 957,
958, 960
V. Orphans' Asylum Soc, 224, 1541, 1565
McCarthy's Estate, 94
McCarthy v. Graham, 2167
. V. McCarthy, 1783
• V. Marsh, 217, 221
V. Van Der Mey, 1520
McCartney v. Bone, 872
V. Hunt, 1212
McCarty z'. Carter, 121 1
V. Kitchenman, 2241
z'. Terry, 221, 1637
McCaskle v. Amaune, 2365
McCaslin v. State. 2081, 2187
McCaughal v. Ryan, 1603
McCauley's Exrs. v. Dismal Swamp Land Co.,
742
McCauley v. Fulton. 1965
V. Grimes, 760, 763, 765, 766, 804, 817,826,
829, 830
McCausland's Estate, 751, 752
McCausland v. McCausland, 596
McCaw V. Burk, 959
McChandles z/. Engle, 202
McClafferty 7j. Spuyten Duyvil, 1193
McClain v. Doe d. Malone, 1309
V. Gregg, 1365
McClanahan z'. Henderson, 1708, 1726, 1768
V. Porter, 731, 791, 841, 844, 874, 891
McClane v. White, 2047
McClaren v. Spaulding, 1127
McClaryz/. Bixby, 1425, 1451
McCleary v. Edwards, 1166
v. Ellis, 249, 252, 499
McClellanz/. McClellan, 1590, 1592, 1696
McClenaghan v. McClenaghan, 223
McClenny v. Floyd, 1677
' McClintock's Appeal. 56
McClintockz/. Criswell, i2it
McClosky V. Miller, 2271
McClowry v. Cloghan's Admr., 1245
McClung V. Ross, 1913, 1914, 1916, 1917, 2295
McClure^S Appeal, 76
McClure v. Douthitt, 328, 333
V. Harris, 765, 777, 804
V. McClure, 1271
z'. Melton, 2096
V. Miller, 659, 995
McClure's Heirs 7>. Douthitt, 306, 310
McClurg's Appeal, 665
]VI,cClurg V. Phillips, 2038
McClurkam 7'. Thompson, 2050, 2051
McClurken v. McClurken, 1394
McClui-y?'. Schwartz, 727
McColl V. Fraser, 1762
McCoUough's Appeal, 1858
McCollough V. Gilmore, 259, 306, 331, 333, 348
McComb p. Wallace, 1272
McCombe v. Weight, 522
McCombs V. Becker, 2272
McConnaughy v. Baxter, 1420, 1433, 1441, 1442,
1459
McConnell v. Blood, 109, 120, 126, 132, 133, 134^
138, 2080
z>. Bowdry's Heirs, 1160, 1216
V. Brayner, 1700
V. HoUowbush, 2087
7'. Kibbe, 1979
7/, Martin, 1919
v. Reed, 1777, 2321, 2322, 2365
V. Scott, 2141
V. Smith, 309, 353
z/. Varey, 1978
V. Wenrich, 663
McCord V. McCord, 1806
McCormack v. Digby, 2106
V. Sullivan, 367, 368, 720
McCormic 7/. Leggett, 1031
McCormick v. Bishop, 64, 63, 507
V. Connell, 1061, 1154
V. Crogan, 1701
V. Gorgan, 1616
z'. Grogan, 1644
V. Hunter, S95
V. Irwin, 2177
V. Knox, 2074, 2172
V. Rusch, 1511
V. Sullivant, 2057, 2058, 2288, 2289, 2339
V. Taylor, 847, 861
V. Young, 2261, 2262
McCorry z*. King's Heirs, 489, 513, 516, 586>
590, 591, 600, 603, 613
McCoster v. Brady, 299, 1595, 1606, 1753, 1788
McCotter z*. Lawrence, 2314
McCoy V. Bateman, 2257
V. Scott, 1021,2252, 2257, 2259
McCracken v. Hayward, 1512
7'. Harris, i4q9
V. Rogers, 2279
z/. San Francisco, 2342
McCrackin v. Wright, 2322, 2323 _
McCrackin, Jackson ex d., v. Wiight, 829
McCrae, Jackson ex d., v. Mancius, 489, 497,
501- 514. 5^5. 5i6» 744
McCraken v. Hall, 115, 142, 14&
McCraney v. Alden, 2060
V. McCraney, 749, 750* 75Ij 769) 770t 77>»
862, 920
McCranklin v. McCranklin, 636,725, 1359
McCrary v. Slaughter, 1241
McCray 71. Samuel, 2272
McCrea, Jackson ex d., &. Dunlap, ioi6
V. Purmort, 1700
McCready f. Guardians, 1731
McCreary v. Boston & M. R. Co., 2243
V. Casey, 1648, 1651
V. Guardians, 1731
V. McCreary, 662, 2365
V. Marston, 1216
V. Osborne, 135
McCreery ?'. Allender, 215, 2014
?'. Shaffer, 1490
McCrickett v. Wilson, 2165, 2167
clxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
McCroan v. Pope, 1562
McCroskey v. Walker, 1439, 1440
McCruder v. Peter, 1023
McCuan v, Turretitine, 141 1
McCubbin v. Cromwell, 736, 783, 1589, 1598,
1691, 1734
McCue V. Gallagher, 1646
McCufEey v. Finley, 2147
McCulloch V. Good, 2274
McCullom V. Turpee, 2153, 2180
McCullough's Appeal, 271
McCullough V. Allen, 917
V. Andersou, 1821
V. Cox, 1854
•V. Dobson, 1048
V. Ford, 1646
V. Gilmore, 249, 261, 262, 263, 266, 267,
499
V. Gliddon, 292
V. Irvine, 565
V. Valentine, 687, 699
McCully V. Smith, 836
McCumber v. Gilman, 2185
McCune v. McMichael, 2302
McCurdy v. Canning, 1024, 1920, 1923, 1939,
1940, 1944. 1951. 1952
McDaniel v Colvin, 2027
V. Carroll, 1984
V. Douglas, 933
McDearmau ti. McClure, 1906
McDemottT^. Burke, 2065, 2173
McDermont v. Burke, 975, 1028
V. French, 1920, 1938, 1939, 1950
McDermutt v. Strong, 2083
McDevitt TJ. Lambert, 1330, 1340
V. Sullivan, 2258
McDill V. McDill, 2352
McDonald v. Badger, 1419, 1947
V. Black, 2113, 2114, 2117
V. Crandall, 1381, 1450, 1453, 1460, 1468,
1469, 1476, 1477, 1478, 1495, 1522
V. Gayle, 1260, 13 13
■V. Heylin, 504, 509
V. Lindall, 2207
V. McDonald, 1782, 2151
V. Sims, 1781
V. Stewart, loio, 2259
V. Walgrove, 338
V. Whitney, 2154
McDonel v. State, 217
McDonough v. Gilman, 1199
V. Murdoch, 1676
V. O'Neil, 1643, 1760,2045
V. Squire, 2043
McDougal 7K Bradford. 1950
McDougald v. Hepburn, 817
McDowell V. Adams, 2252, 2257,2259
V, Brown, 249
V. Fisher, 2025, 2059
V. Goldsmith, 1781
V, Gran, 1842
V. Hendrix, 2262
V. Simpson, 523, 981, 997, 1013, 1018,
1041, 1042, 1254, 1255, 1264, 1284,
1308, 1314, 1321, 1323, 1338
McDuff V. Beauchamp, 1024, 1942, 1952
McDugald V. Hepburn, 782
McElderry v. Flannagan, 2269
V Shipley, 1697, 1699
McEImoyne v. Cohen, 2299
McElroy v. Bixby, 1410, 1414, 1425
V. McElroy, 1592, 1797
McFadden v. Jenkyns, 1587
V. Vincent, 1034
McFardin i^. Rippey, 2268
McFarlan v. Febeger's Heirs, 909, 912
V. Watson, 1107, 1124
McFarland v. Chase, 1266, 1294
V. Febeger's Heirs, gii, 924
V. Fish. J42S
7'. Goodman, 1481
McFarlane v. Feberger's Heirs, goi
McFarlane -v. Williams, 999, 1043
McFerran v. Davis, 1794
McFerriu v. White, 2152
McGanz;. Marshall, 985, 2104, 2343
McGangley v. Henry, H20
McGarron v. Cassidy, 2053
McGarvey v. Puckett, 1141
McGary v. Hastings, 1166
McGaughey's Admrs. v. Henry, 1815
McGaughney v. Henry, 821
McGaw v^ Cannon, 13 14, 1338
McGee v. Davie, 2165
V. Ellis, 1773
7'. Fitzer, 2020
V. Gibson, 1262, 1272. 1289, 1297, 1329
V. McGee, 893, 899, 2296
V, Morgan, 2296, 2297
V. Rice, 1472, i486
V. Roen, iioi
McGehee z/. McGehee, 840, S41, 844
McGill V. Ash, 1903
McGilHvray v. Evans, 1988
McGinnis's Appeal, 2138
McGinnis v. Fernandes, 1207
V, Porter, 1145, 1150
V. State, 1515
McGirr 7/. Aaron, 1541, 1599
McGiven v. Wheelock, 811, 2134
McGlashan v. Tallmadge, io65, 1175
McGlynn v. Butler, 1006
V. Moore, 1060, 1154, 1156
McGoon V. Ankens, 2303
V. Scales. 1655, 1656, 1746
McGovem v. Knox, 1646
McGowan v. Baldwin, 1421
V. McGowan, 778, 1634, 1640, 1651
V. Smith, 783
McGowen v. Sennett, 1338
McGrane v. Archibald, 1872
McGrath v. City of Boston, 992, 993
V. Sinclair, 1424, 1425
McGready v. McGready, 2031, 2051
McGreary v. Osborne, 137
McGregor z/. Brown, 54, 55, 543, 549, 555, 564,
566
z/. Comstock, 210, 211, 217, 401, 401, 43K,
2289 ^^
V. Rawle, 1310, 1333
V. Williams, 2074
McGuire v. Grant, 198, 2231, 2232,2233, 2234
V. McGowp.n, 1635
V. Miller, 1624
V. Van Pelt, 1425, 2015, 2160
McGulich V. McAllister, 2274
McGunnagle v. Thornton, 1018
McHendry v. Reilly, 1497, 2005
McHenry v. Carson, 2263
V. Cooper, 2178
V. Reilly, 1491
V. Yokum, 746
Mcllvaine v. Harris, 46
V. Smith, 1747
Mcllvane v. Kadel, 985
V. Smith, 253
Mclntire v. Norwich F, Ins. Co., 2116
•V. Patton, 1213
V. Plaisted, 2118
V. Shaw 2038
Mcintosh V. Ladd, 728, 795, 914
Mclnturf v. Woodruff, 1457
Mclntyre v. Chappel, 1456
V. Ramsey, 332, 536
V. Stedman, 1018
V. Strong, 10 1 7
Mclver v. Cherry, 782, 940, 214S
V. Eastbrook, 122
McKay d. Miimford, 1131, 1135
McKeagre v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 105, 108,
109, 121, 132, 139
McKean v. Brown, 771
McKee v. Brooks, 983
V. Cottle, 603
References are
to pages.
McKee v. Cuttle, 6gj
V. Hicks, 2339
V. Judd, 719. 839
V, McKinley, 1674
V, Pfout, 20S, 516, 987
V. Reynolds, 908
•u. Straub, 1974, 1977
V. Wilcox, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1452
McKee's Lessee v. Pfout, 666
McKeilham v. Terry, 151 1, 1517
McKelway v. Cook, 983
7'. Seymour, 1862
McKenkie's Appeal, 1814
McKenna v. Hammond, ro6, 136
McKennan v. Phillips, 1561
McKenzie v. Jones, 404, 447, 470,600
V. Lampley, 49, 2020
V. Lexington, 1160, 1163
V. Murphy, 1395
McKeoii 71. Whitney, I118
McKercher. In re, i3«"g
McKey v. Welch, 191 i
McKie ?'_. Anderson, 1219
McKildoe's Exr. 7'. Darracott, 1156
McKillip V. McKillip, 1666
McKim 7'. Mason, 104, 114, 116, 133, 138, 2065
McKinley v. Kuntx, 907
V. Peter, 1925
McKinn v. Mason, 1998
McKinneyz'. Abbott, 2285
V. Carroll, 1511
V. Kinney, 2298
V. Miller, 2153, 2180
V. Peck, 1131, 1315, 1316
V. Reader, 1160
V. Rhodes, 2355
V. Stewart, 291
V. Stocks, 532
McKinster v. Babcocks, 2022, 2023, 2027
McKinstry v. Conley, 2168
V. Conly, 2051
z'. Mervin, 2140
McKircher v. Hawley, 2064, 2066
McKissack v. Bullington, 981
^[cKissick V, Pickle, 1850
McKnight v. Bell, 1977, 1978
V. Wimer, 1810
McKowen v. McGuire, 1456
McKune v. Montgomery, 1219
McLachlan v. McLachlan, 1S63
McLain v. Nelson, 2354
RIcLanahan v. Wyant, 1978
McLanez/. Paschal, 1513
McLaren v. Coombs, 106
V. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 2116
McLarren v. Brewer, 1622
V. Spaulding, 1 167
McLaughlin v. Bamum, 176S
V. Cosgrove, 2059
V. Curtis, 2073
z'. Curts, 2172
7'. Green, 2079
V. Uimsen, 2120
V. Johnson, 96, 103, 105, 107, 2036, 2120
V. Long, 570
V. McLaughlin, 847, 858
V. Nash, 107, 129, 132, 135
V. Shepherd, 2039
McLaurie v. Partlow, 1592, 1691
V. Thomas, 2153
McLaurin v. Wright, 2052
McLawlin v. Salley, 1246
McLean v. Earee, 390
V. Borce, 370
V. Bovee, 47, 339
V. Lafayette Bank, 1770
V. McDonald, 338, 1595
V Nelson, 1704
V. Ragsdale, 2 141
V. Rockey, 1225
V. Spratt, 1154, 1340
V. Sullivan, 1612
TABLE OF CASES.
clxix
McLean v. Swanton, 2289
V. Towle, 21.18
McLearn v. McLellan, 2005
McLeery v. McLeery, 798, 8rg, 820
McLellan v. Jenness, 1904, 1969
V. Turner, 535, 536
McLemore v. Manson, 729
McLenan v. Sullivan, 1642, 1646
McLeod 7>. Davis, 1021
V. Evans, 1762
7'. McDoniiel, 916, 934, 947
McMahan v. Kimball, 711, 783
7'. Russell, 2063
7'. Stewart, 2070
McMahilW/. McMahill, 1412
MciMahn v. McMahn, 1077
McMahon z>. Burchell, 1894
V. McGraw, 1643. 2364
zi. Russell, 510, gii, 928
V. Williams, 2217
McManus, In re, 2021
V. Campbell, 1421, 1/22
V. Carmichael, 69
7'. Cooke, 564
V. Crickett, 1195
McMeehen v. Marman, 1579
McMeekin v. Edmonds, 1768
McIMiken v. Board of Directors of University,
60
McMillan v. Anderson, 2324
V. Carson Hill Union Mining Co., 1332
7'. Otis. 2084
V. Richards, 1993, 1995, 1999
V. Solomon, 66, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1175, 1176
ZI. Sprague, 1517
V. Turner, 847
7'. Warner, 1455, 1465
McMillan's Lessee v. Robbins, 504, 1141
McMiller 7/. Mavo. 996
McMillon V. Robins, 744
McMullan 7'. Warner, 1460. 1461
McMullen v. Riley, 996
McMurray v. Montgomerj', 1735
V. Shuck, 139S, 1400
McMurphey v. Campbell, 878
McMurphy 7'. Minot, 1060, 1117, 1154, 1164, iggS
McMurty v. Brown, 2338
McNab V. Young, 1548 2315
McNabb v. Bond, 38
McNair z'. Funt, 2295
V. Lot, 2095, 2175
V. Picotte, 2129
71. Swartz, 2261, 2270
McNally v. Connolly, 123
McNaniara v. Culver, 2044, 2052
7'. Seaton. 2296
McNeal v. Emerson, 56
McNamee v. Moreland, 2299
McNeeley v. Hart, 1233
McNees z>. Swaney, 2168
McNeil 7'. Ames, 1057, 1072, 1115, 1142
V. Kendall, 1072, 1112, 1115, 1121, 1123,
1139, 2257
McNeill V. Norsworthy, 2043
McNew V. Booth, 2174
McNish V. Guerard, 300, 1606, 1662
V. Pope, 1 62 1
McNulty V. Cooper, 1594
Mcpherson v. Acher, 2242
V. Cox, 1661, 1662
V. Featherston, 2295
V. Hayward, 2175
V. Rollins, 1792
McOuade v. Emmons, 1272, 1287, 1288
McQueen v. Farquhar, 1669, 167a
V. Turner, 1982
McQuem v. Middleton Manuf. Co., 1555
McQuesten zi. Morgan, io6r, 1154, 1155
McQuircT/. Benoit, 2076
V. Rag, 2018
McRea z/. Central National Bank of Troy, 97,
III, 112, 114, lib, 117, 132
clxx
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
McRea v. Farrow, 1840
McRe^'s Admrs. v. Means, 1593, 1629
McReynolds v. State, 757
McRimmons v. Martin, 2006
McTaffgart v. Thompson, 2063
McTavish v. Carroll, 2215, 2245
Mc ^eigh V. Sherwood, 2153
]V[cVev V. McQuality, 1622
McWhite v. Roberts, 711
McWilliams v. Bones, 1382
V. Martin, 326
». Nisly, 249, 255, 259, 261, 263, 267, 272,
1858
McWinn v. Richmonds, 985
Meacham v. Steele, 299, 810, 1606
Mead v. Leffingwell, 2293, 2298
V. Mead, 925
V. Orrery, 1667
%'. York, 2134
V. Randolph, 1677, 2046
Meade v. Thompson, 2272
Meader v. City of Carondelet, 1080, 1081
V. Meader, 1421
V. Place, 1403, 1405, 1407, 1462, 1463, 1472
V. Stone, 1356
V. White, 2061
Meador v. Meador, 2004
Meadow v. Wise, 2020
Meads -v. Lansingh, 1648
Mealior ?». Pomeroy, 1285
Meakings v. Cromwell, 1842
Means v. Wells, 208
Meason's Estate, 42, 44
Measure v. Gee, 424
Mebane v. Mebane, 251, 253, 257
Mechanics' Bank, Matter of, 1599
Mechnnics' Bank v. Williams, 486, 634, 635
Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria v. Seton, 1764
Mechanics & Traders' Ins. Co. v. Scott, 971,
978> 970, 1079
Mechelen v. Wallace, 46
Mechler v. Phcenix Ins. Co., 2114
Meddock v. Williams, 904
Mede v. Hand, igio
Medford v. Frazier, 1895
V. Learned, 671
Media ik v. Downing, 1948
Medley v. Elliott, 21 10
V. Medley, 815, 820, 826, 888
Medmsr v. Medmer, 1646
Medsker v. Parker, 2153
Medway v. Needham, 753
Meech v. Ensign, 2166
V. Estate of Meech, 1451
V. Fowler, 2355
Meeds v. Wood, 307
Meehan v. Forrester, 2169
V. Meehan, 664
Meeker v. Claghom, 2147
V. Meeker, 1700, 2349
V. Winthrope Iron Co., 1019
V. Wright, 646, 1920, 1951, 1952
Meeks v. Bowerman, 1200
Meeting St. Bap. Soc. v. Hail, 1796
Megehe v. Draper, 1514
Meggison v. Moore, 347, 1630, 1632
Megianis v. Nunamaker, 493
Mehaffey v. Dobbs, 19 15
Meig's Appeal, 104, 112, 115, 120, 126, 135
Meiggs V. Meiggs, 1791
Mei'<s V. Dimock, 708
Meily v. Wood, 75, 1964
MeisterT/. Moore, 596, 597, 752
Melhop V. Meinhart, 123
ACelick v. Benedict, 223
V. Pidcock, 1823
Melin v. Reynolds, 2020
Melizt's Appeal, 714, 769, 893, 941, 947
Mell V. Mooney,2025
Mjllee's Case, 9^8
Mellen v. Momfl, 1202
Melley v. Casey, 987
Mellichamp v. MelHchamp, 1425, 1432
Melliiiger v, Bausman, 651, 670, 1366
Mellingz/. Leak, 1261, 1294
Mellish V. Robertson, 2073
Mellon V, Keed. 1978
Mellor V. Watkins, 1J12
Melius V. Snowman, 591, 1365
Melner v. Herewood, 2344
Melross v. Scott, 2006
Melton %i. Lambard, 83, 2237
V. Watkins, 1698, 1701
Melvin v. Proprietor, 2298, 2299
V. Proprietor of Locks, 211, 212, 590, 591,
901, 911, 1364, 1365, 1366, 1369, 1370
V. Waddell, 2292
V. Whiting, 2197
Memphill v. Ross, 2077
Memphis Freight Co. v. Memphis, 2334
Menagh v. Whitwell, 141
Mendall v. Delano, 2246
Mendelson v. Stout, 2267
Mendenhall v. Klinck, 2212, 2213
T. Mendenhall, 948
V. Randall, 485
Meng V. Hauser, 2151, 2157
Mem V. Rathbone, 1060, 1140
Menifee v. Menifee, 836
Meno V. Haeffel, 1285, 13 17
Menough's Appeal, 2255
Menvil's Case, 393, 621, 623, 743
Meraman's Heirs v. Caldwell s Heirs, 630, 641,
642, 665, 1309
Mercantile Trust Co. v. Missouri, 2141
V. Missouri, K, & Q. R. Co., 2141
Merced Mining Co. v. Boggs, 88
Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 601, 603, 612, 613,
614
Mercer v. Pittsburg, 2327
7'. Stark, 1697
Merceron v. Dowson, 1072
Merchant v. Errington, 2358
V. Thomson, 708, 2152
Merchants' Bank v. Clavier, 1285
V. Thomson, 708,2152
Mercier v. Chaee, 1391, 1411, 1418
V. Chase, 1417
V. Hemme, 1622
V, Missouri, Ft. S. & G. R. Co., 287
Meredith v. Farr, 2281
V. Heneage, 347, 348, 1627, 1629, 1631,
1632
V. Holmes, 1503
Mergher v. Strong, 2338
Meroney v. Wright, 1138, 1150
Merrett v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 632
Merriam v. Barton, 2073, 2169
V. Barton, C. & F. R. Co., 924
V. Harsen, 1700
V, Hassam, 1784, 1785
V. Willis, 1231
Merrick v. Van Santwood, 224
V. Wallace, 1777, 2122
Merrifield v. City of Worcester. 2224
V. Cobbergh, 1863, 18G7
V. Lombard, 2228, 2248
7'. Worcester, 4. 101
Merrill v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 2275
V. Berkshire, igo8, 1923, 1961
V. Brown, 1541, 1352, 1554
V. Bullock, 1352
V. Chase, 2127, 2128, 2131
V. Emery, 947, 1860, 1S63. 1869
V. Engiesby, 1795
V. Frame, 1080, 1989
V. Mackman, 996
V, Shattuck, 772
V. Sherburne, 2331
V. Watson, 1777
Merrills v. Swift, 1786, 2027, 2^53
Merriman v. Hyde, 2151
V. Lacefield, 141 1
V. Moore, 2068, 2071
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxi
M^rritt v. Abendroth, 309, 310
V. ISartholick, 799, 3000, 2100, 2101, 2103,
2104, 2111
V. Brinkerhoff, 71, 2225
V, Brown, 2052
V. Disney, 281, 531
V. Earle, 1099
V. Fisher, 2249, 2253, 2255
V. Harris, 1861, 2124
V. Hosmer, 2182
v. Hughes, igSi
V. Judd, 89, 113, 123, 131, 1186, ii8g
V. Phenix, 2 151
V. Scott, 514
V. Village of Portchester, 2158
V. Wells, 2148
Merritt, Jackson ex d., v. Gumaer, 986
Merritt's Lessee v. Horn, 59S, 603, 612, 613,
614
Merry v. Hallett, 20, 21, 975, 1225
Merryman v. Bourne, 1082
V. Long, 975
Mersou v. Blackmore, 331
Merlins v. Jolliffe, 1778
Mervin v. Ballard, 671
Meserve 7'. Meserve, 847, 851, 852
Messeley's Estate, 60
Messengers. Armstrong, 13 10
Messervey v. Barrelli, 2153
Messouier v. Kauman, 1795
Mestaer %•. Gillespie, 1738
Metcalf V. Cooke, 1375, 1562
V. Farminghara Parish, 329
V. Van Brunt, 1795
Methery -v. Walker, 1387
Methodist Church v. Remington, 1670, 1675,
1676, 1679
Metropolitan Bank v. Godfrey, 2027
Metropolitan Bank of St. Louis v. Taylor, 2012
Metteforde's Case, 432
Mettler v. Miller, 603, 6i3j 613, 652, 686
V. Wiley, 945
Meux V. Jacobs, 2021
Mevey's Appeal, 2153
Mewhof w. Mayo, 1049
Meyer «». Bishop, 2159
V. Eisler, 315
V. Johnston, 98
V. Kinser, 1947
V. Lathrop, 2072
7'. Meyer, 1410, 1411, 1412
V. Mohr, 915
Meyers v. Gale, 1366, 1376
V. Schamp, 143
Mhoon V. Drizzle, 1281, 1293
Miall V. Brain, 943
Miami Ex. Co. v. U. S, Bank, 2050, 2091, 2164
Micels V. Miles, 2250
Michaels v. New York Cent. R. Co., 1099
Michel V. Tinsley, 2331
Michigan Air-line R. Co. o. Mellen, 1586, 1622,
1645
Michigan Ins, Co. v. Brown, 2022, 2027
Michigan State Bank v. Hastings, 1867
Michlethwait v. Winter, 83, 84
Michoud V. Girod, 1618, 1707, 1716, 1767, 1769,
1773. 2163
Mick V. Mick, 774
I\Iickie V. Lawrence, 984, looi
V. Miles, 984
IVTickey v. Wintrode, 974, 975
Mickle V. Mansfield
V. Miles. 283
Mlckles V. Dillaye, 2088, 2151, 2185, 2301
V. Torondsen, 1580, 2130, 2131
Micon V. Ashurst, 2095
Middlesex R. Co. v. Boston & C. R. Co., 1020
Middleton, Re, 2327
Middleton v. Doddswell, 1037
V. Dowsdell, 1038
V. Middleton, 2260, 2261
V. Pritchard, 68, 1014, 2293
Middleton v. Stewart, 657
Middletown Savings Bank v. Bates, 688, 1997,
1998, 2077
Midford v. Hardison, 1899
Midgley v. Richardson, 2238
Midland Counties R. Co. v. Oswin, 95,307
Mikell V. Mikell, 1713, 1714, 1723, 1728
Mikman v. Ordway, 1058
Milborn v, Ferrers, 1582
Mildinay's Case, 454, 499, 675
Mildmay v. Mildmay, 789
Mildred v. Austin, 2170
Miles V. Elkin, 2261
V. Chilton, 883
V. Cook, loiS
V. Fisher, 532, »676, 1876, 1882, 1883, 1968
V. Gray, 2105, 2106
V. Kaigler, 1023
V. Miles, 496, 539, 541, 542, 543, 545, 546,
^563. 575. 1412, 1413, 1522
V. Neave, 1788
MUford V. Holbrook, 1202
V. Worcester, 595, 752
Milhouse 7'. Patrick, 12 17
Millapaugh v. McBride, 2097
Millar v. Tumey, 2280
V. Williamson, 479
Millard v. Harris, 278, 279
V. McMullin, 1164, 1897, 2095
V. Willard, 2256
Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey, 501
Milledge v. Lamar, 780, 788, 815, 820, 826, 885
888
Millenovich, Estate of, 1020 I
Miller's Estate, Re, 234, 504, 505
Miller v. Aldrich, 2118, 2119
V- Antle, 1617
V. Auburn, 2213
V. Baker, 119
V. Bates, 522
V. Bear, 2147
7'. Beverly, 864, 867, 870
V. Bingham, 1561, 1779
V. Birdsong, 1651
V. Blackburn, 1638
V. Bledsoe, 629, 630, 643
V. Blose, 1648, 1700
V. Bristol, 2206, 2208
V. Brown, 2012
V. Cappee, 2106
7'. Cheney, 1205
V. Chittenden, 1556, 1599, 1671, 1975,2347
V. Craig, 1034
7'. Crauford, 726, 731
7'. Cresson, 2308
V. Davidson, 1616, 1714, 1746, 1747
7/. Davis, 1636
V. Dennett, 1982
V. Douthitt, 331
V. Finegan, 1382, 1385, 1397, 1443, 15191
1522
V. Finn, 2096, 2137
V. Fulton, 2254
V. Garlock, 2292
V. Goodwin, 897, 2317
V. Havens, 1139, 1146
V. Henshaw, 2365
V. Hoyle, 2099
V. Hughes, 1240, 1243
V. Hull, 1755
V. Jones, 1811
V. Lang, 1149, 1214, 121S
V. Larned, 2106
V. Little, 2309
V. Long Island R. Co., 2248
v. Lynn, 306, 333
V. McBair, 1045
v. McBrier, 1149, 1213, 1221
•V. Macomb, 322, 323
V. McCarty, 1421
V. Marx, 1475, i479t i503> ^S°9
V. Miller, 666, 744, 755, 18S3, i8g6, igog,
clxxii
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
1910, igig, ig20, 1930, 1951, 1967, 19781
1983, 1988, 2225, 2228
Miller V. Moore, 2001
V. Morris, 1181
V. Muilin, i88g
». Musselman, 2120
2'. Myers, igij
■V. Piatt, 1917, 2291
1). Plumb, 103, 104, 105, 128, 135, 137
■V. Potterfield, 1821
T. Ridgely, 1315, 1316
». Shackleford, 210, 591, 744, 1307, 1315,
1319, 2346
v. Sharp, 2156
V. Schnebly, 1449, 1467
V. Shields, 552, 1067, 1152, 1153
z/. Sparks, 1154
V. Stagiier, 2250
'V. State, 51
V. Stokely, 2046
V. Stump. 777, 781, 782, 804
V. Thatcher, 1590, 1697
i). Thompson, 1624, 2071
V. Tipton, 2015
7). White, 757
V. Winchell, 2137
V. Wison, 728, 781, 7S2, 795, 915, 962,
1538
V. Woodman, 733, 736, 739
Miller, Den ex d,, v. Miller, 852, 859
Miller's Exrs. v. Miller, g6i, 962
Milligan's Appeal, 2136, 2138, 2153
Milligan v. Poole, 1987
V. Wedge, 1193
1). Neher, 2020
Milling V. Becker, 1335, 1342, 1343
Millinger v. Bosman, 633
Millikeu -v. Bailey, 208S
Millikinw. Ifrown, 1915
V. Ham, 2033
V. Weljiver, 938, 946, 048
Mill River, etc., Co. v. Smith, 73
Mills V. Argall, 1795
V. Bank, 1832
V. Comstocic, 2098
V. Dennis, 2145, 2146
V. Estate of Grant, 1378, 1419, 144S, 1483,
1514, 1515
•v. Fogal, 368, 2058, 228
V. Gore, 2035
11. Graves, 2302
V. Haines, 1599
V. Harris, 1795
f. Matthews, 1211
7). Merryman, 2251, 2252, 2258
V. Mills, gi6, 935, 941, 965, 2055, 2168
■V. Morris, 959
•V. Newberry, 1684
V. Peed, 2258
V. Van Voorliies, 588, 708, 716, 727, 766,
782, 783, 800, 801, 925, 940, 2173
V. Witherington, 1986
Millspaugh v. McBride, 520, 2096, 2 131
Milne -v. Moreton, 367, 720, 2057, 2288 J
V. Schmidt, 1512
Milner it. Freeman, 650
V. Ramsey, 2009
Milroyz/. Lord, 1587
Miltimore v. Miltimore, 662, 771, 919, 920, 1359
Milton V. Colby, 139, 140, 2022
■V. Grenville, 92
V. Haden, 982, 1045, 1221
V. Hudson River Steamboat Co., 1248
V. Milton, 856
Milwaukee & M. R. Co. v. James, 98
V. Soutter,g8
Mims V. Lockett, 2007
V. Macon W. R. Co. 2007
V. Mims, 2122, 2149
Miner v. Beekman, 2151, 2174, 2175,2185
T. Brown, ig4i
V. Gilmour, 2225
Hiner v. Lorman, ig22
V. Smith, 2150
V. Stevens, 1354
Miners Bank v. Heiner, 2282
Mineral Point R. Co. v. Keep, 1554
Mines, Case of, 86
Mineville, Succes.sion of, 660
Minigle v. City of Boston, 1129
Miniter v. Miniter, 8g8, 957
Minnesota v. Worthington, 5g4
Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., g8
Minnesota Loan & Trust Co. v. Beebe, 1657
Minning w. Batdorff, 315
Minor v. Mayor, 2295
r. Rogei-s, 1587, i5g3
V. Sharon, 1200
V. Willoughby, 1018, 1041
Minot w. Mitchell, 1620
V. Taylor, 16S2
V. Thompson, 974
Minsliall v. Lloyd, 71, 126, 130, 145, 146. 1186,
1 187
Minter v. Durham, 1883
Minturn &. Seymour, 1697, 2314, 2315
Mintzer v. St. Paul Trust Co., 1439, 1520
Minuse v. Cox, 1725. 1755, 1756
Mirick v. Hopi>en, 2064, 2258
Missionary Society v. Calvert's Admr., 4S7
Mississippi Valley, etc., R. Co. v. U. S. Express
Co., 2064
Missouri Inst, for Blind -v. How, 2205
Mitchelw. Weller, 2255
Mitchell V. Badgett, 2272
■V. Bartlett, 2066, 2162
V. Bogan, 2160, 2186
V. Burlington, 1515
V. Burnham, 799, 1992, 1993, 2031, 2032,
2040, 2102, 2 log
V. Commonwealth, ggo
V. Davis, 1287, 1288
V. Dors, 577
V. Froedley, 143
V. Home Ins. Co., 1224
V. Jones, 19S0
V. Kingham, 1032, 1033
V. Mayor, 2236
V. Miller, 847, 856, 860
V. Milhoan, 1503
■7J. Moore, 1372, 1660
V- Parkham, 2363
». Phillsbury, 1094
V. Reed, loSg
V. Rvan, 598, 600, 603, 604, 614, ioi5
V. Seipel, 2241
V. Sevier, 1365, 1367
V. Skinner, 1652
V. Starbuck, 1973
zi. Stetson, 62
V. Tarbutt, 1902, 1966
V. The United States, 18
V. Walker, 2291
7J. Ward, 92g
V. Warner, 1093
V. Winslow, 839, 2017, 2019
V. Woodson, 2301
V. Word, 720, 86g
Mitchell's Lessee v. Mitchell, 266, 885
Mitchelson z/. Smith, 1380
Mitchenert/. Atkinson, 937
Mitchinson, Doe d., v. Carter, 1056,1057, 1105,
i"3. 1973
Mitford V. Mitford, 1361
Mitnacht z/. Cocks, 976
Mittel V. Karl, 1934, 1941
Mitten v. Faudrye, 56
Mix J/. Cowles,
V. Hotchkiss,2o89, 2090, 2144
Mixon V. Coffield, 1165,2251
Mizell V, Burnett, 1857
Mizner v. Russell, 2059
■V. Munroe, 1272, 1294
Moaers v. White, 215, 216, 217,236, 279
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxiii
Moak V. Coats, 734
v> Johuson, 1245
Mobile Branch Bank v. Hunt, 2130
Wobile, M. D. & M. Ins. Co. v. Huder, 2153,
2rSo
Mocher v. Reeves, 20S1
Mockbe^ 71. Clagett, 415
Mocker z*. Reed, 2(^1
Model Lodging House Assoc, v. City of Bos-
ton, 2og5
Moderwell v. Millison, 786, 1960
Moffatt z/. Buchanan, 1779
V. Shepard, 1643
%>. Smith, 10S3, 1 100, 1120, 1182, 2271
V. Strong, 10S2, 1 172
I\Toff2t V. Stro.ig, 226S
Mogs; V. Biker, 2018
?'. Mog5, 490, 526. 1693
Mohawk & Hudson R. R. Co. v. Clufe, 43
z>. Niles, 1241
Moeaquise it v. Commissioners of Roads, 2325
Moioribanks t'. Hoveuden, 1831
Moison 7'. Doe ex d. Cooper, 346
Moltoa z*. Camroux, 1033
Molyneux v. Molyneux, 1361
Monck, Doe d., v. Geekie, 1314, 1333
Moncrief v. Ross, 76, 1S09
Monday v. Elmore, 1024
Monell V. Monell, 1733
Monkz'. C-ipen, 1411
zi. Cooper, 1179
Monkhouse z/. Holme, 314
ZI. Noyes. logS
Monroe v. Armstrong, 983
V. Douglass, 36S, 2058, 2289
V. Luke, 2092
V. Merchant, 217, 799
V. Van Meter, 5S9, 656, 680, 698, 1372
Montacute v. Maxwell, 1616
Montague t>. Boston & A. R. Co., 2089
V. Dawes, 2i';9, 2161, 2163
V, Dent, log, 121, 126, 132, 134, 138, 139
V. Gay, 2269
V. Hays, 1592, i6go, 1691
V. Hail. 2272
V. Maxwell, 965
V. Richardson, 1483, 1514
V. Smith, 28, 225, g6g, 974, 1004
Montaye v. VVallahan, 2258
Montgomery, Ex parte, 120, 126
V. Agricultural Bank, 1562
V. Bevans, 523
V. Bruere, 764, 783, 1992
V. Chadwick, 2053, 2075, 2175, 2185
V. Craig, ii44j ii45. 1148
V. Dorion, 21 1, 492, 672, 774
V. Doxion, 215, 216
V. Eveleigh, 1375
V. Gibbs, 1180
V. Hickman, 1942
V. Horn, 856
1). Kirksey, i62«;
V. Masonic Hall, 2235
V. McEwen, 2160
V. Middlemess, 2145, 2155
Montgomeiy v. Millikin, 327
V. Sturtevant, 2321, 2360
V. Tate, 1364, 1367
V. Tutt, 1491, 1496^ 1497^ 2156
Montpelier v. East Montpelier, 1555
Monypenny v. During, 1693
Mooberry v. Marye, 343
Moodle V. Reid, 1841
Moody z/. Aiken, 110
V, Ruck, 1896 ■
V. Farr, 202
V. Fleming, 517
V. King, 690, 691, 780, 815, 820, 826, 885,
iigo, 1273
V. Moody, 1Q38, 1939
•u. Seaman, 717
V. Smoot, 1937
Moody V. Snell, 415
Mooers v. Dixon, i4!;o, 1478
V. White, 1659
Moon V, Durden, 671
V. Rolling, 2303
Mooneye/. Brinkley, 2187
V. Cooledge, 2361
V. Maas, 92^, 925, 926, 92S
Moor V. Black, 733
V. Deen, 535
V. Denn, 340, 533
V. Hawkins, 1572
Moor, Denn ex d., v. Meller, 344
Moorcroft -v. Dowding, i6gi
Moore's Appeal, 2068
Moore, Ex parte, 933
Moore v. Armstrong, 1723
V. Abernathy, 2286
V. Beason, 810, 2073, 2097, 2136, 2138,
2169, 2172
V. Beasley, 1149, 1213, 1315
V. Bowman, 2302
v. Boyd, 1251, 1268, 1270, 1271, 1293, 1296,
1351* 1356
V. Byers, 1750
V. Byrum, 2020
V. Cable, 2087, 2088, 2ogo, 2095, 2175
V. Chandler. 2153
V, City of New York, 709, 712, 714, 715,
71S, 725,726,731, 734, 737, 940, 741,
746, 749, 751, 767, 793, 796, 813, 821,
828, 834, 838, 869, 893, 921, 922
V. Cord, 2173
V. Cornell, 2084
V. Darby, 589
V. Dean, 343
%i. Dimond, 535, 1831
V. Dunning, 1460, 1463
V. Estey, 764, 766, 800, 815, 1993
V. Flynn, 1468, i46g
V. Foley, 1008, 1009
V. Frost, 871, 930
V. Fuller, 2012, 2027
V. Harrisburgh Bank, 811
V. Harvey, 2270
V. Hegeman, 755
V. Hilton, 1707, 1769
V. Hollins, 783
V. Jackson, 983, 1742
V. Kent, 711, 721, 722, 723,725
V. Little Rock, 2085
V. Loose, 1 165
V. Luce, 490, 517, 520, 2300
V. Lyons. 314, 316
V. ^Iadden, i6gg
V. Mandlebaum, 1621
V. Mason, 1356
V. Mayor, 798
V. Mayor of New York, 819
V. Miller, looi
V. Moore, 1285, 1330, 1465, 1589, 1919,
1940, 1974, 2343
V. Morrow, 1347, 1350
V. Page, 645
V. Pickett, 1592, i6gi
V. Pitts, 1113, 1856
V. Plymouth, 266
V. Reaves, 142 1, 1422
V. Ranson, 2222, 2245, 2246, 2247
V. Raymond, 2007
V. Richardson, 1364
V. Rollins, 89, 765, 766, 802, 8ii, 812, 940
V. Sanders, 1853, i860
V. Savill, i860
■o. Shaw, 2165, 2167
V. Schultz, 1559, 1561, 1565, 1655
V. Smaw, 83, 84, 85, 88
V. Smith, 115, 123, 145, 1289
V, Spellman, 1713
V. Spruill, 1234
V. State, 1518
V. Thomas, 903, 203S
clxxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Moore v. Thompson, 2298
V. Tisdale, 750, 775, 909
V. Titman, 1028,2080, 2086
V. Townshend, 1277
V, Turpin, 11 17, 2259
V. Valentine, 139
•V. Vinter, 1365, 1366, 1369, 1370
z*. Wade, 2045, 2047
V. Waller, 847,861
V. Ware, 2103, 2148
V. Watson, 2126
V. Webb, 317, 338, 2228
7*. Webber, 11 67
V. Weber, 1066, 1079, 1081, 1082, 1127,
1191, iig6, 1202
V. Webster, 680, 684, 698, 1372
V. Whittis, 1387, 1431, 1434, 1439
V. Worthy, 832
Moores v. Wait, 560
Moors V. De Bervales, 767
V, Moors, 661
Moot V. Buxton, 1605
Moran z*. Bank of Commerce, 1754
V. Palmer, 786
V. Somes, 663
Mordant v. Thorold, 870
Mordecai -v. Parker, 1595, 1707
More V. Freeman, 648
V. Herrick, 1648
Moreen v. Ditchemendy, 893
V. Saffara, 1956, 1962
Moreau v. Saffaranas. 786
Morehead v. Watkyns. 996, 1254, 1307, 1322,
1337
Morehouse v. Cotheal, 402,414,470,477,544, 555
Moreland v. Myall, 51
Morey v. Abemathy, 2343
V. Heriick, 1634
Morgan v. Abergavenny, 60
V. Arthur, 137
V. Bruttou, 1878, 1882
z/, Boone, 1613
V. Conn, 857
z/. Cox, ig8
V. Curtenius, 1516
■v. Curtis, 29
•V. Davies, 1311, 1336
V. Davis, 2129
V. Elam, T375, 1562
V. Herrick, i88g, 1890
V. King, 193, 1587
V. Lones, 1948
7). Moore, 1597
■V. Morgan, 598, 611, 654, 656, 678,679,
683, 684, 688, 689, 1267, 1372, 1893,
2094,2175
V. Neville, 1515
z*. Plumb, 2157
V. Reading, 69
-v. Sackett, 801
z/. Slaughter, 257
V. Staley, 19S0, 1981
•V. Steams, 1378, 1421, 1443, 1445, 1496,
1503
•V. Thames Bank, 647
V. United States, 1275, 1281, 1329, 1342,
1343
V. Wilkins, 2165
Morgan County v. Allen, 1581
Moriarty v. Martin, 1627
Morice V. Bishop of Durham, 1683
Moring v. Ward, 983, 990, 1002
Morley v. Morley, 1664, 1725, 1728
V. Rennoldson, 270, 271
Morphett v. Jones, 994
Morrall v- Jacob, 1791
V. Sutton, 531
•V. Watterson, 1697, 1700
Moran v. McLarty, 2330
V. Somes, 1952, 1953
Morrell v. Dickey, 1835
Morrant v. Gougn, 1797
Morret v. Paske, 76, 1708
Morrice v. Antrobus, 2252
Morrill v. Hopkins, 1450, 1467
V. Mackman, 983, 1010, 1013, 1322, 2212,
2260
V. Morrill, 1973, 1982, 1988, 2173
z>. Noyes, 201S, 2019
Morris' Appeal, 125
Morris z;. Bacon, 2107, 2108
V. Clay, X032
z/. Edgington, 1166,2222
•V. Floyd, 2122
V. French, 2021
u. Hastings, 1947
V. Henderson, 2
V. Joseph, 1618, 1771
z/. Miller, 758
V. Morris, 670
V. Mowatt, 799
V. Niles, 1319,1324, 1328
V. Nixon, 2037, 2046, 2048, 2049, 2i6g
V. Oakford, 2178
V. Pate, 2008
V. Phaler, 317
•V. Potter, 321
V. Russel, 2335
V. Sargent, 1450, 1473
V. Showerraan, 9S3
V. Tillson, 1083
•V. Vanderen, 149
V. Wallace, 1719, 1721, 1724
If. Ward, 1450, 1475, 1478, 1502
V. Way, 20T4
V. Wheeler, 2148
Morris Canal Co. v. Mitchell, 1273, 1287, 1288
Morrison's Case, 756
Morrison v. Abbott, 1431
D. Bean. 1502, 2160
V. Beirer, 1587
V. Berry, 127, 140
V. Bowman, 918, 942, 943
V. Biaud, 2045, 2052
V. Buckner, 2067, 2188
V. Chadwick, 1168, 1174
V. Clark, 1947
V. Kelley, 1703, T766, 1777
V. Kinstra, 1592
V. Marquadt, 2223
V. Mendenhall, 2100, 2101
V. Rice, 893
V. Rossignol, 971, 1008, 1009, 1053
•V. Semple, 305, 308
V. Shuster, 1795
V. Stewart, 594
V. Thistle, 647, 648, 895, 896
V. Watson, 1522
Morroney's Appeal, 2120
Morrow v. Morgan, 2152
V. Morrow, 938
V. Scott, 2280
V. Turner. 2001, 2079
Morse v. Aldrich, 1076
V. Churchill, 2296, 2297
V. Copeland, 2211, 2240
V. Goddard, 1081, 1119, ii6g, 1170, 1171,
2065
V. Goold, 1510; 1511, 1517, 1518
V. Hayden, 1869
V. Maddox, 1082, iig6
V. Merritt, 1277
V. Morse, 1980
V. Roberts, 1221
V. Royal, 1621, 1707, 1767, 1772, 1775
V. Shattuck, 1538, 2349
V. Smith, 2r7i
V. Whitcher, 2066
Morsell v. First Nat. Bank of Washington,
1747
Mortgage Co. v. Norton, 1489
Mortlock V. Buller. 1758
Morton v. Barrett, 288, 299, 300, 1534, 1553, 1560,
1583, 1594, 1597, 1606, 1710, 1712
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxv
Morton t/. Ball, zogo
V. McCanless, 1520
V. Noble, 792, 793, 1999, 2076
V. Ragan, 1481
V. Robard. 2365
V. Scholefteld, 2231
V. Souibgate, 1577, 1739
V. Tewart, 1691
i>. Woods, 1050, 1058, 1294
Mory V. Michael, 1822
Mosby z*. Mosby, 1811
Moseley v. Marshall, 50S, 511
Moser. In re^ 125
Moses V. Levi, 1733
V. McPherson, irSo
V. Murgatroyd, 1885
Mosgrove v. Bouser, 2 121
Mosher v. Mosher, 789, 797, 822, 841, 842, 940
V. Vehne, 2086
V. Yost, 525, 976
Moshi^rz'. Meeks, 2004, 2007
V. Norton, 2087
V. Reding, loor, 1160, 1122, 1290, 1310,
, i3'5. 1334. 1336
Mosier s Appeal, 2177, 2138
Mosle V. Ruhlan, 2359
Mosley v. Mosley, 1820
Moss's Appeal, 1581
Moss V. Gallimore, 2065
V. Moss, 1622. 1646
V. Sheldon, 2S7
V. Warner, 1457, 1462, 1483, 1514
Mossy V. Mead, 1316
Mostyn v. West Mostyn Coal & Iron Co., 1080
Mostyne v. Lancaster, 1039
Motley V. Blake, 1984
V. Jones, 1242
V. Whitemore, 1933, 1940, 1951
Mott V. Buxton, 299, 1607
V. Clark, 215S
z/. Coddington, 1285
V. Palmer, 20, 27, 6r, 122
V. Schoolbred, 2248
Motteux w. The London Assurance Co., 1742
Moulton V. Cornish, 2144, 2145
V. Cramroux, 9S7, 1034
V. Moore, 9S4
V. Robinson, 1234
Mounce v. Byars, 2003, 2005, 2006
Mounsey v. Ismay, 2204, 2211
Mount V. Morton, 2978
V. Potls, 2t54, 2179, 2180
V. Vaile, 850
Mount Holly v. Andover, 594
Mt. Vernon Mfr. Co. v. Summit Ins. Co., 2166
Mountain City Market House, etc., Assoc, v.
Kearns, 1284, 1305
Mountford z>. Cadogan, 1786
Movan v. Hays. 1590
Mower v. Fletcher, 2308
V. Kemp, 1863
Mowrey v. Sheldon, 2247
V. Wood, 2111
Mowry v. Wood, 2015
Mowser v. Mowser, 773, 887, 891
Moxley v. Ragan, 1506
Moyer v. Drummond, 1397, 1425, 1432
V. Pennsylvania Slate Co., 1515
Moyle v. Ewer, 1267
V. Moyle, 561, 1720
Moynahan v. Moore, 2131
Mozart Building Association -u. Frisdjen, 1355
Mucklow & Fuller, 1733.
Mueller v. Engeln, 1777
Muggeridge's Trusts, 272, 1677
Muir V. Berkshire, 2137
Mulcarry z'. Eyre, 1141
Muldoon V. Hite, 2262, 2264
Muldowney v. Morris & Essex R. R. Co., 643
Mulford V. Laframe, 2357
V. Minch, 1745, 1776
V, Peterson, 810, 2100, 2102, 2107
Mulhollan v. Thompson, 831
MuUaney v. MuUaney, 654. 656, 675, 6S7, 1609
Mullanphy 7). Simpson, 2075
Mullen 7'. St. John, 1197, iiyS
V Strieker, 2223
MuUensen's Estate, 2026
Muller, Estate of, 1317, 1342
Muller V. Baker, 128
V. Boggs, 1894, 1901, igoS
V. Inderreiden, 14S0, 1481
V. Muller, 2321
V. Wadlington, 2105, 2107, 2136
Mulligan z'. Newton, 49
i>. Wallace, 1714
Mullikiii V. Mullikin, 2009
Mullins V. Clark, 1506
Mulloy 7). Kyle, 974
Mulry V. Norton, 2294
Mumby v. Bowden, 1193
Mumford v. Bowman, 291
V. Brown, 1054, 1083, 1182, 1191, 1201,
i8qi
V. Whitney, 49, 50, 55, 56, 2212, 2213
Mumma v. Miimma, 1640
Mummy v. Johnson, 2366
Munch z*. Cockeral, 1038
V. Shabel, 1652
Mundy v. Monroe, 1999
I'. Mundy, 1339
V. Sawter, 1806
V. Vawter, 2159
Munger z'. Perkins, 792, 793
Municipality No. i v. New Orleans, 9S2, loio,
1053
Municipality No. 2 "u. Orleans Cotton Press,
2293, 2294
Munnerbyn n. Munnerbyn, 666
Munro v. Allaire, 1768, 1769
V. Merchant, 2014
Munroe v. C-ates, 1982
V. Luke, 1915, igi6, 1967, 1983
%i. Merchant, 1657
V. Slickney, 2248
Munsell v. Carew, 1231, 1236
Munson v. Plummer, 1274, 1280
V. Wray, 1002, 1329
Munson's Admr. v. Plummer, 1286
Murchison v. Plyler, 1441
Murdoch's Case, 1766
Murdock v. Chapman, 2016
V. Clark, 2087
•V. Clarke, 2088
V. Ford, 2174, 2260
V. Gifford, 109, 112, 125, 133
V. Harris, 13S
V. Hughes, 1622, 1781
V. Johnson, 336, 1709
V. Ratcliff, 823.974,975
V. Shackleford's Hfeirs, 416
Murly V. McDermott, 2236
Murphy v. Abrahms, 1965
V. Bamett, 1349
V. Calley, 2041, 2043, 20^,0
V. Crouch, 1481
V. Farwell, 2174
•u. Grice, 1577
V. Hendricks, 2024
V. Higginbottom, 889, 1773
V. Hubert, 1648, 1649
V. Marland, 129, 139, 140, 2022
V. Murchy, 958
V. Murphy, S98, 899
V. Nathans, 1647
V. Ottenheimer, 1031
V. Peabody, 1633, 1648
V. Purifoy, 2053
V. Service, 997
V. Thomas, 1020
V. Trigg, 2047
Murphy'? Heirs v. Jury, 1942
Murphy, Jackson ex d., v. Van Hoesen, 496,
499, 502
clxxvi
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Murray t. Armstrong, 1261, 1284
V. Ballou, 1622
V. Barlee, 2012
zi, Barney, 2030
V. Elackledge, 1744
z/. Catlett> 2101
■7J. Cherrington, 1281
V Emmons, 987, 1034, 1368
V. Gilbert, 54
V. Glass, i6gi
V. Glasse, 645
V. Hall, 1903
V, Harway, 1058, 1143, 1156
z'. Kelly, 215
V. Kelley, 219
V. Lilburn, 2109
V. Mount, 2268
V. Mountt, 1020
V. Riley, 1277, 2040
V. Selts, 1434
V. Shanklin, 986
V. Smith, 2068
V. Stairs, 2354
V. Walker, 2045, 2078
Murrell v. Lyon, 1003
V. Mandelbaum, 1956
V. Matthews, 401
Murry v. Wyse, 311
Murthwaite v. Jenkinson, 288, 299, 373, 1594,
1606, 1712
Musgrave v. Brooks, 265
Musham v. Musham, 1614, 1622
Mushawer v. Patten, 2295
Musick V. Barney, 2295, 2296, 2297
Musselman v. Eshleman, 1776
Musser v. Brink, 1239
71. Hershery, 69
Mussey v. Bulfinch Methodist Society, 37
V. Holt, 1026, 1030, II2Q
■V. Pierre, 673, 750
V. Sanborn, 1982
Mussina v. Bartlett, 2145
Mussouri Bank v. Raynor, 1824
Mustard v. Wohford's Heirs, 2344
Mustin, Doe d., v. Goldwin, 1152, 186S
Mutton's Case, 1569
Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 1044
Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Deale, 632, 6S1, 682,
1364, 1636, 1639
V. Wagner, 631, 1641, 1700, 1703
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Balch, 2162
V. Boughrum, 2153
V. Dake, 2121, 2122
V. Shipman, 1808, 2173
V. Southard, 2167
Muzzey v. Davis, 2206
Muzzy V. Whitney, 1241, 1244
Myer v. Myer, 1408
V. Whitaker, 68, 73
Myers v. Buchanan, 2125
V. Bums, 1074, 1084, 1086
V. De Mier, 791
V. Entriken, 1719
7f. Estell, 2066
V. Evans, 1473, 1475
V. Forbes, 999
V. Ford, 1400, 1405, 1^59, 1502, 1519
zi. Gemmel, 2223
V. Hazzard, 2106
V. Hobbs, 2233
z'. Kantman, 2254
V. Mayfield, 2273
V. Myers, 308, 312, 1648, 1667, 1729, 176S
V. Reed, 1920, 1937
V. Rice, 1988
V. Spooner, 2303
V. Stilljacks, 2262, 2268
V. White, 47, 1995. 2064
V. Wright, 2148
Myers' Guardian v. Myers' Admr., 1520
Myerson v. Neff, 1309, 1348
Myrick v. Bill, 1393, 1484
TS.
Nab V. Nab, 1691
Nace ZI. Boyer, 1792
Nagle V. Ingersoll, 59
V. Macy, 2078, 2104
Naglee's Appeal, 1674
Nailer v. Stanley, 2155, 2180
Nairn zj. Prowse, 959
Naish V. Tatlock, 2266
Nallet V. Smith, 267
Nance z^. Alexander, 2261, 2270, 2271
V. Hill, 1432'
V. Nance, 1431
Nancy 7/. Hill. 1425
Nanney v. Williams, i8or
Nannock v. Horton, 319, 486
Nant-y-Glo & B. Ironworks Co. z;. Graves, 1761
Napier v. Bulwinkle, 2223, 2229, 2236
V. Darlington, 1077
Nash z/. Berkmeir, 996, 1264, 1322
V. Coates, 1583, 1795
V. Kelly, 2106
zf. Kemp, 2235
V. Minneapolis M. Co., 1202
V. Norment, 1399
Nason v. Allen, 841, 838
Nassamon v. Nassamon, 597
Nassbaum v. Northern Ins. Co., 2113, 2114
Nathan v. Stern, 997
National Bank of Metropolis v. Sprague, 786
National Co. v. Bush, 2271
National Fire Ins. Co.z/. McKay, 800
National, etc., Co. v. Donald, 2244
Navarre v. Rutton, 1783
Nave z/. Berry, 1067, 1098, 1105, 1106, 11 12,
1123, 1126, 1175. 1181, 1184
Nay lor f. Arnitt, 1037, 1038
V. Collinge, 142
V. Field, 669, 679
Nazareth Benevolent Institution v. Lowe, 2005
Nazarther Lit. & Ben. Inst. v. Lowe, 744, 77S,
804, 814, 832
V. Ware, 2033
Neal z>. Brockham, 1381, 1515
V. Coe, 13S6, 1441, 1442, 1443
V. Farmer, 706
V. Gregory, 2302
V. Robertson, 651, 1366
V, Speigle, 2004
Neale v. Hagthrop, 20S8
%i. Mackenzie, 1167
Neall V. Hill, 75
Nearz/. Watts, 485
Neary v. Bostwick, 1248
Neate v. Blarlborough, 20S3, 2170
Neave z'. Moss, 1149
Needham, /« re, 1786
Needham v. Allison, 80, 103, 106
V. Bronson, 1940
V. Hill, 1905
Neel V. Neel, 89. 494, 495, 497, 544, 552, 561,
562.811,812
Neeley v. Grantham, 75
Neely v. Butler, 597, 601, 603, 613
V. Haskins, 1S63
V. Jones, 2177
7*. Lancaster, 669 \
V. Rood, 1667
Negley v. Morgan, 2265
Negroes Chase v. Plummer, 1632
Negus, Matter of, 1102
Neide v. Neide, 308, 309
Neifert v. Ames, 2272
Neill V. Keese, 1639, 1641. 1644, 1654
Neilson v. Blight, 1600, 2105, 2107
V. Iowa Eastorn R. Co., g8
». Lagow, 1594, 1596, 1709, 1711, i796_,
1797
Neiswanger z*. Squier, 1188
Nellis z). Coleman, 997
V. Lathrop, 1149, 12 12, 2269
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxvii
Nellis 7*. Nellis, 471
Nellons 71. Truax, 2154
Nelson v. Bridgeport, 720
V. Clay, ig86, 19SS
V. Davis, 300, 1606, 1796
V. Eaton, 1031
V. HoUey, 733, 735, 739, 8g6, 923
V. Liverpool Brewing Co., 1197, hq8,
1199
z'. Logow, 289
V. McLenaghan, 736
V. Pinegar, 1998, 2181, 2187
V. Worrall, 1676
Nelson's Heirs 7'. Clay, 552, 575
NeoU V. Garnett, 947
Neppach r'. Jordan, 1314
Ntpeau 7'. Doe, 134S
Nerac's Estate, 624, 767
Nerhooth 7k Althouse, 1214
Nesbit 7'. Hanway, 2174
Xesbitt V. Tredenick, 1708
7/. Trindle, 675
V. Trunbo, 2327
Nettleton v. Silkes, 54, 55, 56, 2213
Neumaier v. Vincent, 1383, 1519
Neufviile v. Thompson, 64S
Neumeister 7'. Palmer, 1317, 1330
Neumoyer z'. Andreas, 2189
Neves 7'. Scott, 1516, 1594, 1608, i6og, 1694
Nevil's Case, 433, 435
Ne\il z*. Saunders, 300, 1560, 1561, 1606, 1672,
1673
Nevins v. City of Peoria, 2232
Nevitt f. Bacon, 2093, 2094, 2146
Nevlin 7k Osborn, 2355
New V. NicoU, 1578
New Albany 7'. Burke. 1581
Newall V. Wright, 1120, 1220, 2063, 2077, 2112,
2144, 2147
Newark ?'. Branding, 983
Newark Savings Institution v. Forman, 1518
Newberry v. Brunswick, 591, 752
Newbold's Appeal, 1621
NewboM V. Newbold, 2077
7'. Smart, 1889, 1890
Newbrough v. Walker, 1245
New Brunswick Land Co. v. Kirk, 54
Newby v. Brownlee, 504
V. Perkins, 1983, 1985
7>. Vestal, 2261
Newcomb w. Bonham, 1996, 2050, 2158
7'. Clark, 2267
V. Dewey, 2146
V. Ramer, 49, 52, i'23i, 1239
V. Reimer, 49
Newcomer v. Orem, 720
Newell zf. Fisher, 1033
7/. Hayden, 1515
V, People, 2328
v. Sanford, 1285, 1260
7/. Woodruff, 1898, 1913, 1915
New England Jewelry Co. v. Merriam, 810,
i4gt, 1497
New England Oyster Company v. McGawey,
1036
Xewhall v. Bart, 2039
V. Five Cent Savings Bank, 728, 814, 818,
828, 925
z>. Lynn F. C. Savings Bank, 2073, 2074,
20S3
V. Pierce, 2042
7>. Wheeler, 289, 290, 299, 1560, 1563.
1576. i.';94- 1607
New Hampshire Bank v. Willard, 2029
Newhart v. Peters, 2152
New Haven Savings Bank v. Parttan, 1997,
1998
New Ipswich Factory v. Batchelder, 2242
Newhoff 2/. Mayo, 1187
New Jersey Tns. Co. 7/. Meeker, 810
New Jersey R. Co. v. Van Syckle, 970
Newkerk v. Nev/kerk, 265, 305, 309. 3io
12
Newkirk, Jackson ex d., v. Embler, 533
Newland 7/. Holland, 1405
V. Newland, 351
Newlin v. Freeman, 1562
z'. Newlin, 1375
Newlove r/. Callaghan, 1946
Newman's Estate, 2282
Newman ?'. Anderton, 984, 1176, 2250
7t. Chapman, 2092, 2365
7J. Jenkins. 522, 767
V. Kershaw, 2057
V. Rutter, 1140, 1144
2/. Samuels, 2037
7'. Willetts. 741
New Orleans v. Guillotte, 1029
New Orleans Nat. Banking Assoc, c. Adams,
1992
New Orleans R. Co. ?'. Moye,22o6
7'. The Steamship Company, 1036
7'. United States. 2293
New Parisli of Exter v, Odwine, 2319
Newson 71. Hart, 1776
V. Pryor, 2357
New South Meeting House, He, 31, 35, 36
Newton v. Askew, 1791
V. Ayscough, 316
7'. Cook, 802, 803, 805
v. Griffith, 418, 469
V. Hariand, 1351, 1356
7/. Howe, 1246, 1911
V. Marshall, 2079
V. McKay, 2356
V. McLean, 1706, 2006
V. Newton, 2124
7/. Porter. 1622, 1760
V. Preston, 1649, 1700
7'. Reid, 249, 257, 270
7/. Sly, 761
7'. Taylor, 1620, 1621, 1760
7'. Wilson, 1176, 2056
New Vienna Bank z'. Johnson, 2055
New York Central R. Co. v. Saratoga & S. R.
Co., 2247, 2251
New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Randall,
1316
New York Dry Dock Co. 7/. Stillman, 1548
New York Elevated R. Co. 7/. Manhattan R.
Co., lies
New York & H. R. R. Co., Matter of, 197
V. Kip, 2327, 2328
New York &. M. R. Co. v. Van Horn, 2323
7>. Van Home, 2324
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Rector, etc., St.
George's Church, 1157
New York L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Cutler,2i54
V. Milnor, 2153, 2154, 2242
7/. Smith, 2iog, 2110
V. White, 2i?f
New York Mut. Life Ins. Co. 7/. Boughrum,
2178, 2180
New York State Bank 7/. Fletcher, 2136
Niagara Falls International Bridge Co. -c.
Great Westeni R. Co. 11S4
Niblo 7'. N. A. Ins. Co., 1224
Nice's Appeal, 318, 328, 1656, 1675, 2119, 2126
Nichol V. Loy, 246, 253, 1515, 1746, 1748, 1749
V. N. V. & Erie R. Co., 1861
Nicholas t. Chamberlain, 2245
7'. Purcell, 1410, 1412
Nicholl 7'. Mumford, 1958
7'. Walworth, 1796
Nicholl, Doe d., v. McKaeg, 1258, 1260, 1261,
1275
Nicholls 7/. Butcher, 2, 308
V. Bvrne, 1213
71. O'Neill, 1364, 1366, 1367, ^369, 1370
7'. "Skiimer, 322
NichoUson 7/. Bettle, 450, 472
Nichols, Matter of, 1517
Nichols 7>. Allen, 1637, 1683, 1684
7/. Baxter, 2113, 2118
V. Bucknam, 1890
clxxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Nichols V. Cabe, 2046
V. Denny, 1568, 1729, 1882, 1883, 1968
V. Duprey, 2268
V. Eaton, 253, 254, 274, 1748
V. Foster, 2162
V. Glover, 2007
V. Hull, 2207, 2242
V. Marshland, 199
V. Nichols, 1980, 1981
V. Overacker, 1497
V, Randall, 2151
V. Reynolds, 2046, 2048, 2092, 2101
V. Smith, 1911, 1924, 1925, 1967, 2082
•V. Williams, 1271, 1285, 1307, 1338
Nicholson v. Halsey, 1580, 2095
V. Lauderdale, 1615
V. Leavitt, 720, 2057, 2288
V. Munigle, 1171, 1172
V. Smith. 1009
Nicholson's Lessee v. Hemsley, 903
Nickals v. Weim, 2309
Nickels v. Otto, 2174
NicoU, Matter of, 1023
V. Mumford, 1712, 1794
V. N. Y. & Erie R. Co., 259, 266, 269,
272, 839, 1849, 1851, 1S52, 1854, 1855,
1864, 1866, 1S67
u. Ogdeo, 787, 824, 875, 881, 930, 1608,
1702, 1717, 1736
V. Scott, 75
V. Walworth, 1577, 1743
Nicolls V. Rogers, 2056
Nicolson V. Wordsworth, 1788
Nirrosi v. Phillipi, 617, 1212
Nickell -v. Haiidly, 247, 274, 300, 1606
Nickerson v. Bowley, 1084
Niedeletz'. Wales, 1126, 1175
Nightingale v. Burrell, 323, 396, 402, 411, 413,
415. 418, 424, 447, 465
V, Hidden, 297, 679, 680, 684, 1610, 1614
7). Lawson, 519
Niles V. Gray, 306, 308, 309, 321
•V. Hamon, 2153, 2180
V. Nye, 802
V. Ransford, 1670, 1755
Nitzell V. Paschall, 2246
Niven v. Belknap, 2174, 2302
Nixon's Appeal, 1646
Nixon V. Bynum, 2000, 2077, 2078
V. Nanney, 139S
V. Nixon, 1836
V. Potts, 1925
V. Rose, 251, 257
V. Widliams, 601, 6ro
Noble V. Bosworth, 103, 104, 130, 136, 146
V. Meyers, 1985
V. McFarland, 588, 1361, 1377, 1903, 1994
V. Hook, 1448
V. Mermott, 1788
V. Noble, 661
V. Sylvester, 81
V. Willock, 1836
Nobles V. McCarty, 1281
Noe V. Miller's Executors, 479
Noel V. Bowley, 1743
V. Ewing, 671, 705, 708, 714, 715, 725,
893
V. Henry, 1884
V. Jevon, 832
V. McCrory, 1131, 1132, 1322
Noke's Case, 2362
Nokes V. Smith, 462
Nolan V. Reed, 1388, 1390
Noland v. Nelligan, 1630
Nolen V. Roysten. 1212
Nookes' Case, 1989
Noonan v. Brdley, Admr. of Lee, 2165
V. Orton, 983, 1075, 1089
Norbury v. Norbury, 1721
Norcross v. Norcross, 1998
Nordant v. Thorold, 876
Normau v. Burnett, 1592
Norman v. Cunningham, 1937
V. Wells, 1059, 1076, 1077, 1124, 1138
Norment v. Hull, 1244
Norrice v. Baker, 56
Norris v. Beyea, 344, 533, 671
V. Hensley, 249
V. Hoyt, 215
V. Johnston, 254
V. Johnstone, 174S
V. Kidd, 1378
V. Le Neve, 1708
V. Milner, 1849, 1861
V. Moody, 1863
V. Morrill, 1344
V. Morrison, 510
V. Moulton, 1412, 1501, 207s
V. Sullivan, 1903, 1904
V. Taylor, 1772
V. Thompson, 1844
V. Watson, 49
V. Wilkinson, 2002
North V. Barnum, 1145, 1150, 1782
V. Philbrook, 289, 1596
V. Valk, 596
North American Coal Co. v. Dyett, 1373, 1374
North Baltimore Building Association v. Cald-
well, 1770
Northam v. Hurley, 2218, 2220, 2228, 2229
Northampton Bank w. allet, 2110, 2111
Northampton Paper Mills v. Ames, 2077
Northbey v. Strange, 618
North Carolina R. Co. v. Wilson, 1662
Northcut XI. Whipp, 691, 761, 780, 815, 820, 826,
883, 884,885
Northern v. State, 49, 57
Northern Bank of Kentucky u. Roosa, 975,
1225
Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Canton Co. of Balu-
inore, 145
Northern Trans. Co. of Ohio v. Chicago, 2238
Northey v. Burbage, 325
Northfield ti. Plymouth, 597
V. Veshire, 597, 752
North Hudson R. Co. v. Booraem, 61
Northrup v. Marguam, 1897, 189S, 1S99, 1979
7'. Foot, 2256
Northumberland v. Aylesford, 946
Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park,
1554
Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. a. Allis, 2012
Northy v. Northy, 2099, 2105
Norton v. Babcock, 1093, 1094, 1095
V. Fagon, 774, 894
V. Fraecker, 1552
V. Gale, 995
V. Doe ex d. Sanders, 1223
V. Highleyman, 2138
V. Hixon, 1703
V. Ladd, 335, 1781
V. Leonard, 299, 1560, 1594, 1607, i88g
V. Lewis, 2151, 2155, 2180
V. Norton, 1553, 1595, 1597, 1797
V. Pettibone, 2332
V. Phelps (" Hewitt v. Phelps "), 1749
V. Snyder, 1087
V. Turville, 1783
7/. Webb, 2079
Norton, Jackson ex. d., v. Sheldon, 1156
Norvell v. Walker, 2363
Norway v. Norway, 1788
V. Rowe, 574
Norwich v. Hubbard, 1995, 1996, 2084
Norwich F. Ins. Co. v. Broomer, 2118
Norwood V. Byrd, 1702
V. Marrow, 714, 716, 739, 740, 759, 86i,
870, 892, 1349
Nottes' Appeal, 2006
Nottingham v. Jennings, 322, 324, 826, 925
Nourse -u. Henshaw, 2012
Noves V. Clark, 2050
Nowell V. Johnson, 2007
V. Wentworth, 1154, 1293
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES,
clxxix
Nowlan r-. Trevor, 1274, 1337
Nowlin V. Whipple, 2243
V. Winfre, 416, 447
Noyesr-. Blakeman, 1578, 1798
V. Hemphill, 2248
%>. Marsh, 1052
V. Rich, 2064, 2066
V. Stauff, gg6
V. Sturdivant, 2093, 2094, 2095
T'. Terrj', 105, 113
V. Ward, 2302
Nugent V. Cloon, 1754
V. Gifford, 1667
V. Riley, 2037, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 21OS
Nunemacher v. Ingle, 2157
Nunn V. Givhan, 13.63, 1368, 1369
■V. Wilsmove, 1626
Nusom V. Clarkson, 2086
Nussbaum ik Evans, 419
Nutt V. Hamilton Ins. Co., 1051
Nultal i>. Bracewell, 2227
N. W. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 1920
Nyce's Estate, 1713
Nyce V. Obertz, 730
Nycom v. McAllister, 2307
Nye's Appeal, 8S7, 891
Nye V. Taunton Branch R. R. Co., 796, 828,
922
Oakes t'. Mfg. Ins. Co., 2116
7'. Munroe, 1026, 1141
Onkey z'. Bennett, 367, 2057, 2288
Oakley 7'. Aspinwall, 1242
1'. Scoonmaker, 1230
7'. Stanley, 2215
Oakman v. Dorchester Mut. F. Ins. Co., 139,
141
Oaks V. Oaks, 1460
Gates 7'. Cooke, 290, 1563, 1594
Gates d. Markham v. Cooke, 288, 1594
Oatmaii V. Fowler, 2356
0*Bannon7'. Paremour, 2300
x<. Roberts, 2251,2257, 225S
Oberley v. Lerch, 94
Obert V. Obert, 1906, 1975
O'Brien v. Capwell, 1054, 1066
V. Elliot, 708, 714, 880, 886, 891, SgS, 899,
gi8, 920, 924, 929, 940, 944, 952
f. Troxel, i3r5, 1316
V. Wetherell, 259, 266, 26S
O'Byrne v. Feeley, 535
Ocean Beach Association v. Brinkley, 70S, 719,
761, 763, 788, 831
Ocean National Bk. v. Olcott, 180S
Ockington v. Richey, 55
O'Connel v. McGrath, 1141
O'Connell v. Kelly, 2090
O'Connor v. City of Memphis, 1802
I'. Kelly, 1154
7/. O'Connor, 2269
O'Daniel zk Bakers' Union, 2297
Odell V. Buck, 1034
7'. Durant, 1004
V. Montross, 2038
V. Odell, 1685
Odenbaugh v. Bradford, 2050
Odioma v. I^yford, 57
Odiome v. Lyford, 1905. 1969 ]
Odom V. Beverly, 690
V. Weathersbee, 1899
O'Doherty v. McGloin, 1407
O'Donnell v. Hitchcock, 126
V. McMurdie, 1286
Oelrichs v. Williams (Oelrichs v. Spain), 1668
0*Farrall v. Simplot, 646, 669, 711, 721, 895,
1938
Gfferman -v. Star, looi, 1002
Officer 7'. Young, 2332
Offut V. Scott, 1961
O'Flaherty v. Sutton, 841, 875
Ofpeer v. Burchell, 2166
O'Gara v. Eiscnlohr, 751, 757
Ogborn v. Eliason, 2027
Ogbounie v. Ogburne, 737
Ogdeu's Appeal, 299, 414, 1606, 1656, 1673
Ogden V. Giidden, 2155
V. Grant, 2038, 2040
V. Groves, 2207, 2238
7'. Larrabee, 1690
■V. Robertson, 498
'D. Saunders, 1512, 1518
V. Stock, 63
V. Walker, 1309
V. Walters, 2121, 2156
Ogdensbiirg& L. C. R. Co. v. Vt. & C. R,,
Co., 1020
Ogilvie V. Faljambe, 999
V. Hull, ri68
Ogle's Lessee 7-. Ogle, 455
Oglesby v. HoUister, 1889, i8go
Oglesby Coal Co. v. Pasco, 924
O Grady v. Bamshel, 2336
O'Hanlin v. Den. ex d. Van Kleek, 236
O'Hanlon v. Unthank, Jr., 266,267
O'Haraz/. O'Neill, i6gi
O'Hearz/, De Goesbriand, 30, 31, 32
Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Ledyard, 2126
V, Winn, 2178
Ohio Life Ins. & T. Co. v. Readers, 2141
Ohling V. Luitiens, 2146, 2151
O'Keefe v. Caltliorpe, 1662
7). Kennedy, 1/43, 1156
Okeson v. Patterson, 2293
Okey -v. Bennett, 720
Oland's Case, 4g8, 53g, 1206, 1267
Gland v. Burdwick, 1206, 1207
V. Hardwicke, 539
Olcott V. Bynum, 1635, 1650, 1651, 1652, 1683
•v. Robinson, 2158
V. Tioga R. Co., 1554, 1769, 1775
7'. Wing, i960, 196 1
Oldfield's Case, 2222
Oldham z'. Halley, 2043, 2054
7'. Henderson, 592, 624, 661, 1377
V. Oldham, 501
7'. Pickering, 528
zK Sale, 821, 905
7'. Woods, 1276
Oldroyd v. Crampton, 983
Olds 7'. Cummings, 2106
Olti South Society v. Crocker, 16S6
Olendorf v. Cook, 976
Oleson V. Bullard, 1409, 1523
O'Linda v. Lathrop, 72
Oliver v. Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co., 1000
7'. Court, 1608, 1735
7'. Decatur, 2067
7'. Dougherty, 1635, 1646
V. Hook, 2212, 2213, 2215, 2241
V. Houdlet, 103 1
V. Montgomery, 1890
7'. Oliver, 1830
7'. Piatt, 1623, 1661, 1760, 1761, 1765, lyf'S,
1782
V. Pitman, 2207, 2221
V, Snowden, 1387, 13S8, 143S, 1442, 1446
V. Stone, 2353
Olliffe V. Wells, 1637
Olmstead %>. Blair, 92S
V. Elder, 2103
V. Niles, 53, 54, 55
V. Olmstead, 340, 342
Olney v. Howe, 1593
Olson 7'. Nelson, 2056
Olt V. Lohmas, ggS
V. Lohnas, 996, 1013, 1323
Omaha Hotel Co. v. Kouutze, 2066
Ombony 7'. Jones, 1224
O'Mulcahy V. Holley, 2111
Onderdonk v. Ackerman, 1842
V. Gray, 20S4, 2087
clxxx
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
O'Neal V, Commonwealth, 597
O'Neale v. Lodge, i6g8
V. Ward, 271
0*NeU V. Harkins, 2233
V. Seixas, 2106
O'Neill V. Capelle, 2045, 2048, 2052, 2054
V. Henderson, 1722
Ongley v. Chambers, 2216
Onslow 1). , 79, 1 185
V. Corrie, 2265
Onsou V. Cown, 1643
Ontario Bank v. Hennessey, 1241
V. Loot, 1579
Ontario State Bank v. Gerry, 1477
Opdyke %>. Bartles, 783
V. Barttes, 2173
Opinions of Justices, 893
Oppenheimer f . Fritter, 1393
Orchard v. Hughes, 2165
Ord V. Chester, 1026
•V. Johnston, 1697
V. McGee, 2104, 2106
Ordway v. Remington, 2256
Oregon Iron Co. v. TruUinger, 2223
Oregon R. Co. v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co., 1020
Oregon R. & N. Co. z/. Mosier, 129
Orford v. Benton, 692, 693, 703
Orgill V. Kinshead, 2263
Oriental Bank v. Freeze, 671, 1517
V. Haskins, 959
O'Riley v. McChesney, 2225
Orlando's Case, 48
Orleans v Chatham, 1590, 1592, 1691, 1736
Orleans Nav. Co 7/.Llard, 1140
Orman v. Day, 2234, 2235
V. Orman, 1456, 1457
Orme's Case, 1556
Ormiston v. Olcott, 1731
Ormond v. Hutchinson, 1783
Onidoff V. Turman, 402, 447, 453, 467, 473
O'Rorke v. Smith, 2207, 2221
Orr, Matter of, 1521
Orr z/. Hadley, 68g, 2062, 2063
V. Hodgson, 216, 218, 673, 1657, 2014
V. Hodson, 2347
V. Hollidays, 599, 6or
V. O'Brien, 487
V. Quimby, 2326, 2327
V. Shaft, 1390, 1391, 1421, 1434, 1446
Orrick z/. Boehen, 710
Orser -u. Hoag, 217
Orth V. Orth, 897
Orton V. Knab, 2168
V, Noonan, 1089
Orvis V. Newell, 2140
Osborn w Garden, 1022
V. Carr, 2139
V. Hart, 232S
7/. Osborn, 1537, 1894
V. Rider, 2355
V. Schenck, 1922
V. Wise, 983
Osborne v. Brennon, 1244
V. Crump, 2150, 2152
V. Edwards, 1363
V. Endicot, 778, 1635, 163S, 1651, 1699
V. Farewell, 2254
V. Hart, 2328
V. Home, 866
z/. Humphry, 974
V. Morgan, 1194
V. Shrieve, 416
V. Tunis, 1998, 2013, 2129, 2157
Osgood V, Abbott, 1861, 1S62
V. Davis, 1701
•V. Dewey, 1218
V. Franklin, 1730, 1737, 1758, 1841, 1842,
1843
V. Howard, 63
V. Thompson, 2046
V. Thompson Bank, 2047
Osman v. Sheage, 1558
Osmond v. Fitzron, 1034
V. Fitzroy, 756
Osterhout v. Shoemaker, 764
Osterman v. Baldwin, 1590, 2014
Ostrander, Jackson ex d., v. Rowan, 1283, 1298
V. Spickard, 916, 934, 935, 955
Ostrom V. McCann, 2149, 2152
Oswald V. F"atenburgh, 2264
V, Kopp, 307
Otis 7'. Beckwith, 1594
V. McLellan, 1682
V. McMillan, 225S
V. Moulton. 212, 2298
V. Parshley, 761, 764, 815, 826
V. Prince, 270
V. Sill, 2018
V. Smith, 66
V Warren, 870
Otis Co. V Inhabitants of Ware, 1554
Otiey 7'. McAlpine's Heirs, 641, 1981
Otley, Doe d., v. Manning, 1626
O'Tool V. Brown, 202
Ott V Specht, 143
V. Sprague, 147 1
Ottauquechee Sav. Bk. %>. Holt, 2101
Ottawa Plank Road Co. v. Murray, 2051
Ottman v. Moak, 2011, 2177, 2178
Otto V. Jackson, 1131, 2267
Ottumwa Lodge 7/. Lewis, 64, 65, 507
Ottumwa Woollen Mill Co. v. Hawley, 103,
IDS, 123, 132, 133, 2080
Ould V. Washington Hospital, 1609
Ouseley v. Anstruther, 1623
Outcalt V Ludlow, 2299
Outerbridge v. Phelps, 2241
Outland v. Bowen, 396
Outon %>. Weeks, 1807
Outtuon V. Dulin, 1213
Overdeer z/. Lewis, 1253, 1310, 1357
Overfield v. Christie, 2295
Overholt's Appeal, 786, 1964
Overman v. Sanborn, 2263
V. Sims, 467
Overseer of Poor v. Sears, 224
Overstreet v. Bates, 1781
Overton v. Hollinshade, 2023, 2024
V. Lacy, 1878, 1880, 1968
V. Williston, 115
Overturf v. Dugan, 355
Oves V. Oglesby, 137, 138
Oviatt V. Brown, 1773
V. Sage, 1246, 1247
Owen V. Bertholomew, 2300
V. Boyle, 2273
V. Ellis, 1806
V. Fields, 2021
V. Hyde, 547, 555, 558, 566, 743, 806
V. Morton, 1897, 19^4
V. Norris, 2346
V. Nye Company, 1035
V. Peacock, 866, 930,931
V. Perry, 2340
V. Robbins, 781, 782
7'. Slatter, 889, 890, 924
V. Thomas, 999
V. Wright, 1081
ZK Yale, 897 (
Owens V. Collins, 1956
V. Dickinson, 1835
V. Dunn, 651
V. Lewis, 55, 56
V. Missionary Society of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, 1603, 1604, 1659
7'. Owens, 1594
Owing's Case, 1701
Owston V. Ogle, 1903
Oxford V. Ford, 1292, 2274
V. Oxford, i6go
Oxley, Bx parte, 1677
Oxley V. James, 1300, 1301, 1306, 1333
V. Lane, 249
Oyster t-, Oyster, 534
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxxi
Pace 7'. Pace, 246, 253
Pacific Iron Works v. Newhall, 2025
Pacific Rolling Mill Co. v. Dayton, S & G.
R. R. Co., I020
Pack V. Bathurst, 1825
V. Mayor, 1 194
V. Thomas, i6gS, 1701
Packard v. Putnam, 1589, 1592, 1691
Packer z/. Rochester & y. K. Co., 2142,2146,
2156, 2157
Packington's Case, 544, 559
Packington z'. Packington, 569
Padding v. Clark. 918, 944
Paddison v. Oldhan, 412
Paddon v. Richardson, 1715
Padelford v. Padelford, 545, 546, 547, 550 556,
559. 738
Padgett 7'. Lawrence, 1642, 1645, 1651
Paffz*. Kenny, 17S1
Page*s Estate, 684
Page ZK Crown, 1793
V. Cooper, 1832, 201 1
V. Estey, 974, 1008
V. Ewbanks, 1443
V. Foster, 2053
V. Fowlen, 47
V. Hayward, 460
V. Hinssman, 983, 1218
ZK Lashley, 2250
z}. Page, 835, 868, 869, 1635
V. Palmer, 261, 1867
V. Pierce, 2107
V. Purr, 1 1 74
V. Robinson, 2067, 2077, 2186, 21S7
V. Rogers, 2042
V. Roper, 1815
zi. Summers, 1689
zj. Way, 247
z). Webster, 1882, 1979
z). Western Ins. Co., 1668
V. Wight, 1355
Pahlman zi. Smith, 1842
Paice V. Archbishop of Canterbury, 317
Paige z>. Paige, 824
Pain 7'. Smith, 2002
Paine's Case, 620, 621, 623, 624, 675, 676, 677,
681, 691, 788, 885
Paine v, Aberdeen Hotel Co., 2272
V. Benton, 2027
z. City of Boston, 2223
V. Coffin, 1 158
V. French, 2105, 2107
7/. Hutchens, 2290
z'. Jones, 2330
V. Slocum, 1890, igo6
V. Upton, 2330
V. Tucker, 1041
V. Wagner, 1939
V. Wood, 68, 70, 71, 72
Pairo V. Vickery, 1736
Paisley's Appeal, 1593
Palk V. Clinton, 1749, 2149, 2150, 2172
V. Lord Clinton, 2076
Pall 7'. Baulkley, 1040
Pallman v Mortgester, 1143
Pally V. Saratoga R. Co., 2325
Palmater 7/. Carey, 2166
Palmer, Ex Parte, 514
Palmer z*. AllJcock, 19
V. Danney, 840
V. Edwards, 1073,1109, 1112, 1118
ZI. Fleshies, 2234
■V. Forbes, 98, 103
zj. Ford, 1139,1140,1x58
V. Gumsey, 2168
V. Guthrie, 2046
V. Hawes, 1385, 1391, 1440
V. Horton, 883
V. Marguette Co., 1000
V. Mead, 2157
Palmer v. Miller, 2011
V. Mulligan, loi, 2255
V. Oakley, 1622
V. Sawyer, 1030, 1073
z>. Simonds, 1629
V. Steiner, 2252
ZK Stevens, 2085
V. Wetmore, 1127, 1167, 2223
z>. Young, logo
Panton z'. Holland, ig8, 2231, 2232
V. Manley, 1475, 1479, ispf'
Papillon V. Voice, 444, 491
Paquetel v. Gauche, 1213
Papasy zk Papasy, 780
Paradine v. Jane, 1099
Pardee v. Lindley, 1407, 1408, 1414, 1437, '44^*
1476, 1506, 1522, 1670, 2106
7'. Treat, 2072
V. Van Anken, 2136, 2137, 2170, 2172
Pardue v. Giveus, 265
Parent z'. Callerhand, 1035
Parfitt 7/. Hember, 1693
Parham zi. Parham, 957, 960, 963
7'. Thompson, 49, 52
Paris 7'. Hulett, 2157
Parish zk Gates, 2047
V. Gilmanton, 1998
V. Gaspare, 2242, 2243
7/. Scott, 2331
z). Ward, 221, 2289
V. Wheeler, 2014
Park V. Baker, 110
V. Brooks, 729
V. Castle, 1 135, 1300, 1338
V. Hardy, 685
' V. Hawkins, 2357
Parke v. Kilham, igoi, 1908
7'. Mears, 2355
Parker 7'. Allen, 1220
7'. Banks, 2298
V. Boston & M- R. Co., 2230
7'. Carter, 621
V. Chambliss, 57S
V. Constable, 1269, 1337
z). Converse, 1662, 1754
7'. Copeland, 1104
V. Foote, 1913, 2223, 2292
V. Foy, 2006
V. Girard, 1973
V. Griswold, 2248
V. Hayden, 936
z/. Hill, 2034
V. HoUis, 996, 998, 1013, 1131, 1316, 1323
z). Hotchkiss, 2226
V. Jacobs, 2017
V. Jones, 2080
V. King, 1388, 1513
z*. Lincoln, 1873, 2014, 2015
V. Murphy, 861, 869
V. Nanson, 1213
V. Nichols, 236, 2317, 2319
V. O'Cear, 930
V. Parker, 309, 335, 340, 342, 415, 417,
723, 724, 790, 846, 877, 1838
z/. Parmele, 2059
7'. Proprietors of Locks and Canals, 212,
1815, 1816, 1898, 1899
V. Raymond, 1213
V. Rochester, 2000
7/. Rule, 2334
V. Smith, gg, 2362
V. Snyder, 1635, 1648
V. .Staniland, 50, 51
V. Sluckert, 214
ZK Tootal, 411, 413
V. Van Cortland, 1591
V. Webb, 2262
V. White, 1845
V. Whyte, 1185
V. Winnipiseogee, Lake C. &. W, Mfg.
Co., X669
-i/. Wood, 2020
clxxxii
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Parkham v. Justices of Decatur Co., 2324
Parkhurst v. Walertown Steam Engine Co.
2106
V. Northern Cent. R. Co., 2019
V. Van Cortland, 2174
V, Watertown Steam Engine Co., 2106
Parkins z*. Coxey, 552, 553
V. Dunham, 2223, 2345, 2347
Parkinson's Appeal, 75, 76,2121
Parkinson v. Hanbury, 2086
Parkist z/. Alexander, 1617, 1643, 1745, 1771
2015, 2036
Parkman v. Bowdoin, 417, 423
1;. Welch, 2153, 2184
Pavkman's Admr. v. Aicardi, 1112, 1123, 1184
Parke v. Nichols, 2312
Parks, Re, 1433
Parks z/. Boston, 1127, 1129, 1167,2268
V. Brooks, 729, 799
V, Hall, 1993, 2037, 2049, 2127, 2128
V. Hardy, 823, 843, 865
V. McLellan, 718
V. Nichols, 2319
V. Parks, 1607
V. Webb, 2020
z/. Whit, 1035, 1373
Parmelee v. Cameron, 1697
V. Dann, 2105, 2106, 2107
Parmenter z/. Walker, 2163
V. Weber, 1057, 1109, 1112, ii2i
Parmer z/. Giles, 1750
v, Parmer, 2168
Parmle v. Sloan, 1641
Parrett z*. Shaubhut, 2122, 2126
Parrisz/. Cobb, 1032, 1782
Parrish v. Stevens. 2206
Parrot v. Barnes, 1301, 1306
V. Barney, 1105, 1152, 1153, 1228
If. Edmondson, 1842
Parris v. Cobb, 1032, 17S2
Parry v. Harbert, 255
V. House, 1 148
V. Wright, 2098
Parry, Doe d., v. Hazell, 1336, 1337, 1340,
1341
Parrott v. Kumpf, 1497
Papsell V, Stryker, 1004
Parsons, In re, 234
Parsons z/. Baker, 1630
V. Bedford, 667
V. Boyd, 1729, 1730, 1876, 1881, 1885, 1968
V. Camp, 78, 79, 103, 106
V. Copeland, 133, 134, 138
V. Ely, 645
V. Hughes, 2187
V. Johnson, 2211,2216
2/. Livingston, 1400, 1402, 1519, 1520
V. Lyman, 1835
7/. McCracken, 2176
V. Miller, 1972
V. Noggle, 2174, 2175
V. Russell, 2324
V. Smith, 55
V. Wells, 1996, 2102, 2103, 2107
V. Winslow, 270, 271, 514
artee v. Stewart, 1399, 1402, 1434, 1451
z/. Thomas, 1662
Partington's Case, 400, 444
Parteriche v. Powlet, 563, 740
Parton v. Harvey, 752
Partriche v. Broadhurst, 947
Partridge v. Badger, 2342
V. Berce, 2092, 2093
V. Bere, 1279
V. Dorsey, 401, 445, 463
V. First Independent Church, 41, 2213
p. Gilbert, 2232, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2243
V. Havens, 1640
z'. Messer, 1623
z'. Partridge, 2105
f. Scott, 2232
V. Swazey, 2027
Paschal v. Cushman, 1513
z/. Davis, 1723
Pasey v. Cook. 300
Passinger v. Thorburn, 1247
Patapsco Guard Co. v. Morrison, 1832
Patch V, City of Covington, 1247, 1248
V. Keeler, S52, 859
Patchin v. Cromach, 2344
Patersonz'. Boston, 1129
V. Ellis, 322, 344, 396
•u. Lanning, 1989
•V. Murphy, i6gi, 1791
V. Wabash, St. L. & Pac. R. Co., 198
Paton V. Murray, 2147
Patrick V. Commissioners, 2325
V. Marshall, 1986
V Morehead, 534
z/. Sherwood, 504, 505, 553
Patridge v, Bere, 1993
Patten %>. Bond, 1164
V. Dechon, 1059, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1077,
1112, 1115, 1117, 1124, 1139, 2251,
2262, 2265
V. Pearson, 2157, 2163
V. Smith, 1514
Patterson v. Birdsdall, 2138
V. Blake, 1960, 1964
V. Blight, 2254
V. Boston, 1 127, 1 167, 2268
7/. Carneal, 799, 2076
V. Campbell, 1624
V. Douner, 2059
V. Gaines, 755
V. Hansel, 1145, 1723
V. Huddart, 307
V. Johnston, 2029
V. Kreig, 1475
V. Lanison, 2095
V. Lawrence, 1820, 1823
V. Martin, 1976
V. McCousland, 228
V. Moore, 281, 287, 531
V. Patterson, 646, 647, 895, 1938
V. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., S3
V. Rabb, 2110
z/. Robinson, 1562
V. Snell, 2322
V. Stoddard, 1258, 1282, 1290, 1291, 2261,
2271
•v. Sweet, 1216
V. Wilson, 1822
V. Yeaton, 2055
Pattison's Appeal, 355, 2334
Pattison v. Blanchard, 1241
V. Hill, 2099, 2107
V. Powers, 2082
Patton V. Adkins, 2086
V. Axley, 1254, 1299, 1315, 1319, ,324,
1337
V. Beecher, 1589, 1590
V. Calhoun, 18S9
V. Cliamberlain, 1592
V. Crow, iSjo
•V. Page, 2181
V. Patton, 786
•V. Philadelphia, 595, 596
V. Philadelphia & New Orleans, 7<;i, i^'z
V. Randall, 2 - /:> > /s
V. Rankin, 1942, 1944
Patty z/. Bogle, 2274
V. Goolsoy, 1S24
V. Middleton, 1950
V. Pease, 2154, 2180
Paul V. Paul, 1411, i4qi
■V. Compton, 1629
V. Davis, 2282
V. Fulton, 1665, 1690, T759
y. Ward, 1349
Paullings v. Barron, 1997, 1998, 2169
Paup V. Sylvester, 1408
Pawlet V. Clark, 707
Pawlins v. Stewart, 2090
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxxiii
Pawson v. Brown, 1638
Paxson ?'. Lefferts, 423
7'. Potts, 938
Paxtou V. Douglass, 2081
V. Harrier, 2134, 2184
z'. Paul, 2129
V. Potts, 937
v. Stuart, 1689
Payn v. Beal, 251
Pa.yne, £ jv parUy 34, 1631, 1632
Payne v. Atterburj', 2004, 2008
V. Avery, 2004
V. Beecker, 733, 734, 735, 741,838, 839
v. BuUard, 1781
v. Dotson, 892 •
V. Harrell. 2009
V. Herald, 215S
V. James, 1202
V. Patterson, 2011, 2017
f. Payne, 654, 678, 679, 684, 688, 712, gi8,
945. 1372
V. Rogers, 1196, 1108, 1202
V. Sale, 1796
7>. Wilson, 2364
Payton ?'. Sherburne, 1293
Pea V. Pea, 106, 116, 132, 135
Peabody v. Eastern Methodist in Lynn, 1886
V. Hewett, 2299
V. Lynn Methodis Soc, 2107
V. Minot, 1911, 1912, 1922, 1967, 1985
z'. Patten, 2172
V. Roberts, 2174
7'. Tarbel!, 1538, 1576, 1633
Peacock 7-. Eastland, 383
z/. Monk, 2012
f. Purvis, 49
V, Smart, 2279
Peacock. Doe d., z;. Raffan, 1338, 1339, i34'»
U42
Peak V. EUicott, 1762
Peake ». Cameron, 1446
Pearce v. Ferris, 1350
V. Foreman, 2006
V. Hall, 2026
v. McClenaghani, 1797, 2201, 2243, az45i
2247, 2248
7'. Morris, 2170
V. Savage, 335, 1594, i597
Pearl v. Harris, 1051
V. McDowell, 2345
Pears z'. Covilland, 617
Pearse v. Baron, 1038
7/. Ownes, 274
Pearson 7/. Carlton, 1895
V. East, 1620
V. Howes, 596, 751
V. Jamison, 1667
7', Moreland, 1716
V. Ries, ggi, looi
V. Seay, 2044, 2051, 2053, 2054
z>. Spencer, 2211, 2216
z'. Taylor, 1766
Pearson, Jackson ex d., v. Housel, ^, 305- 307
309. 310
Pease v. Benson, 2108
7'. Kelly, 2005
V. Pilot Knob Iron Co., 1999, 207S
■V. Warren, 2100
Peaslee v. Gee, 2357
Peavey v. Tilton, 1786
Peay v. Peay, 885
Peck 7'. Austin, 1029
V. Batchelder, 96, 104, 107, loS, 113, i35»
136. ^7
7f. Brummagen, 1947, i949
-v. Carpenter, 1895, 191 1
V. Fisher, 1030, 1957, 1963
V. Henderson, 181 1
V. IngersoU, 1107, 1124
V. Jones, 1127, 1167
V. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 2259
f. Millans, 2024, 2122, 2365
Peck V. Newton, 1713
V. Northrop, 1120, 2250
V. Peck, 572, 595, 597,
V. Sherwood, 505, 513
V. Vandenberg, 1700, 1947
Peckham v. Haddock, 2134
V. Hadwen, 762, 817, 819
Pederick v. Searle, 2299
Pedrick t. Searl, 517 *
V. Searle, 2297, 2300
Peebles 7/. Reading, 1644, ^744
Peed V. McGee, 2059
Peel V, Lewis, 2227
Peeler v. Guilkey, 1897, 1915
Pep;ues v. Pegues, 1635, 1646
Peirce v. Goddard, 62, 97, 142, 144
PeirsoU 7/. Elliot, 2331
Peiton V. Banks, 310
Pelan v, Bevard, 975, 1424
Pelham's Case, 516
Pell V. Decker, 1489
Pellenz z'. Bullerdieck, 128
Pelletreau v. Jackson, 1580
Pelley v. Wathen, 20S9, 2090
Pells V. Brown, 320, 321, 418
Peiton V. Knapp, 2134
V. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 1614, 2113
Pemberton v. Hicks, 580, 628, 665, 666, 2278
V. King, 1225
V, Pemberton, 935, 941
Pemberton's Lessee v. Hicks, 666
Pemington v. Hanby, 2ot;'^
Pence v. St. Paul, H. & M. R. Co., 1019
Pender?'. Lancaster, 1397
V, Rhea, 1236
Pendleton v. Hooper, 1381
V. Pomroy, 766
V. Rooth, 2095
zf, Vandevier, 516, 743
Pendleton County 7>. Amy, 1041
Pendergast z*. Yomig, 1120
V. Foley, 1785
Peneyert/. Brown, 1138
Penfold 7/. Mould, 1587
PenhoUow V. Dwight, 49, 51
Penington v. Coats, 520
Penman v. Slocum, 1611
Penn z/. Clemans, 2169
V. demons, 1758
V. Klyne, 2305
V. Ott, 2016
V. Peacock, 1844
Penn Salt Mfg. Co. z>. Ned, 1561
Pennall's Appeal, 95
Pennel 7'. Fern, 102 1
Pennell 7>. Deffell, 1720
Pennhollow v. Dwight, 2334
Penniali v. Harbome, 1152
Penniman v. French, 96
Pennington v. Gellard, 2233
7'. Hanby, 2168
7/. Seal, 14, 31. i5'2, 1513. 15^7
Pennington 7/. Veil, 538, 731, 733, 741
Pennington, Doe d., z'. Taniere, 1320, 1331, 1332
Pennock 7t. Coe, 98, 2018, 2019
V. Eagles, 2127
Pennock, 487, 1S06, 1836
Pennock's Estate, 118, 346, 458, 1591. 1593.
1631, 1632, 1633
Pennoyer v. Neff, 2142, 2324
Pennsylvania z'. Wheeling Bridge Co., 2326
Pennsylvania Coal Co. z/. Blake, 2129
V. Sanderson, 200
V. Sandersons, 199
Pennsylvania Ins. Co. v. Parke, 1972
Pennsylvania Lead Co.'s Appeal, igg, 2222
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Jones, 2241
V. Parke, 1972
Pennsylvania Salt Co. v. Neel, 88
Penny v. Black, 1241
V. Davis, 1786
Lennytiecker z/. McDougal, 113
clxxxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Penrose v. Erie Canal Co., 151S
Pense %k Hixon, 891, 927
Penthyn v. Huges, 509, 519
Pentland -u. Stokes, 1785
Penton v. Robert, 107, 119, 123, 129, 130, 131,
145, 146
People V. Bank of Dansville, 1762
v> Bennett, 1141
V. Botsford, 1324
V. Broadway Wharf Co., 1029
V. Brown, 755
V. Burk, 1036
V. Canal Appraisers, 2294
V. Carpenter, 1517
V. Caton, 2338
V. Central R. Co., 20
t». City Bank, 1763
V. City Bank of Rochester, 1762
V. Conklin, 216, 217, 1657
V. Culver, 1028
V. Dudley, 2269
V. Ferris, 595
I'. Field, 1356, 2291
V. Folsom, 196, 215, 216, 21S
z*. Gallaa;her. 2325
V. Gillis, 820, 821
V. Goelet, 969, 1340
V. Haskins, 2253
V. Home Ins. Co., 2335
V. Hovey, 662, 1359
V. Hewlett, 2254
V. Irvin, 2289
V. Jenness, 753
V. Jeuners, 753
7'. !Mayor of Brooklyn, 1102, 2325, 2335
V. Mayor of New York, 197
V. McCarthy, 1141
V. Merchants' Bank, 1768
V. New York Gas Light Co., 232S
V. Norton, 1662, 1787
V. Palmer, 646
V. Paulding, 1307
V. Quant, 2324, 2329
V. Reed, 1263
V. Rickert, 996, 1301, 1306, 1321, 1322,
1323
V. Robertson, 1006
V. Salem, 2325
■D. Shackno, 1274, 1344
V. Schoonmaker, 1554
V. Siner, 1213, 1216
V. Smith, 197, 2327
V. Snyder, 221, 222, 1657, 2014
•u. Spaulding, 1334
V. St. Patrick's Cathedral, 40, 41
V. Superior Court of N. Y., 2031
V. Supervisors of Montgomery Co.,
2335
V. Toynbee, 2325, 232S
V. Utica Cement Co., 498
V. Utica Ins. Co., 1554
V. Van Nostrand, 1263
V. Van Rensselaer, 195, 209
V. White, 370, 390
People ex rel. Aldhouse v. Goelet, 1327, 1329
People ex rel. Botsford v. Darling, 1202, 1302,
1322, 1323, 1324, 1326, 1327, 1329,
1335. 1340. 2232
People ex rel. Chi-om. Steel Co. v. Spaulding,
1317
People ex rel. Dikherz/. German Tnited Evan-
gelical Church, 34
People ex rel. Grissler v. Dudley, 1052, 1062
People ex rel. Hubbard z/. Annis, 1287, 128S
People ex rel. Kline v. Rickert, 981, 1013
People ex rel. Norton v. Gillis, 477, 478,501,
521, 993
People ex rel. New_ York & H. R. R. Co. if.
Commissioners of Texas, 96, 98
People ex rel, Parker Mills v. Commissioners
of Texas, 1554
People ex rel. Schock z/. Green, 1029 •
People ex rel. The New York Elevated Rail-
road V. Commissioners of Texas, 45
People ex rel. Ward v. Kelsey, 992
People's Bank v. Keech, 1884
People's Ice Co. v. Davenport, 74
V. Steamer Excelsior, 198, 983
%i. The Excelsior, 68
People's Loan & Building Association v. White-
more, 12 1 3
Peppard v. Deal, 306, 310, 331, 333, 334
Pepper's Estate, 486, 487
Pepper z/. Haiglit, 235S
V. O'Dowd, 2297
Peppercorn v. Wayman, 1788
Peralta v. Caslro, 1697
Perez v. Raybaud, 1191, 1197
Perin V, Carey, 245, 257
Perine v. Teague, 2678, 1317
Perkins, Ex- pariey 36S
Perkins v. Blood, 2304
V. Boynton, 1884
2/. Cartwell, 1781
V. Cottrell, 1367
V. Coxe, 561
V. Dibble, 2038, 2039, 2129
V. Dickinson, 247
V. Eaton, 1898
V. Governor, The, 1172
V. Hay, 251, 257
V. Little, 707, 776
V. Malterson, 210S
V. Matteson, '2106
V. McDonald, 301
V. NichollS; 1646, 1649
V. Perkins, 1514
V. Pitts, 2091
V. Quigley, 1419
V. Sterne, 2095, 2104, 2107, 2134
V. Stockwell, 283
V. Stone, 2099
If. Swank, 118, 119, 122, 139
Perley v. Chase, 2067
Perminter ti. McDaniel, 2339, 2340
Pemam v. Wead, 2220, 2221
Perot V. Levasseur, 2099
Perrin z'. Blake, 438
V. Garfield, 2226
V. Granger, 32, 40
V. Lepper, 2251, 2256
z>. Sargeant, 1517
Perrine v. Chessman, 2363
V. Dunn, 2156
V. Hankinson, 2260
Perrot v. Perrot, 572
Perry v. Adams, 1918
V. Aldrich, 497, 2255, 226S
V. Brown, 142
V. Carr. 79, 1153, 1297
V. Goodwin, 975
V. Granger, 1905
J'. Grant, 2005
V. Holden, 2357
V. Karnes, 2069
V. Kline, 238, 401, 408, 411, 415, 420, 447,
469
V. Meadowcraft, 661
V. Meddowcraft, 2044, 2052, 2955
V. McHenry, 1646, 1653
V. Merritt, 1684-
V. Perryman, 916, 935, 955
V. Phillips, 1807
V. Pierce, 2319
V. Price, 2318
V. Providence Ins. Co., 1005
V. Roberts, 2099
V. Swazey, 1636
V. Tollier, 537
V Woods, 315
Perrv Manfg. Co. v. Brown, 369, 2oi;8
Penifull 7.. Hind. 1457
Person v. Merrick, 2148
V. O'Neal, 2336
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxxv
Persons v. Alsip, 2148
V. Schaeffer, 213S
Pet V. Hammond, 2144, 2152
Pete V. Hammond, 2150
Peter v. Beverly, q4, 1555, 1560, 1599, 1663, 1731,
1780, 1806, 1810, 1839, 1S41, 1842,
1S43
V. Kendal, 982
Peters z/. Barns, 1160
V. Elkins, 2065
t/, Florence, 2134
V, Grubb, 226S
V. Jamestown Bridge Co., 2103, 2104,
2110
V. Lincoln & N. Y. H. R. Co., 1019
Peterson v. Clark, 829, 2040, 2053, 20S0, 2187
V, Edmonson, 1126, 1175
V. Smart, 11 96
Petition of Young, 2361
Petland z'. Keep, 2241, 2243
Petre z\ Espinasse. 1791
V. Heneage, 60
Petrie J'. Bury, 1925
Petsch V. Briggs, 1335, 1340
Pettee v. Case, i666, 2031, 2033
Pettengili w. Evans, 1153, 1297
Pettibone v. Edwards, 2148
V. Griswold, 2027, 2029
PettingUl V. Evans, 2067
Pettinghill v. Porter, 2207, 2221
Pettit p. Shepard, 2331
Pettman v. Bridger, 29, 30, 32
Petts w. Hendricks, 741
Petty V. Doe d. Graham, 1308
V. Kennon, 1286
V. Malier, 599, 675, 734, 735, 741, 1309,
228S
V. Tooker, 34
V. Petty, 708, 716, 727, 794, 795, S75, 912
Pettyjohn v. Beasley, 933, 947
V. Pettyjohn, 597
Peugh V. Davis, 20.^9, 2168, 2169
Peverly v. Sayles, 1483, 1514, 1515
Peyton v. Jeffries, 867, 868, 875
V. Smith, 304, 306, 309, 353, 1891
V. Stith, 1214
Pfanner v. Strumer, 47, 48, 1262, 1267
Pfund y. Herlinger, 1166
Pharis v. Leachman, 836, 1363
Phelan Estate, Matter of, 1517
V. Boylan, 504
V. Gardner, 1033
V. Kelly, 1873, 1917
Phelon V. Stiles, 1194
Phelps t/. Chesson, i860, 1862, 1868
v. Conover, 1496, 200S
1/. Jackson, 1622
V. Jepson, 1876, 1881, 1882, 1883, iq68
V. Harris, 1669, 1739, 1832
V. Murray, 2018
V. Nave, 11 13
V. Phelps, 329, 647, 1506, 1689
V. Rooney, 1378, 1379, 1387, 1390, 1417,
1431- 1436, 1446, 1475
V. Sage, 2085, 2 1 28
V. Seely, i6go, i6gi
V. Taylor, 1213
V. Townsley, 2100
V. Wait, 1 195 -
V. Van Dusen, 2263, 2264
Phelps & Bigelow Windmill Co. -u. Shay,
1496
Philadelphia v. Field, 2325
Philadelphia Nat. Bank v. Dowd, 1761, 1762
Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Durby, 1185, 1730
V. Johnson, 2082
Philadelphia, W. & B. R. -u. Woelpper, 2015,
2018, 2019
Philbrick V. Ewring, 136
v. Spangler, 596
Philbrook v. Delono, 1537, 1700, 2005
Phileo z: Halliday, 487
Philips w. Crammond, 1515, 1611, 1623, 1635,
1636
V, Doe, 1060, 1061
V. Green, 2365
Philleo V. Smalley, 137S, 1445
Phillip's Estate, In r^, 233
Phillip V. Benjamen, 991
V. Doe ex d.. Tucker, 1155
Phillipo 7'. Mumiings, 1782, 1783
Phillipott's Cases, 1040
Phillips V, Allen, 542, 543, 546, 547, 556, 557,
560
V. Aurora Lodge, 1019
V. Bishop, 1473, 1474. J489 I
V. Covert, 1 153, 1252, 1277, 1297
V. Disney, 725
V. Doe, 1138, 1150
V. Doolittle, 1 157
V. Eastern R. Co., 1019
V. Eastwood, 1684
V. Ferguson, 1858
V. Grayson, 1361
V. Green, 103 1, 2343
V. Gregg, 1916
V. Hele, 340 '
v. Holmes, 2045, 2067
V. Hulsizer, 2045
V. Hunter, 368, 2057, 2288
V. Kent, 2299
V. Kingsfield, 1456
V. La Forge, 697
V. Maxwell, 22-'2
V. Mebury, 1858
V. Monges, 1132, 1135,1317
V. Moore, 2014
zi. Mosely, 1318, 1326
V. MulUngs, 1 801
V. Pearson, 2126
V. Phillips, 325, 610, 619, 623, 634, 786,
2036, 2123, 2211, 2241, 2242
V. Saunderson, 200S
V, Sherman, 1908
V. Sinclair, 2175
V. Smith, 564
V. South Park Commissioners, 1690
V. Springfield, 1460, 1466
V. Stanch, 1485
V. Stevens, 1068, logS, 1099
V, Tliompson, 1614
V. Winslow, gS, 2018, 2019
V. Wooster, 681
V. Worfcrd, 689
Phillips' Academy v. King, 1541, 1555, 1670
Phillips, Doe d., v. Butler, 1336
V. Rollins, 1309
Phillips, Jackson ex d., v. Aldrich, 1296
Phillips' Lessees. Robertson, 996, 1160, 1214,
1322
Phillipson v. Kerry, 1801
V. Mullanphy, 13S
Phillpott V. Elliott, 1649
Philpot v. Hoare, 11 13
Phinney v. Johnson, 841, 844, 924
Phipps V. Ingraham, 994
V. Kelynge, 1693
V. Lord Ennismore, 1748
Phoenix Co. v. Fletcher, 2239
Phcenix Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 1059
Phyfe v. Riley, 2000, 2169
V. Wardell, 1089, 1090, 1091
Physick's Appeal, 318, 328, 1675
Physick v. Physeck, 596
Piatt z*. Dawes, 1020
V. Hubbell, 1976
V. Oliver, 695, 1623, 1770, 1963
V. Vattier, 1519
Pibusz/. Mitford, 1538
Picardy ?'. Central Bank, 1690, 1691
Pickard v. Collins, rigg
V. Kleis, 1130, 1134
V. Sears, 2302
Pickens v. Reed, 136
clxxxvi
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Pickeis V. Webster, 49
lickering v. Coates, 1656
V. Danson, 1200
V. Langdon, 535, 536
V, Pickering, 1872
V. Reynold, 2334
V. Shotwell, 1656
Pickett V. Brown, 2206
V. Euckner, 800, 801, 2164
V. Chilton, 645
V. Dowdell. 2303
V. Ferguson, 1164
V. Jones, 2104, 2160
V. Lyles, igg
V. Peay, gi8, 928, 935, 942, 944
V. Pecay, 916
zt. Sutter, 1033
Pico V. Columbet, 1895, 1904
Pickle V. McKessick, i860
Picot V, Page, 1883, iggo
Pidge V. Tyler, 208, 2364
Pidgeley ti. Rawling, 560
Pidgeon v. Trustee of Schools, 2071
Pier ^ Carr, 112S, 1129, 1168
Pierce v. Brew, 1094
V. Brown, 1220, 1222
v. Burroughs, 504
V. Cambridge, 1288
V. ChaCe, 1935, 1940, 1941
V. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co.. 1515
V. Commissioner of Emigi-ation, 1863
V. Dyer, 64
V. Emery, 97, 98, 142, 2017, zoiS, 2019,
2342
V. George, 106
V. Goddard, 2186
V. Hakes, 414, 600, 681, 692
V. Hobbs, 731
V. Keator, 2213, 2214, 2215, 2211, 2240
V. McKeehan, 1759
V, Methodist Episcopal Church, 41
V. Milwaukee R. Co., 2018
V. Milwaukee St St. P. R. Co., 2019
V. Minturn, 220/^
V. Pierce, 966, 1131, 1634, 1657, 2254,
2270
V. Potter, 2158
V. Robinson, 2045, 2047, 2050
V. Trigg, 1964
V. Wannett, 613, 628
V. Williams, 852, 855, S58, 859, 877
V. Win, 499
Piercy z/. Roberts, 253
Pierre -v. Fernald, 2223
Pierrepont %>. Barnard, 55, 56
Pierson v. Armstrong, 2359, 2360
V. Hitchner, 859, 860
V. Howey, 751, 752
V. Lane, 118, 378, 380, 396, 4=2, 45S ,
V. Shore, 77, logi
7'. Townsend, 2338
V. Truax, 1456
V. Turner, 212, 1309
Pifer V. Ward, 744, 745, 778, 814, S91, 922, 923
Piggot V. Mason, 1008
Piggott's Case, 1827
Pigot V. Garnish, 1023
Pike V. Brown, 1063, 2068
V. Collins, 2027
V. Eyre, 1107, 1123
V. Goodnow, 2153, 2181
V. Miles, 1480, 1481
V. Underbill, 806, 850
V. Wassell, 504
Pilcher v. Rawlins, 1778
Pile V. McBratney, 501
Pilkington v. Boughy, 1630, 1638
Pilla V. Germain School Assoc, 217, 21S
Pilling V. Armitage, 1087
Pillow u. Love, 126
V. Wade, 647
Pillsbury v. Moore, 2226, 2245
Pillsworth V. Hopton, 571
Pim V. Downing, 1733, 1734
P. R. M. Co. V. D. S. G. R. Co., T042.
Pidgen, Doe d., v. Richards, 1263, 1293, 1295
Pindall v. Trevor, 1620, 1760
Pine V. Rector of Trinity Church, 1159
V. Liecester, in8
Pinero v. Judson, 1343
Pingree v. Coffin, 1665, i6go
Pingrel v. McDuffe, 2220
Pingrey v. Watkins, 1112, 1117
Pinhoi-n v. Souster, 1266, 1294, 1296, 1297, 1307,
1334
Pinkerton v. Tumlin, 1501, 1502,1579
Pinkham t. Gear, 851, 852, 856
Pinkston v. Brewster, 1781
Pinnell %k Boyd, 206a, 2068, 2069
Pinney v. Fellows, i6go, i6gi
Pinnington v. Galland, 92
Pinnock v. Clough, 1645, 1651, 1653
Pinson v. Ivey, 1539, 1659
V. McGehee, 1690
Pinston v. Ivey, 1782
Pintard ?/. Goodloe, 2006
Pintard, Jackson ex d., v. Bodole, 1016
Piper's Estate, 504, 506, 534
Piper V. Johnston, 1362
V. May, 662
7'. Moulton, 1603, 1604, 16S6
V. Richardson, 750
V. Smith, ig6r, 1964, 1965
Pipkin V. Allen, 1896
Pippin V. Ellison, 2
Piqua Branch State Bank t'. Knoop, 2335
Piscataqua Bridge Co. z'. New Hampshire Co.,
2325
Piscataqua Exchange Bank z/. Carter, 1699
Pitcher v. Barrows, 2364
V. Tovey, 1074, 2265
Pitkin V. Noyes. 51
Pitt, Doe d., V. Hogg, 1146
V. Hunt, 1361
V. Jackson, 656, 1040, 1838
V. Shew, 145
V, Smith, 1032, 1033, 1034
Pittman -v. Pittman, 1586
Pitts 1'. Aldrich, 80S, 925, 2130
IK Aldridge, 728
V. Cable, 2052, 2053
V. Hall, 1884
V. Hendrix, 46
V. Parker, 2007
V. Pitts, 894
Pittsburg V. Danford, 2302
V. Scott, 2328
Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. R. Co. -u. Columbus
C. R. Co., 1019
Pittsburgh & St. L. R. Co. v. Rothchild, 368,
2057
Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. Co, v. Theobald, 1194
Pittsburgh, V.-& C R. Co. v. Bentley, 473, 494
Pittsfield Bank v. Howk, 1503
Pixley V. Clark, 2232
V. Pliggins, 2120
Pizalla zi, Campbell, 737, 837
Plaisted v Holmes. 1602
Planter v. Cunningham, 1079
7'. Scrwood, 624, 625, 627
Planters' Bank v. Davis, 693, 698, 703
V. Henderson, 14S1
v. Neely, 1716
V. Prater, 1622, 2106
V. Sharp, 1510, 1511
V. Walker, 136
Planters' Bank of Mississippi v. Sharp, 2332
Planters' Bank of Tennessee v. Davis, 692
Planters' Ins. Co. v. Diggs, 1138, 1139, 1151,
Planters and Merchants' Rank of Mobile v.
Andrews, 1540, 1554
Plantt V. Payne, 820
Plato V. Roe, 1996, 2039, 2050, 2168
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxx
Vll
Platt*s Estate, 636
Piatt V. Brown, 2321
V. Johnson, loi, 2225
w. Smith, 2141
V. Squire, 2147
V. Stewart, 1975, 1985
Platte V. Cady, 1476, 1496
Player, Den ex d., t'. Nicholls, 973, 980, 1553,
»5g5. '597- 1694
Playford v, Playford, 2173
Pleasant v. Benson, 1306, 1344
Pleasants v. Claghorn, 1002, 1323
Pledger 7'. Easterling, 17S4
2/. EUerbee, 659, 760, 764, 781, 800, S70,
925
Plenty v. West, 1560
Plimb's Case, 1554
Plimpton V. Converse, 2207, zaig, 2244
V. Farmers' Ins. Co., 2114
z/. Insurance Co.,2iiS
Pluck V. Diggs, 1 109
Plumb V. Sawyer, 635, 637, 671, 1376
&. Tubbs, 259, 267, 268, 269, 185S
Plumer v. Guthrie, 2050
V. Plumer, 78, 79, So, 566, 1213
Plumleigh v. Cook, 706, 1071, iS.ig
Plummer z/. Jarman, 1641
Plunket &. Homes, 320, 693, 694
Plush z*. Digges, 1112
Plymouth v. Hickman, 1691
Plympton v. Boston Dispensary, 504, 505
Poad V. Watson, 335
Podmore v. Gunning, 347, 1691
Poedon v. Boston L. R. Co., 2216
Peer v. Peebles, 2273
Pogue z^. Clark, 2148
Poiguard i>. Smith, 2091, 2092, 2101, 2295
Poindexter -ii. Blackburn, 537
V. McCannon, 2052, 2053
Poindexter's Exrs. v. Green's Exrs., 510
Polack V. Pioche, 1099, 1106, 1152
Polk V. Gallant, 1773
z'. Reynolds, 810, 1047
V. Rose, 2335 ,
Pollack z*. Kelly, 1024, 1930, 1939, 1945
Pollard V. Greenville, 1040
V. Hagan, 707
V, Jekyi, 208
V. Mutual F. Ins. Co., 2115
V. Noyes, 510
z/. Shaafer, 553, 1072, 1074, 1075, 1203
V. Slaughter, 780
•u. Somerset Mut. F. Ins. Co., 2116
Pollen V. Brewer, 1142, 1258, 1269, 1351
Poliitt V. Forrest, 2254
V. Long, 2225
Pollock V. Cronise, 2251
V. Kittrell. 1252
V. Madison, 1998
V. Speidel, 401, 402, 410, 447, 450, 461,
465
v. Stacy, II 12
Polyblank v. Hawkins, 1364, 1365
Pomeroy v. Bailey, 1623
V. Lambeth, 1268
V. Latting, 2124, 2125
V. Mills, 22 1 1
V, Partington, 1039, 1040,1807
V. Pomeroy, 727, 794, 912
Pomet 7'. Scranton, 2126
Pomfret v. Ricroft, ti66, 2207, 2208
V. Winsor, 1783
Pond z/, Clarke, 2133,2141
V. Eddy, 2045
V. Johnson, 868 ^
V. Kimball, 1399, 1432
Ponder z/. Catterson, 1214
V. Graham. 597, 893
Pool V. Balkie, 653, 656, 680, 688, 697, 699,
1:^72
V. Hathaway, 2127, 2130
V. Lewis, 2228
Pool z;. Morris, 446, 1912
V. Pool, 1666
Poole's Case, 49, 126, 130, 146, 1187
Poole V. Bentleym, 993
V. Cook, 1513
V. Gerrard, 1406, 1409, 1450, 1452, 1454,
M55i M70. 1473, M74) M9^ 1524
V. Johnson, 2171
z'. Longuerville, 1365
z'. Mundy, 1715
Pooley V. Budd, 1574
Poor V. Horton, 711, 759
V, Oakman, 63, 141, 514
Pope z*. Anderson, 1881
V. Biggs, 1 171, 1172, 2065
z'. Devereaux, 2247
V, Durant, 2146
V. Elliott, 254, 272
V. Garland, 1301, 1325
V. Garvaud, 1182
V. Harkins, 1212, 1894, 2250, 2257
V. Henry, 211, 2366
v. Jacobus, 2111
z'. Meade, 733, 839
V. Nickerson, 2057
•u. O'Hara, 2246
v. Pope, 347, 1627, 1632, 1684
V. Town of Union, 2205, 2206
V. Whitcombe, 316
Pope's Exrs. v. Elliott, 1747
Popham V. Banfield, 202, 1870
zv. Banpfieid, 1807
Popkin V. Bumstead, 803, SoS, 887, 928
Poposkey z>. Munkwit?,, 1245
Porch t*. Fries, 587, 588, 617, 620, 631, 632, 653,
669, 670, 1362
Porche v. Bodin, 45, 46, 49
Porcherz*. Daniels, 1806
Port z*. Clements, 2146
V. Jackson, iioi, 2263,2264
V. Port, 594, 596, 752, 757
Porter z/. Bank of Rutland, 1371, 1502
V. Batclay, 866
V. Bowers, 671, 1363, 1364, 1366
V. Blieler, 985, 1022, 1023
V. Bradley, 320, 321, 322
V. Cole. 2353
V. Doby, 300, 1605, i6og, 1694
V. Durham, 2225
V. Gorden, 1324
V. Hill, 1924, 1967, 1976
V. Hubbard, 2271
V. Lafferty, 2091
V. Lazear, 792, 793
V. Lopes, 1974
V. Mayfield, 1213
•V. McClure, 1239
V. Mariner, 15 18
V. Merill, 1072, 1115, 1156
V. Moores, 1735
V. MuUer, 1922,2036, 2151
V. Nelson, 2046
V. Noyes, 729, 730, 1092,1093
V. Pierce, 169S
V. Pillsbury, 2157
V. Porter, 624, 633, 651, 66t, 662, 670, 1366
V. Robinson, 715, 781, 836, 2349
V. Rockford, 2335
■V. Sweeney, 2252, 2257, 2259
V. Vaughn. 1281
V. Williams, 1795
Portington's Case, 373, goo, 1851
Portis T'. Hill, 1710, 1723
Portland v. Topham, 1830
Portlock z/. Gardener, 1784
Posey V. Bass, 1454
V. Budd, 401, 447
V. Cook, 1560, 1606
Post V. Dart, 2^071, 2112
71. Dorr,*2o66
z/. Kearney, 1075, riiz
V. Kimberley, 1240
.elxxxviii
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Post 71. Logan, 2268
V. Moi-an, 1141
V. Parshall, 2240
71. Pearsal], 2211, 2212, 2214, 2217
V. Phelun, 1287
V. Post, 973, 1256, 1257, 1260, 1271, 1274,
J280, i28ij 1337
V. Velter, 1054, 1068, 1106, 1107, 1201
Poston z/. Eubanks, 2155
z. Gillespie, 658, 659, 795
V. Jones, 1081
Potiar V, Barclay, 751
Potomac Coal Co. v. Cumberland, etc., R. Co.,
it8o
Pott's Appeal, 396, 402, 419
Pott V. Eyton, 1242
V. Todhurst, 2349
Pottenger v. Stewart, 415
Potter 7'. Brown, 753, 755
V. Chapin, 166
V. Cromwell, 103, iii, 112, 113, 114, ir6,
"7, 133. i35> »37j "86
V. Everett. 839
V. Gardner, 1749, 1764
7>. Knowles, 1288
V. McAlpine, 269
V. Mercer, 992, 993, 1314
V. Seymour, 1194, 1195
V. Stevens, 2105, 2107
V. Titcomb, 368, 750, 2058, 2289
V. Wakefield, 646
V. Wheeler, 785, 857, 886, 887, 1973, 1975,
1989
71. Worley, 955
Potts 7'. Cloeman, 2297
V. Davenport, 976, 1423, 1424, 1434, 1445,
1461
V. New Jersey Arms Co., 113
V. Plaisted, 2131
V. Smith, 2208
Pouce V. McEloy, 1637
Pouder v. Catterson, 1213
Poullan V. Kinsinger, 2335
Poulteney v. Shelton, 1185
Poulter V. Killengback, 50
Pouitneyz'. Barrett, 1138
V. Holmes, 1118, 2252
Pournell v. Harris, 411, 447, 468
Powcey V. Bowen, 1838
Power z'. Cassidy, 1637, 1684
77. Haffley, 22S2
71. Jendevine, 1824
V. Nesbit
7'. Power, 1985
Powers V. Andrews, 2169, 2171
V. Bergen, 2328, 2329, 1798
V. Dennison, 144, 126S
V. Golden Lumber Co., 2169
V. Jackson, 779, 787
V. Kueckhoff, 1755, 1778, 1779
V. Lester, 200, 2016, 2101
V. Ocean Ins. Co., 2114, 2115
V. Wheler, 779
Powell V. Boggs, 2291
V. Conant, 2033, 2035
V. De Hart, 1286
V. Dillon, 998, 1043
7j. Gossom, 607, 608, 6og, 610
V. Glenn, 1796
V. Glover^76, 1621
V. Hadden's Exrs,, 1281
V. Jewett, 1666
z/. Knox, 1730, 1885
V. Monson & B. Mfg. Co., 105, 106, 591,
729, 730, 740, 761, 788, 789, 791, 823,
827, 841, 842, 844, 866, 900, 909, 1092,
1O03
V. McAsham, 145
V. Murray, 1562, 1781
7j. Powell, 660, 733, 736, mo, 1887
V. Rollins, 570
V. Sims, 2223, 2224, 2241
Powell 71. Smith, 1007, 2141
7>. Tuttle, 2159
V. Weeks, 773
V. Williams, 1997
Powis z/. Smith, 1901
Pownal V. Myers, 1707, 1713
V. Taylor, 1665, i6go, 1723
Powseley v. Blackman, 1279
Powys V. Blagiave, 570, 573
Prall V. Smith, 669, 1366
Praf.r 7j. Hoorer, 692
Prather v. Foote, 974, 1039
V. Hill, 1758
V. McDowell, 901, 911, 1777
Pratt, Re, 1463
Pratt V. Ayer, 1592
V. Bank of Bennington, 520, 2097, 2107
7'. Brown, 2328
V. Clark, 2005, 2009
V. Coffman, 46
V. Colt, 1747
V. Douglass, 918, 944
V. Farrar, 1137, 1293, 1294, 1296, 1351,
1355
V. Felton, 933, 947
V. Flamer, 408, 415, 424
71. Frear, 2174
V. Levan, 1114, 11x5
V. New York Central Ins. Co., 1058,
*o59
V, Pratt, 2080
V. Sanger, 449
V. Skofield, 2100
V. Smith, 588
V. Theft, 750
7j. Thornton, 1714, 1726, 1767, 1768, 1776,
1781
7/. Van Wyck, 1997, 2009
Pratt, Doe d.,.v. Timins, 1595, 1596
Pray's Appeal, 1721
Pray v. Clark, 1053, 1087
V. Pierce, 2316, 2317
V. Stebbins, 1024, 1033, 1935, 1942, 1944,
1952
Preacher s Aid Society v. England, 298, 1564,
1796
Preble v. Hay, 1310
Preece 71. Corrie, 2252
Preice v. Sellick, 2241
Prendergast, 1740
Prentice v. Acliorn, 1033
V. Brimhall, 2166
V. Geiger, 2225
V. Jaassen, 1987
Presbaker v. Freeman, 2038, 2039
Presbyterian Church v. Andruss, 29, 31, 32, 33,
36
V. Johnston. 1744
Prescott V. De Forrest, 1122
7'. Elltngwood, 2102
V. Elm 1274, 1335, 1338, 1340, 1341, 1343
7J Hull, 2107
71. Nevers, 210, 1899, 1914, 1915, 2296
V. Otterstatter. 1084, 1085
v. Prescott, 411, 1386, 1442, 1443
V. Trueman, 729, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095
V. Walker, 760, 788
V. White, 2228, 2229
V. Williams, 2228, 2229
Presley z/. Davis, 323, 1782
Presly v. Siribbing, 1703, 1741
Prestman v. Silljacks, 974, 1219, 1220
Preston v. Briggs, 135, 145, 146, 1204
V. Fyer, 647
V. Hawlev, 2270
V. McCall, 2254
V. Ryan, 49
V. Wilcox, 1662
Pretts 7>. Ritchie, 711
Pretty 7'. Bickmore, iigS, 1199, 1201
Prettyman v. Unland, 2272
V. Walston, 504, 505, iioi
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
clxxxix
Prevost, Succession of, 595
Prevost V. Clark, 1629
V. Gratz, 1623, 1695, 17S2
V. Prevost, 596
Prevot V. Lawrence, 987, 1035, 1221
Prewett v, Buckingham, 1781
V. Wilson, 959
Prey v. Johnson, 2362
Prial V. Entwistle, 1323, 2271
Price, In rtf, 1399. 1629
Price V. Alexander, 1240, 1242, 1244
V. Assheton, 1088
V. Binfliam, 647
V. Brayton, 119
V. Byrn, 1776
V. Chase, 591
v. Cutts, 203S
V. Dyer, 65, 1007, 1008
V. Gover, 2045, 2047
z'. Griffith, 999
V. Haynes, 2354
V, Hicks, 824
T*. Hobbs. 711, 712, 713, 725, 748, 759,
822, 8^0, S41, ^42, 843, 844
V. Hunt, 1-357
71. Johnston, 713
V. Karnes, 2052
V. Masterson, 2061
V. Methodist Episcopal Church, 32
V. Miiiot, 1665, 16S9, 1690
7'. Mott. 671
V. Mulford, 1783
V. Nicholas, 998
V. Perree, 1996, 2051
V. Price, 42, 44, 769, 770, 816, 817, 857,
1293, 1295
z>. Pickett, 498, 538, 1207
zi. Reeves, 1655, i6go
V. Sisson, 1543, 1559, 1575, 1655, 1692, 1704,
1736
V. Weehawken Ferry Co., 61
V. Woodford, 938
Price, Doe d., v. Price, 1267, 1293, 1326
Prichard, 225
Prickett v. Ritter, 1131, ii35j "3fJ» 1316, 1339
Pride v. Bubb, 2012
V. Earl of Bath, 883
Pridgeon v. Excelsior Boat Club, 1166, 1167
Priest V. Cone, 2013
zi. Cummings, 712, 750, 775, 905, 908, 1657
Priestly v. Johnson, 123
Primm V. Barton, i486
V. Syewart, 523
z>. Walker, 1911, 1924
Prince's Case, 182/
Prince v. Case, 144. 617
V. Hake, 1506
Princeton v. Adams, 1850
Principal Harrow School v. Alderton, 565,
2212, 2213
Prindle v. Anderson, 1302, 1326, 1328, 1339,
n44
Pringe v. Childs, 2291
Pringle v. Dunkly, 271
V. Dunn, 1778, 2121, 2123, 2359, 2366
71. Pringle, 2100
V. Witten, 730
Prior V. Foster, 1045
Prior, Doe d., v. Ongley, 1266
Prison Charities, In re, 1685
Pritchard v. Elton, 1996, 2168, 2321
Pritts V. Ritchey, 759, 782, 804, 828
Probasco v. Johnson, 2003, 2004
Probert zf. Morgan, 964, 1837
Procter v. Bigelow, 717, 871
V. Cowper, 2176
V. Ferebee, 75
V. Gilson, 81
V. Keith, X059
V. Newhall, 686
V. Procter, 1666
V. Tows, 1140
Proctor V. Hodgson, 2220, 2242
V. Robinson, 2102
Prodgers v. Laughran, 1626
Proffitt V. Anderson, 566
V. Henderson, 549
Proprietors of Battle Sq. Church v. Grant, 302,
322, 323, 327, 1049, j^si
Proprietors of Kennebeck Purchase v. Springer;
2098, 2291, 2292
Proprietors of iMt:e ting-House v. City of
Lowell, 64, 507
Proprietois of No. Six z/. McFarland, 1258, 1290
Proprietors of Soutli Congregational Meeti.ig-
House V. Lowell, 1015
Proprietors of Union Meeting-House v. Rowell,
36
Proseus v. Mclntyre, 1636, 1640
Protchard v. Brown, 1579, 1697, 1699, 1700
Proud V. Bates, 90, 93
Prout V. Hoge, 2106
V. Roby, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1154
z>. Wiley, 1031
Prouty z'. Prouty, 1274, 1338
Prov. C. U. V. Cliott, 1043
Providence County Bank zj. Benson, zriS
Providence Gas Co. ?'. Thurber, 112, 1186
Providence Savings Bank t. Hall, 1227
Providence Tool Co. v. Corliss Steam Engine
Co., 2242
Provo -u. Calder, 9S2, 983, 985
Provoost Z-. Clayer, 536
Provost 71. Calder, 2263
Prug V. Davis, 2282
Pryal v. Entwistle. 996
Pryon v. Mood, 299, 1553
Pryor r. Bowryman, 2073
V. Stone, 1386, 1387, 1419, 1420, 1431, 1434,
1436, 1439, 1442, 1443, 1459
V. Wood, 586
Pue V. Pue, 2247
Puddicombe Doe d., v. Harris, 1308
Puffer V. Clark, 2142
Pugh V. Arton, 129, 130, 143, 146
2/. Bell, 782. 827
V. Currie, 787, i960
V. Good, 1977
V. Holt, 2040, 2148
V. Leed, 1006, 1040
V. Pugh, 1622
Pugsley V. Aikin, 975, 1134. 1136, 1224, 1254.
1255, 1300, 1334, 1342
Pulbam V. Byrd, 536
Pullan V. Cincinnati & C. Air-Line R., 2066
Pullch V. Bell, 63
Pullen ». Middleton,436
V. Ready, 11 57
V. Rianhard, 1560, 1674, 1675
PulHam V. Byrd, 317, 319, 1820
V, Sewell, 1510
Pulman v. Cincinnati, & C. Air-Line R. Co.,
2018, 2019
Pulteney z>. Craven, 1040
V. Shelton, 79
Pulpress V. African Church, 1740
Pulse V. Hamar, 996, 1036
Pulvertoft z/. Pulvertoft, 1791
Pumpelly v. Phelps, 1247
Purcell, Matter of, 2016
V. English, 1191, 1197
V. Goshorn, 2331
V- Smidt, 215, 216
V, Wilson, 310, 1897, 1915
Purdie v. Whitney, 288, 1754, 2159
Purdy V. Bullard, 2002
V. Huntingdon, 520, 810
V. Huntington, 2096, 209S, 2104, 2110,
2121
V. Purdy, 782, 1613, 1651, 1881, 1968
Purefoy v. Rodgers, 816
V. Rogers, 322, 324. 886, 1940
Purinton v. Northern Illinois R. Co., 135
Purl V. Duvall, 782
cxc
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Purner z'. Piercy, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55
Purrington v. Pierce. 842, 2042
Pursley z*. Forth, 2155
Purvis V, Wilson, 1914, 1983
Pusey V. Pusey, 60
Pushman v. Filliler, 347, 1629, 1632, 1684
v. Tilliter, 1627
Putman v. Kitchie, 1726
V. Mercantile Insurance Company. 1668
V. Weslcott, 975, 1225
V. Wise, looi, 1229, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235,
1236, 1238, 1239
Putnam 7>, Bicknell, 647
%i. Callamore, 305, 806, 808
V. Emei-son, 305, 308, 311, 335
V. Karnham, 2071
ZK Gleason, 234
V. Johnson, 1456
V. New Albany & S. C. J. R. R. Co.,
15S1
V. Putnam, 753, 1S84, 2151, 2184
V. Retchie, 1022, 1023, igo8, 1912, 2185
Putnam's Free School v. Fischer, 1730, 1788,
1806
Putney v. Day, 53, 54, 55, 537
V. Dresser, 1877
Pybus V. Smith, 251, 257, 647
Pye, Ex Parte, 1587, 1739
Pyer ?'. Carter, 2207
Pyle V. Penncck, 105, iii, 113, 114, 138, 144,
2022
Pym V. Bowarman, 2170
■V. Lockyer. 260, 272
Pynchon v. Lester, 785, 802, 803
V. Stearns, 521, 544, 550, 555, 557, 565, 575,
1 164
Q.
Quackenboss v. Clarke, 11 14, 11 19
Quackenbush v. Danks, 1510, 1511
Quaker Society v. Dickenson, 225
Quarles v. Garrett, 947
V. Quarles, 2357
Quarrington v. Arthur, 811
Queen V. Brighton, 753
V. Chorley, 2243, 2245, 2247
t'. Inhabitants of Greenboro, 2203
V. Inhabitants of Parish of Lee, 105
V, Millis, 595
V. Northumberland, 85
Queen Anne's Co. v. Pratt, 814
Queen's College v. Hallett, 553
Quehl V. Peterson, 1453
Quick V. Whitewater Township, 2325
Quimby v. Conlan, 2300
V. Dill, 516
•u. Higgins, 2279, 2283 ,
V. Manhattan Cloth Co., 113, 117, 132
Quinn v. Brittain, 2087, 2088
zi. Coleman, 713
Quincy V. Cheeseman, 2067
Quincy, The Inhabitants of, v. Spear, 1290
Quint V. Little, 2095
Quinnette v. Carpenter, 1131, 1315, 1316
Quinn v. Perham, 1045
V. Shields, 1689
Quiver 37. Baker, 2301
R.
Rabb V. Griffin, 603, 679, 686, 689
Rabc V. Tyler, 1885
V. Taylor, 1902
Rabun v. Rabun. 1665, i6go
Raby %>. Ridehalgh, 1721
Race V. Oldridge, 1399, 1402
Rachael v. Pearsall, loio, 2259
Racine & M. R. R. Co. v. Farmers' L. & T.
Co., 1727
Racouillat v. Rene, 2037
V. Sansevain, 215, 2126
Radcliffe v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 2230, 2232
RadclifEe v. Wood, 1399
Radford v. Carwile, 251, 257, 896
V. Willis, 1867
Radley v. Kuhn, 1798
Radway, Re^ 1504
Rae V. Harvey, 202
Rafferty v. Mallory, 1778
V. New Brunswick Ins. Co., 2115
Ragland v. Justice, 1995
V. Rogers, 1390, 1419
Ragsdale v. Lander, 996
V. Ragsdale, 1589
Raguet V. Roll, 2060
Rahway Savings Institute v. Irving Street
Baptist Church, no
Rail V. Dotson, 338, 536
Railroad Co. v. Boyer, 492
V. Schurmeier, 69
V. Siy, 1019
Raines v. Corbin, 935, 941, 956
V. Kneller, 1138, 1150
•u. Walker, 2301
Rakestraw v. Brewer, 2094
Raleigh & Garton R. Co. v. Davis, 2325
Ralls V. Highs, 931
Ralph V. Lomer, 1214
Raisback v. Walk, 996, 1322
Ralston v. Fields, 2305
V. Ralston, 723, 724, 789, 821, 840, 844,
■ 846, 863
V. Wain, 31S, 328, 1674
Ramires v. Kent, 215, 122
Ramirez -v. McCormack, 2207
Rammelsburg v. Mitchell, 1740
Ramsbottom v. Wallis, 2172
Ramsdell v. Emery, 1646
V. Fuller, 1947, 1948
It. Maxwell, 1259
zi. Ramsdell, 318, 536, 1815
Ramsden v. Dyson. 1087
V. MacDonald, 625
V. Thorton, 1278
Ramsey v. Joyce, 795
V. March, 298, 1558, 1565, 1607, 1655
V. Merriam, 2164
V. Smith, 2330
Ranba v. Bill, 835
Rancel v. Croswell, 415
Randalls'. Aburtis, 1166
V. Bradley, 2174, 2175
V. Cleveland, 553
V, Duff, 2073, 2170
V. Dusenhury, 1587
V. Elwell, gS
V. Ghent, 2331, 2359
V. Hazleton, 2160
V. Krieger, 714
V. Lower, 2301
7'. Mallett, 1911
V. Phillips, 1618, 1885, 196S
ZI. Sanderson, 2223
V. Shrader, 1815
V. Thompson, 997
z). Tuchin, 305. 308, 310, 312
7'. Chesapeake Canal Co., 2362
Randal v. Elder, 1387, 1415, 1419, 1439, 1440
Randolph v. Carlton, 1212, 2250, 2251
7'. Doss, 764, 765
V. Gwnne, 105
Rands v. Kendall, 782, 826, 828, 1998, 2078
Rangeley v. Midland R. Co., 2203, 2211
Ranger v. Great Western R. Co., 1872
Ranke zi. Hanna, 892, 912
Rankert v. Clow, 2009
Rankin's Appeal, 614
Rankin v. Demott, 2254
71. Harper, J647, 1658
V. Kinsey, 2067
V. Loder, 1794
■References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXCl
Rankin v. Mayor, 2100, 2104, 2105, 2106, 2148
7K Mortimere, 2050, 2168
V. Rankin, 94, 656, 657, 1754, 1755
V. Shaw, 1481
V. Warner, 2359
Ranlett v. Cook, 1320
Kannells v. Geruer, 903
Ranney ». McCuUen, 2166, 2167
Ransley v. Stott, 252, 369, 454, 461
Ransom, Matter of, 767, 768
R.itisom, Re, 786, 787
Ransom v. Babcock, 1290
V. Nichols, 670
V. RaiiEom, 587, 781
V. Sutherland. 2167
Ransone 7>. Prayser, 2055
Rantin v. Robertson, 1079
Rauyer v. Lee, 731
Rapelye v. Prince, 2089
Rapheal z>. Boehm, 1725
Rapier v. Gulf City Paper Co., 2169
Rapp V. Stoner, 2068
Rappanier v. Bannon, 2136, 2138
Rardin v. Walpole, 2136, 2138, 2160
Rashleigh v. Master, 307
Rasor v. Quails, 1205, 1210
Rasure v. Hart, 1399, 1402
RatclifEe v. Graves, 17 15
Rathbone -u. Clark, 2154
V. Dyckman, 965
V. Tioga Nav. Co.. 224
Raliff z'. Ellis, 1589, 1610, 1697, 1701
Rattle V. Popham, 1039
Raubdscheck v. Senken, 2257
Rauch V. Dech, 2018
Raugh V. Ritchie, 2274
Rausch V. Moore, 711,734, 741, 838
Ravencroft v. Ravencroft, 661
Ravtrty t'. Fridge, 904
Rawdon v. Rawdon, 660, 755
Rawinson 7'. Clarke, 1241
Rawley zk Holland, 1538
Rawlings v. Adams, 679, 6S0
V. Landes, 76
V. Ruttell. 842
Rawlins v Buttel, 894
V. Goldfrap, 322
V. Lowndes, 765, 804, 829
V, Rawlins, 618
Rawlinson z/. Miller, 1974
Rawls V. Deshler, 1746
Rawltings v. Hunt, 2020
Rawson v. Inhabitants, 1856
V. Inhabitants of School District No. 5,
in Uxbridge, 1850
V. Putman, 2092
Rawstron v, Taj'lor, 2230
'R?LY,Exparie, 1371
Ray V. Adams, 1629
V. Lynes, 2223
V. Oliver, 2158
V. Pung, 780, 885, 1576
V. Simmons, 1586, 1587, 1592
V. Sweeney, 21, 78, 2223
Raybold 71. Raybold, 1592, 1691
Rayboum v. Ramsdell, 1138, 1150, 2254
Rayland v. Rogers, 1388
Raymond v Holden, 591
V. Kerker. 2250
V. Thomas, 225:
V. White, 104, 108
Raynerv, Stone, 1083
V. Lee, 717, 731
Raynham v. Wilmarth, 864
Raynor v. Haggard, 1290
V. Selnus, 2146,2151
V. Raynor, 841
Re Adams, 1824
Re Albany Street, 232S
Re Rogers. 2327
Re Sands Ale Brewing Co., 21 19
Rea V. Copelin, 1620
Read v. Allen, 11 70
V. Erington, 1141
^- Flogg. 2301 «
V. Frankfort Bank, 1511
•V, Gaillard, 2040
V. Goodyear, 2295
V. Lawnse, 2250
V. Payne, 307
V. Robinson, 1016, 1786
V. Stedman, 1637
V. Truelove, 1660
Read, Doe d., v. Ridout, 1335
Reade v. Livingston, 1626
V. Ward, 117
Reading's Case, 1917
Reading v, Weston, 2054
Reading R. Co. v. Boyer, 493
Readman v. Conway, 1202
Ready v. Hamm, 8co
V. Kearsley, 297, 1592
Real Estate Trust Co. v. Balch, 2330
Ream v. Hamish, 1207, 1230
Rear v. Rear, 772
7'. Winkler, 730
Rearich v, Swinehart, i6g8, 1702
Reasoner v. Edmundson, iggg
Reaume v. Chambers, 281, 288, 531, 586, 603,
605, 612, 668, 706
Reavis v. Fielden,2io6
Re Hreck, 2260
Recht V. Kelly, 1506
Reek's Estate, 1420, 1433
Recknow v. Schank, 1348, 1353
Re Commercial Bulletin Co., 2266
Re Commissioners Central Park, 2324
Rector v. Burkhard, 1198
V. Burkhart, 1197
V. Gibbon, 1446
v. Rotten, 1450, 1467
V. Waugh, 284, 1877, 1924, 1967
Rector, etc., of Trinity Church z/. Higgins, noi
V. Vanderbilt, 1105
Re Curry 71. Burrus, 2324
Re D'Angibau, 1827
Redd z>. Burrus, 2020
Reddall v. Bryan, 2327
Redden v. Barker, 1290
Reddick t. Grossman, 1998, 2078
V. Walsh, 731, 767
Redding v. White, 1029
Rede v. Farr, 1058, 1138
Redfem v. Middleton, 515, 1142, 2321
V. Redfern, 1403, 1405, 1407, 140S, 1450,
1479
Redfield v. Utica & S. R. Co., 970
Redford v. Gibson, 2008
Redgrave v. Redgrave, 757
Redlon v. Barker, 103, 105, loS
Redman v. Sanders, 1997, 1998, 2077, 2097
Redpath v. Rich, 217
V. Roberts, 1295, 1343
Red River Roller Mills v. Wright, loi, 2224,
2225
Redshaw v. Governor, 1009
Redstrake v. Townsend, 402. 447, 470
Redus V. Hayden, 603, 688, 692, 703
Redwood v. Riddick, 1782
Reece t. Allen, 1707, 1713
Reech 7>. Kenegal, 1616
Reed z'. Allerton, j66o
V. Ash, 718, 733, 735.739
V. Austin, 1702
7<. Bartlett, 2258
V. Batchelder, 2343
zK Campbell, 1087
V. Crocker, 2278
V. Dickerman, 918, 932, 944, 946, 947,951
V. Fidelity Insurance Trust and Safe
Deposit Co., 1988
V. Gorden, 1558
V. Johnson, 52
V. Jones, 1893, 1896
cxcu
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Reed v. Kennedy, 763, S24
V. Latsou, 15S0, 2061
^. Lewis, 1104, 11S4J 1185
V. LukinSj 1665, i6go
V. Marble, 2110, 2149, 2151
V. Morrison, 765, 766, 783, 830, 923
V, Reed, 561, 68r, 692, 700, 703, 812, 1266,
1293, 1294, 1296; 1350, 1355, 2040, 2087,
2ogo, 2185
V. Reynolds, 1128, 1174
V. Shepley, 1160
V, Steveson, 764, 766
z/. Underbill, 1826
V. Union Bank of Winchester, 1506
V, Ward, 2268
V. Washington Fire Ins. Co., 1051
V. West, 1923, 2244
V. Whitney, 782, 831
Reed, Executors of, v. Reed, 494
Reader v. Barr, 2359
V. Dargan,
7/. Purdy, 1357
7j. Sayre, 52, 205, 1208, 1210, 1264, 1300,
1302, 1322, 1323, 1326. 1335
V. Sheai-man, 533
Reel V. Elder, 773
Reelmau v. Sanders. 2073
Rees V. Chicago, 2206
V. Livingston, 1665, 1690
V. Waters, 664
Reese v. Waters, 659, 673, 750
Reeve v. Attorney-General, 1605, 1659
V. Bird, 1 173
Reeves v. Baker, 1627
7!. Dougherty, 1615
V. Hayes, 2036, 2106, 2109
V. Petty, 1404, 1405
V. Treasurer of Word Co., 2328
Reformed Dutch Church, Matter of, 36, 38, 40
Reformed Dutch Church v. Veeder, 1556, 1557
Reformed Pres. Church, 225
Re Fowler, 2327
Reformed Prot. Dutch Church v. Mott, 1557
Reg. V. Brown, 755
V. Howes, 1464
V. London, etc., 479
V. Spurrell, 1288
V. The Inhabitants of Chawton, 13 14
V. Westbrook, 2254
Regan v. Baldwin, iiSo
V. Zeeb, 1408
Regina v. Chawton, 1334
V. Copp, 2235
Register v. Rowell, 287
Re Hamburger, 2260
Re Harvey's Estate, 1S36
Re Heller, 1892
Re Highway, 2325
Rehoboth v. Hunt, 1908
Re Hutchinson, 1824
Rehm v. Chadwick, 91
Reichert tj. McGlure, 2126
Reickhoff v. Brecht, 1620, 1622
Reid V. Atkinson, 1627, 1684
ZK Blackstone, 1629
V. Campbell, 917, 933
V. Fitch, 15S8
V. Gordon, 298
V. Hollinhead, 1242
V. Kirk, 61
V. Lamar, 1375, 1562
V. Mullins, 2164
V. Parsons, 1058, 1138
V. Shergold, 319, 1836
Reidy v. Small, 1789, 1790
Reiff V. Horst, 670, 713, 725, 726, 731, 741, 910
V. ReifE, 537
Reifsnyder v. Hunter, 348
Reigard v. McNeil, 2045
Reinhard v. Lantz, 402, 449, 450, 472
Reilly v. Mayer, 2164
V. Smith, i486
Reily v, Miami Ex. Co , 924
V. Ringland, 1267
Reimer v. American Contract Co., 1861
Reinbach v. Walter, 1419, 1499
Reinders v. Koppelman, 1S15, 2282
Reineman v. Robb, 2109
Reinicker v. Smith, 1924
Reinhard v. Bank of Kentucky, 1794
Reinhardt w. Bradshaw, 2309
Reinhart v. Collins, 2254
Reinskopf v. Rogge, 1033
Reise v. Enos, 2217, 221S, 2219
Reitenbaugh -v, Ludwick, 2039, 2085, 2087,
20SS, 2184
Reithman v. Brandenburg, 1133, 1316, 1331
Reitz v. Reitz, 1620, 1644, 1652
Reitzell v. Eckard, 762, S19
Relyea 7/. Beaver, 20, 58, 570
Peniick v. Butterfield, 1766
Remington v. Cardale, 1138
V. Millard, 2206
Remicker v. Smith, 1033
Re Middleton, 2327
Remsen v. Hay, 2168
Remson v. Conklin, 1060
Ren V. Buckelet, 1843
V. Bulkely, 1807, 1845
Renard v. Brown, 2073, 2137, 2172
Renaud t>. Daskam, 1052
V. Tourangeau, 499
Rendle, Doe d., 1040
Rendleman 7'. Rendleman, 919
Reney v. Bell, 2151
Renfe v. Harrison, 1016
Renfoe's Heirs v, Taylor, 746
Reniger v. Fagossa, 454
Renolds v. Baker, 2175
Renond v. Daskam, 1075, 1091
Renwick v. Ren-wick, 635, 636, 661, 662
Renzichausen v. Keyser, 1553, 1597
Renzie v. Penrose, 2349
Report of the Judges, 1548
Repp V. Repp, 2006
Repplier v. Buck. 1737
Requa v. City of Rochester, 2206
Reske v. Reske, 1385, 1500
Resor -v. Resor, 962
Respublica v. Campbell, 1263
Reuff V. Coleman, 270
Reuss V. Picksley, 1000
Reusselaer & S. R. Co., In re, 2237
Revalk z/. Kraemer, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1405, 1408,
1418, 1434, 1450, 1451, 1473, 1475, 1478,
1489, 1490, 1491, 1493, 1523
Revel V. Watkinson, 509
Reves V. Heme, 270
Revett z>. Harvey, 1735
Rex V. Bardwell, 1288
7'. Cheshum, 1273
V. Cheshunt, 1288, 1309
V. Collett, 1261, 1267, 1275, 1280
V. Edwards, 498
V. Fillongley, 1275, 1278
V. Greenhill, 1464
V. Inhabitants of Fillongley, 1256
V. Inhabitants of Herstmonceaux, 1339
V. Inhabitants of Northamptonshire,
2206
V. Jobling, 1275
V. Keletem, 1288
V. Kelstern, 1309
V. Longnor, 2352
V. Minister, 1288
7'. Pappineau, 57
V. Pedley, iigg
V. Penson, 755
V. Rees, 1288
V. Shipdham, 1288
V. Snape, 1288
V. Stock, 128S
V. Tynemouth, 1288
V. Wilson, 17S8
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXClll
Reybold v. Dodd Admrs., 1889
Reybum v. Mitchell, 2136, 2137
Reynal, Ex parte, 126
i^eynald, Ex parte^ 120
Reynard v. Spence, 785
Keynolds z/. Baker, 2176
V. Collins, 525
V, Commi-s. of Stark Co., 2342
V. Commrs. State Co., S23
7'. Green, 2175
V. Lathrop, 2250, 2257
V. Lee, 487
V, McCurry, 731, 733
V. Monkton, 29, 30
ZK Orvis, 233
V. Pitt, 1 157, 1872
V. Pixley, 1426
V. Pool, 1245
V. Reynolds, 760, 762, 771, 774, 815, 820,
S94, 921
7'. Robinson, 1648
V. Shuler, 115, 145, 146, 1224
V. Stark Co., 224, 974
V. Sumner, 1641, 1651
V. Vance, 728, 795, 913
V. Waller, 1033
V. Welch, 1624
7/. Williams, gS8
V. Wilmeth, 1894
7'. Wilson, ii'^^, 2159
Rhea v. Puryear, 1643
7'. Tucker, 1634, 1699
Rhet V. Rfason, 1633
Rhien v. Robbins, 216
Rhine v. Ellen, 1700
Rhinehart v. Stevenson, 2156
Rhines v. Baird, 2046
Rhoades v. Canfield, 2124
V. Davis, 960
V. Parker, 2032, 2033, 2064
•V. Rhoades, 1984
Rhodes v. Dutcher, 2162
V. Evans, 2150
V. McCormick, 64, 1386, 1416, 1420, 1431,
M35. M37. 1442
V. Williams, 1432
Rhone v. Gale, 11 52
Rhyne v. Guevara, 1219
Ricard v. Sanderson, 2166
V. Williams, 210, 2242, 2290, 2292
Rice V. Adams, 138
V. Austin, 1240, 1241
V. Barnard, 1961, 1965
V. Bird, 2055
7'. Bixler, 2349
V. Boston & W. R. Co., 234
V. Burnett, 299, 1553, 1673, 1710, 1712
7'. Cribb, 2107
7'. Cunningham, 1623
V. Dewey, Z017, 2302
V. Hoffman, 588, 624, 632, 643, 670, 672,
1361, 1363, 1364
•u. Lumley, 771, 773, 919. 92O1 i35'5
V. Minnesota & N.W. R., Co., 2304, 2305,
2313
V. Nelson, 930
V. Osgood, 234
V. Parkman, 2329
V. Peet, 1032, 1033
V. Pelt, 2345
V. Rice, 2031, 2040, 2041, 2049, 2053, 2123
V. Rockfeller, 1677
V. Sandors, 2070
V. State, 595
Rich V. Basterfield, 1194, J199
V. Bolton, 1135, 1255, 1258, 1260, 1261,
1269, 1270, 1271, 1275, 1281, 1293,
1294, 1296, 1301, 1302, 1320, 1322,
1325, 2254
V. Cockell, 1562
V. Doane, 2044, 2052, 2053, 2084
V. Flanders, 671
13
Rich 7'. Hotchkiss, 1850
V. Keyser, 1310, 1338, 1350
V. Rich, 737
Richard v. Ayers, 520
V. Bent, 1094
V. Brehm, 595, 596, 752
V. Liford, 539
V. Richard, 795
V. Robson, 1687
V. Talbird, 928
Richards, In re. 125, 127
Richards v. Bester, 105 1
V. Chace, 1450, 1473, 1475, 1478
V. Chambers, 1836
V. Delbridge, 1588, 1638
V. Folsom, 207
V. Greene, 1402, 1451, 1475
•V. Griffitli, 2138
V. Holmes, 2163, 2164
V. Learning, 2007
V. Manson, 1957, 1963
V. Mayor of New York, 5
V. N. VV. Protestant Dutch Church, 41
•v. Randolph, 2365
V. Richards, 728
V. Rose, 2234, 2298
V. Sely, 11G2
V. Tavemer, 11 76
V. Torbet, 573, 576
V. Wardell, 1231
V. Whittle, 2263
V. Wordell, 1207
Richardson v. Baker, 2009
V, Blakemore, 2272
V, Borden, 104, 135, 136
V. Boright, 1031,2011
V. Bowman, 976
V. Buswell, 1515
•V. Cambridge, 2127, 2128, 2131
V. Clements, 2240
•u. Copeland, 96, 97, 133, 135, 138, 142,
14^
V. Field, 2071
V. Harvey, 1217
V. Hildreth, 2085
V. Hockenhull, 810
V. Inglesby, 1592
V. Jones, 1619, 1766, 1774, 1775
V. Langridge, 1135, 1136, 1252, 1255, 1261,
1262, 1265, 1268, 1281, 1302, 1320, 1321,
1325
V. Merrill, 1972
7/. Monson, 1906
V. Parrot, 2156
V. Pate, 103 1
V. Peterson, 2272
V. Spencer, 1621
V. Richardson, 1587, 1922
7/. Ridgely, 2008
V. Schultz, 959
V. Stodder, 297, 1672, 1673
V. Strong, 986, 1034
V. Studenham, 1009
V. Vermont Cent. R, Co., 2231, 2232,
2326
V. Wilson, 772
V. Woodbury, 2038, 2045
V. Wyatt, 824
V. Wyman, 792, 905
V. York, 478, 545
V. Young, 2095
Richart v. Richart, 948
Richbergz/. Bartley, 1156
Richmond v. Davis, 1037
v. Vassalborough, 1456
Rickard v. Robson, 1688
V. Talbird, 926
Rickards v. Rickards, 1088
Ricketts v. Montgomery, 1707, 1769
Riddell v. Grinnell, 823
Riddick v. Cohoon, 350
V. Walsh, 925
CXCIV
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Riddle v. Brown, 84
V. Cutter, 1609
V. Driver, 62, 89
V. Holl, 8go, 2059
V. Littlefield, 1014, 1204
Riddlesberger v. Mentzer, 888
Riddlesden v, Wiga, 755
Rideaut v. Paine, 202
Rider w. Kidder, 779, 1646, 1647
V. Kohler, 1226
V. Maul, 1977, 1978
V. Rider, 1634
V. Smith, 2208
Ridge V, Prathes, 2305
Rid^eley v. Crandall, 2343
V. Johnson, 1660, 1731
V. Stillwell, 981, 1135, 1 136, 1254, 1264,
12S4, 1303, 1307, 13 19, 1320, 1322,
1326, 1328, 1339
Ridgely's Exrs. v. Gartell, 2305
Ridgely v. McLaughlin, 463, 466
Ridgeway's Appeal, 1962
Ridgeway*s Minors, 1721
Ridgeway v. Hastings, 792, 905, 911, 915, 926,
927
V, McAlpine, 870, 872, 930, 931
V. Undei-wood, 75
V. Wharton, 1039
Ridgley v. Stillwell, 2255
Ridgwayz'. Parker, 337
Ridley v. McNairy. 2260, 2261
V. Ridley, 1033
Ridout V. Harris, 30
V. Paine, 314, 326
Rife V, Geyer, 254, 273, 500, 1605, 1607, 1655,
1656, 1673, 167s, 1694, 1695, 1736,
1737, 1742, 1748, 1763
P.igden v. Vallier, 1882, 1883, 1910, 1966, 1968
Rigdon V. Vallie, 1882
Rigge, Doe d., v. Bell, 1022, 1136, 1323
Riggin V. Love, 1919
Riggs V. American Tract Society, 2345
V. Armstrong, 2029
V. Sally, 403, 415, 418, 463, 464
Riggs, Doe d.j w. Bell, 1013, 1014
Right V. Darby, 1136, 1317
V. Sidebotham, 302, 331
V. Thomas, 1S07
Right & Bassett v. Thomas, 1040
Right d. Phillips v. Smith, 1607
Righter v. Forrester, 2120
Rigler v. Cloud, 611, 654, 655, 680, 682, 683, 685,
699, 1372
Rigney v. City of Chicago, 2
V. Lovejoy, 2105, 2107
Riker v. Durke, 641, 1981, 1982
Riley v. Bates, 855, S58
V. Glamorgan, 855, 858
V. Jordan, 1281
V. McCord, 2145
V. Million, 1217
V. Phelm, 1434
V. Riley, 1024, 1361
V. Simpson, 1197, 1198
Rimyeyer v. Morss, 62, 63
Rinehart v. Olwine, 1207, 1230, 1232, 1263
Ring 7/. Burt, 1410, 1473
V. Franklin, 1696
V. Hardwick, 322, 323
V. Huntington, 1033
V. McCoun, 1559
Ring's Exr. v. Woodruff, 2089
Ringgold V. Barley, 1455
V. Ringgold, 1608, 1617, 1618, 1669, 1708,
1715, 1719, 1725, 1734, 1,-35, »757. '773
Ringo 1), Binus, 1585
V. Wotidruff, 2296, 2297
Rinkin v. Rinkin, 74
Ripley v. Davis, 1246
.-. Luigart, 955
■ii. Paige, 104, 107
V. Seligman, 77
Ripley w. Waterworth, 787
V. Wentworth, 528, 825
•V. Whittman, 1126
V. Wightman, 1179, 2269
Ripperdon v. Cozine, 2007
Rippetoe v. Dwyer, 2155
Rippon V. Norton, 247, 253
Rippy V. Gaunt, 1034
Risely v. Ryle, 1290
Rising V. Stannard, 1026, 1252, 1253, 1266, 1270,
1293, 1296, 1305, 1350, 1352, 1356, 1967
Risk V. Hoffman, 2150
Ritchie v. Eichelberger, 2i£o
V. McDuffie, 2068
V. Putman, 741
Ritger^/. Parker, 2156, 2201, 2211, 2244
Rittenhouse v. Leverring, S65
Ritter's Appeal, 1791
Ritter v. Phillips, 2071
Rivard v. Gisenhof, 292
Rivers v. Friff, 315
Rives V, Dudley, 224, 1778
V, Rives, 510
Rivetts V. Brown, 1343
Rix V. Smith, 1782
Rizer?/. Berry, 1364
Roab V. Beaver, 251
Roach V. Davidson, 737
V, Peterson, 1178
V. Wadham, 1820
V, White, 651, 657
Roads V. Symmes, 2304, 2305
Roanws v. Archer, 247
Roath V. Driscoll, 572, 2227, 2230, 2233
Robb V. McBride, 1459
Robbins v. Butler, 1707, 1769
V. Eaton, 201 1
V. Eckler, 2192
V. Love, 2349
V. McDonald, 1425
V. Mount, 1054, 1066, 1199
V. Oldham, 51
V. Robbins, 777, 885, 1824
Robb's Appeal, 1623
Robbs V. Ankeny, 465
Robert z/. Coco, 15 10
V. Ristine, 1154
V, West, 1361
Roberts' Will, In matter of, 1456
Roberts v. Baker, 82
V. Barker, 1263
V. Brinker, 315
V. Cone, 970
V. Cooper, 1836
V. Crayer, 725
V. Dauphin Dep. Bank, 133, 138
V. Davey, 1058, 113S
V. Dixwell, 654, 684, 685, 697, 1693
V. Fleming, 2163, 2185
V. Forsythe, 281, 284
V. Geis, 1107, 1123
V. Grubb, 1338
V. Haines, 94
w. Jack, 2271
V. Jackson, 692, 1163, 1164, 1580
V. Jackson, ex d. Webb, 1047
7'. Karr, 2206
V, Mansfieldj 2094, 2095, 2106, 2175
V. McCarty, 1963, 1964
V. McCord, 2222
V. McGraw, 1904
•v. McMahan, 2045
V. Richards, 2045
V. Roberts. 237
7.'. Shryer, 890
V. Spicer, 1371
V. Stanton, 1840
7>. Sulherlin, 1994, 2000
V. Taylor, 1732
V. Tennell, 996, 1013, 1323
V. Unger, 2303
V. Welch, 2094, 2146
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxev
Roberts v. Whiting, 486, 541, 634, 635, 636, 637
^-Wiggin, 829, 985,986, 1030, 1031,2011
Roberts, Den ex d., v. Forsyth, 286, 531
Roberts, Doe d. v. Polgrean, 1360, 1361
Robertson v. Baker, 786'
T'. Bullion, 74, 16G0
7'. Campbell, 2043
V. Corset, 106, 123, 142
I'. Fraser, 1883
2'. McAfee, 2359
I'. Meadors, 543
V. Movvell, 265
%'. Norris, 1364, 1365
V. Robertson, 1588, 1648
T'. State, 596
V. Stevens. 606, 615, 693, 1577, 167S, 1679
V. Stark, 2027
V. St. John, 1037
V. Sublett, 1795
V. Van Cleave, 2073, 2074, 2170, 2171
7'. Walker, 2^30
V. Western M. & F. Ins. C, 1766
Robertson, Doe d., v. Gardiner, 1320
Robertson's Admr. v. Paul, 1497
Robeson v. Pittenger, 2223, 2224
Robie v. Chapman, 682,684
V. Smith, 1274, 1293, 1294, 1334
Robinett v. Preston. 1967
Robinson's Case, 1398
Robinson v. Baily, 1215
v. Bates, 745, 783, 792, 793, 810, 905, 907,
911, 914
V. Bland, 2339
7'. Bliss, 1623
7'. Brennan, 2022, 2024
V. Brock, 645
V. Buck, 658, 913
V. Campbell, 720, 1516
?/. Codman, 598, 611, 679, 680,684. ^89,
763. 788, 798, 815, S32, 1576, 157S, 1579
V. Cross, 2132
V. Cropsey, 2042
V. Dart's Exrs., 1375
V. Deering, 997, 1127, 1167, 1171, 12S6,
1293, 1304
V. Doulass, 21 r
V. Douthit, 2301
V. Dusgale, 1814
V. Dusgate, 317
V. Grey, 300, 1605, 1606, 1672, 1673, 1709
V. Eagle, 1024, 1919, 1932, 1941, 1950, 1952
V. Kzzell, 2020
V. Fairfield, 2346
V. Farrelly, 2050
V. Gee, 51
V. Hardcastle, 1828, 1830, 183S
V. Harman, logi, 1245
V. Hathaway, 1214
V. Hoit, 1131, 1144, ii45j "46, 1 147, 1212,
1214, 1216, i2ig
v. Hook, 1782
V. Lakeman, 630
V. Leavitt, 2097,2131, 2178
V. Lehman, 2257, 2272
7'. L'Engke, iioo
V. Litton, 231, 575. 2188
7'. Mauldin, 1703, 2018, 2020
V. McDonald, 1988
V. Miller, 516, 744, 781,819,828,831, 834,
847,856, 861, 1133
V. Moon, 905
V. Perry, itii, 1118
V. Phillips, 2298
V. Rapelye, 1625, 1794
V. Reynolds, 2346
V. Robinson, 553, 650, 225';;,, 2260, 22G1
V. Russell, 2o8i, 2187
V. Ryan, 2151
V. Sampson, 2134
v. Smith, 1630
V. .Swearingham, 1447, 1456
V. Swell, 208, 210
Robinson v. Swope, 2327
V. Thrailkill, 2240, 2241
V Townsend, 777, 819
V. Urquhart, 2134, 2138
V. Webb, 1194
V, Weeks, 103 1
V. Wheelright, 251, 257
V. Wiley, 1483, 1514, 1515
V. Williams, 2030, 2271
V Willoughby. 2039
V. Wilson, 1519
V. Wright, 122
Robinson, Doe d., v. Dobell, 1310
Robion v. Walker, 1427, 1428, 1430
Robson V. Flight, 1031
V. Lindrum, 141 1
Roby 7'. Handers, 746, S67, 873, 931
7'. Phelon, 647
Roby, Doe d., v, Maisley, 1295, 1350
Roche V. Famsworth, 2151
Rochford v. Hackman, 249, 253, 274, 485, 501,
1677
Rock 7>. Hart, 1725
Rockford Ids. Co. v. Nelson, 2113
Rockhill 7'. bpraggs, 2349
Rockingham v, Penrice, 497
Rochon V. Levcatt, 600, 601, 605, 629, 643, 645,
655.657) 663, 1372
Rockland v. Morrill, 522
Rockman v. Alwood, 2045
Rockwell 7'. Bradley, 199/
V. Hobby, 2003, 2112
V. Hubbell's Admrs., 1502, 1516, 1518,
1570
V. Humphrey. 2044
7>. Morgan, 494, 496, 561, Sir, 844, 848
V. Rockwell, 794
7'. Servant, 2094
Roco V. Green, 1399
Roddy's Appeal, 2137
Roddy V. Cox, 1246, 1912
7>. Elam, 2151
Rodgers v. Bonner, 50
V. J-ones, 2151
71. Wallace, 1819
Rodman v. Hedden, 2141
Rodney v. Shankland, 1672
Rodriguez v. Heffernan, 1756
Rodwell V. Phillips, 53, 54
Roe 7'. Baldwere, 446
V. Blackett, 302
7'. Davis, 416
V. Farrers, 489
V. Grew, 422
V. Griffith, 830
■V. Hodgeson, 1021, 1022
z>. Jeffrey, 322. 418
V. Jerome, 1700
V. Lees, 1275, 1281, 1302, 1320, 1326, 133S
V. Pattison, 2
V. Popham, 1538
V. Reade, 1742
V. Rees, 1264
Roe d. Brune v. Prideaux, 1838
Roe d. Durant v. Roe, 13 11
Roe d. Evans v. Davis, 444
Roe d. Jordan v. Ward, 1264, 1325
Roe ex d., v. Lees, 1325
Roe ex d. Hunt v. Galliers, 257, 274
Roe ex d. Hunter v. Galliers, 257, 274
Roe ex d. Peter v. Pay, 339
Roe ex d. West v. Davis, 1060
Roe, Lessee of Posey, v. Budd, 469
Roff iv. Duane, 998, 1017, 1042
V. Johnson, 141 1, 1483, 1514
Roffey V. Bent, 501
V. Henderson, 145. 1186
Rogan V. Walker, 237, iSs-^, 2048, 2050, 2169
Rogers 7'. American Board, 271
V. Benson, 1952
7'. Boyntpn, J159
V. Brooks, 33, 1369
CXCVl
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Rogers v. Brown, 123
V. Buchard, 2365
V. Colt, 1576
V. Crow, log, iii, 117, 120, 121, 132, 134,
i35» 136, i37t 138, 139
V. Danforth, 26S
V. De Forest, 2129
V. Eagle Fire lus. Co., 237, 2316, 231S,
2319, 2320
V. Gillinger, 96, 2186
V. Goodman, 2191
V. Grazebrook, 2079
V. Greenbush, 671
V. Grider, 1024, 1729, 1920, 1935, i94i»
1950, 2320
V. Herroii, 2171
V. Hillhouse, 2322, 2348
V. Hinton, 1815
V. Holyoke, 2152
V. Humphreys, 2065
V. Jones, 196, 2igi
V. Joyce, 210
V. Law, 267
V. Ludlow, 1374, 1672, 1673
V. Madden, 2295
V. McCauley, 1652
V. Meyers, 2073, 2169
V. Moore, 108, 516,744, 1142
V. Murray, 1653
V. Prattville Mfg Co., 132
V. Ragland, 1388
V. Renshaw- 1450, 1475, 1478
V. Rogers, 325, 1580
V. Sebastian, 1857
V. Sinsheimer, 2236
V. Smith, 137s, 1376, 1674
V. Snow, 1014, 1 154
z^ Swain, 2223
V. Taylor, 93
V. Trader Ins. Co., 2133
V. Walker, 986
V. Waller, 114S, 1214, 1348
Vm Wiggs, 1290
w. Woody, 903
Rogers, Doe d., v. Coote, 1039
V. Pullen, 1258, 1294
Rogers Locomotive, etc , Works z>. Kelly, 1655
Rohrabacher v. Ware, 135
Rohrbach v, Germania Fire Ins. Do., 631, 1912
Rolfe V. Gregory, 1761, 1784
V. Harris, 1157, 1871
Roll V. Smalley, 2148
Rollins V. Columbia Fire Ins. Co., 240, 21 15
V. Forbes, 2157, 2167
V. O'Farrel, 1455
•V. Moody, 297
V. Riley, 1S49. 1854,2314, 2315
Rjolph V. Crouch, 1190
Rolt V. Lord Somerville, 569
Romilly v. James, 322
Rona V. Meier, 259, 264, 499, 1814
Rondall v. Dulf, 2073
Rood V. New York & E. R. Co., 2360
V. Willard, 976, 1017
Roodhouse v. Roodhouse, 1984
Roods 21. Symmes, 2291
Roof V. Stafford, 985, 1030, 1031
Rookerw. Benson, 808
Rooks V. Moore, 983, 1246
Roome v. Phillips, 315, 1752
Rooney v. Crary, 1157
V. Gillespie, 1294
Roop V. Rogers, 1964
Roose V. Hungate, 1334
Roose, Evans, hi re, v. Williams, 724
Roosevelt v. Fulton, 68"
V. Hopkins, 1139
V. Roosevelt, 273
V. Thurman, 415, 447, 471
Root V. Bancroft, 2092
V. Brotherson, 369, 2058, 2339
V. Collins, 2155
Root V. McGrew, 1510
V. State, 2335
V. Stuyvesant, 1039, 1809, 1810
Roper t'. Halifax, 1845
V. McCook, 2oog
Rose, Re, 2266
Rose V. Baker, 2107
Rcpley V. Prince, 2090
V. Bun, 2240
V. Clark, 596, 752, 759
V. Gill, 1023
V. Hayden, 1642, 1643, 1644
». Hill, 315
V. Reynolds, 957
V. Sanderson, 1366
v. Swan, 2151
V. Wynn, 1245, 1246
Roseboom v. Mosher, 188, 1842
V. Roseboom, 345, 1895, 1904 1
V. Vechten, 205, 454, 459, 477, 478, 481,
Rosecarrick v. Benton, 1996
Rosekrans v. White, 1984
Rosenblat v. Perkins, 1322, 1333
Roser v. Slade, 346
Rosevelt v. Fulton, 800
Rosewell v. Prior, 1199
Ross V. Adams, 2S4, 66g, 679, 1368
V. Barclay, 1609, 1729, 1787
V. Blair, 718
V. Boardman, 802
V. Butler, 19S
V. Cobb, 1023
V. Drake, 316
V. Duval, 1516
V. Dysart, 1065, loSi, 1082, 225S
V. Garrison, 1309, 1930
V. Gill, 1023
V. Gould, 211
V. Hannah, 1447
V. Heintzen, 2007
V. Henderson, 1962
V. Kennison, 2072
V. Norvel, 164S
V. Norveli, 2175
V. Norville, 2046
V. Overton, 109S, 1099, 1175
V. Ross, 344, 66q, 662, 22S2, 2283, 2289
V. Schneider, 1306, 1319
V. Swaringer, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1238
V. Sweeney, 1440
V. Toms, 415, 447, 471
V, Tremain, 1864
V. Utter, 2148
V. Van Aulen, 1290
7j. Welch, 51
V. Whitson, 2005
V. Wilson, 785, 857, ?oi7
V. Worthington, 2038
Rosse V. Wainman, 83
Rosseel v, Jarvis, 1145
Rosseter v. Simmons. 2, 308
Rossiter v. Cossit, 783, 802
Rotch V. Morgan, 1768
Roth zi, Duane, 1043
V. Wells, 50
Rothchild v. Hudson, 2263
•v. Williamson, 969^ ^131, 1304, 1327, 1328,
133 1
Rotherham v. Greene, 2196
Rothwell V. Dewees, 15S5. 1643, 1738, 1990
Rounds V Delaware L. R, Co., 1 195
Rountree v. Dennard, 1398
V. Lane, 1976 ' '
V. Talbot, 479
Roupe V. Carradine, 1516
Rourke v. Coulton, 2069
Rouse's Case, 1346
Rouse V. Martin, 198
Roush V. Emerick, 2255
Routledge v. Dorrill, 1812, 1838
Rovelsky v. Brown, 1958
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CXCVU
Rowan ». Lytle, ri6o, 1310, 1319, 1344, 134S,
T350. 1355
V. Mercer, 2149
;'. Riley, 2259
V. Sharp's Rifle Mfg. Co., 2018, 2019,
2020
7-. State, 2324
Rowan's Creditors v. Rowan's Heirs, 1747
Rowand v. Anderson, 143
Rowbotham z*. Pearce, 116S
7>. Wilson, 90, 93, 2213, 2233, 2240
Rowden z'. Malsier, 436
7'. Wallster, 435
Rowe 7'. Bradley, 794
V. Hamilton, 910, 956, 960
V. Johnson, 733, 736, 739, 870, 876
7'. Power, S49. 851
V. Table Mountain Water, 2167
7'. Williams, 1051, 1052
7'. Wood, 2185
Rowel V. Walley, 510, 518
Rowell V. Doyle, 71, 74
■V. Jewett, 1854, 1872
V. Kline, 538
Rowen ?'. Kelsey, 83, 1016
V. Riley, 2252
Rowland 7>. Pendleton, 2271
V. Rowland, 794, 913
z>. Warren, 402
Rowlandson, Ex Parte, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1244
Rowlett z'. Grieve s Syndic, 2177
Rowley V. Adams, 434
Rowney?'. Rowney, 1368
RowtoQ r'. Rowton, 781
Royall's Admr. v. McKenzie, 1734
Roy V. tlarnett, 1557
V. Mcpherson, 1622
Royce v. tiuggenheim, 1054, 1127, 1128, ri66,
1167, 1168, 1169, 1x73, 1200
Royer v. Ake, 1067, 1099, 2262, 2263
Royster v. Royster, 761, 815, 870
Royston 71. Royston, 893, 1364, 1988, 1989
Rozelle 7'. Rhodes, 1428
Rozenthal v. Mayhugh, 902
Rozier v. Fagan, 2332
V. Johnson, 1982
Rubeck v. Gardner, 216
Rubey v. Barnett, 317, 319, 338
V. Barrett, 1815
Ruby V. Abyssinian Society of Portland, 2088
Ruch V. City of Rock Island, i86r, 1862
Ruckler v. Hiller, 21
Ruckman v. Astor, 2184
V. Cutwater, 81
V. Ruckman, 2100
Rucks V. Taylor, 2149
Rudd V. Golding, 1138, 1150
Rudolph v. Rudolph, 957
Rue V. Alter, 1515
Rue High, Appellant, 1456
Rueifsnyder 7/. Hunter, 249
Ruffier V. Wormack, 2044, 2054
Ruffii V. Cox, 801, 817
Ruffiier V. McLennan, 711
Ruggles z'. Barton, 2102, 2103
V. Clare, 1864
V. First Nat. Bank of Centreville, 47,
2159
7'. Lawson, 1016
7', Lesure, 2213
7'. Williams, 2046
Ruggles, Jackson ex d., v. Martin, 341
Riigely V. Robinson, 247, 253
Ruiz 71. Norton. 1698
Rumball v. Ball, 2142
Rumery v. McCullen, 1795
Rumfelt V. Clemens, 924
Rumford Inhabitants v. Wood, 1029
Rump 71. Gerkens, 1163
Rund^ll 7/. Lakey, 1094
Rundle z'. Allison, 695
V. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 69
Rundle v'. Pegram, 594, 596
Runey v. Edmands, 639, 1367
Rung V. Shoneberger, 2297
Runnels v. Runnels, 267
V. Webber, 1093
Runyan v. Coster's Lessee, 224, 225
V. Mesereau, 800, 1995, 2000, 2105, 2111,
2129
Ruohs z>. Kooke, 1480, 1482
Kupp. /« re, 1399
V. Eberly, 332, 536
7>. Orr, 1738
Ruppe V. Steinbach, 1921
Rush 7J. Davidson, 2335
7'. Gordon, 1390, 1392
v. Lewis, 1742, 2107, 2119, 2130
Rushin v. Shields, 2122
Rushmore v. Miller, 2166
Rusing V, Rusiug, 291
Russ V. Mebius, 1637
V. Morris, 2331
V. Perry, 729, 884, 1093
Russel's Appeal, 1790, 1801, 2120
Russell's Case. 982
Russell V. Allard, 1274
V. Allen, 1028, tii8, 2064, 2065, 2268
71. Annable, 1029, 1030
71. Austin, 803, 1580
7<. Beebe, 2307
V. iilake, 2088
V. Brown, 2125
7'. Clark's Exrs., 1622
v. Coffin, 2316
V. Darwin, 1009
7'. Davis, 2295, 2296, 2297
7'. Doty, 1017
7'. Elden, 337
V. Edwin's Administrator, 1020, 1212
71. Fabyan, 1127, 1144, 1148, 1167) 1171,
1213, 1285, 1297, 1309, 1317, 1318,
1346, 1347, 134S, 1350, 1353, 1355,
2258, 2268
V. Gee, 842, 844
V. Hammond, 1626
V. Harford, 2216
7'. Howard, 2136, 213S
7'. Jackson, 2218, 2220, 2222
71. Jarvis, 1147
V. Lee, 823
7'. Lennon, 1432
V. Lewis, 1579, 1595, 1706
7'. Lowth, 1510, 2309
7'. I\Iarks, 1899, 1900
7'. McCarthey, 1335, 1340
7/. Miller, 824
V. Mixer, 2130
V. Peyton, 1662, 1783
V, Pistor, 2069, 2070, 2112, 2166, 2178
7'. Ramsey, 2323
71. Randolph, 1512, 1513
71. Richards, 56, 63, 123
V. Rumsey, 904
z/. Russell, 811, 1229, 1798, 1808, 1809,
1905, 2002
V. Shenton, iig8
7/. Southard, 2031, 2037, 2043,2048,2049*
2052, 2055, 2089, 2169
V. State, 595
V. Switzer, 1591, 1592
V. Taylor, 727
zf. Temple, 44, 817
V. Titus, 1222
V. Waite. 2042
Russell, Jackson ex d., z*. Rowland, 1148, 1220,
1148
Rutgers v. Hunter, 1008, 1088, 1089
Ruth 7'. Overbrunner, 225, 1680
Rutherford ?'. Graham, 847
V. Green, 1751
71. Munce, 783, 926
V. Read, 744
V. Ruff, 1033
CXCVIU
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to i)ages.
Rutherford v. Stamper, 2301
V. Stewart, 201S
V. Williams, 2163
Ruterland v. Williams, 2163
Rutland Marble Co. v. Ripley, 88
Rutledge v. Smith, 1590, 1796
Rutt V, Howell, 14SS
Rutter -v. Small, 189S, igoo
Ruttledge v. Whelan, 1158
Ryall If. Ryall, 1691, 1700
V. Stevens, 125
Ryan w. Adamson, 2114
z/. Brown, 68, 70
V. Carr, 2364
V. Doyle, 1777
V. Dox, 1611, 1614, 1619, 1620
V. Dunlap, 2106
XI. Freeman, 620
Ryckman v. Gillis, 92, 2237
Rycroft v. Christy, 1791
Ryder v. Flanders, 2302
V. Hulse, 653
V. Mansell, 1219
V, Ryder, 1464
V. Sissin, 1715
If. Thomas, 1193
Ryer, Re, 2327
Ryer v. Gass, 808, Sag
Ryersoa z/. Eldred, 1160, 1213, 1222
•u. Quackenbush, 2251, 2267, 2269
Ryerss v. Farewell, 1279
Rylands v. Fletcher, 199
Ryras v. Ryras, 1883
s.
Sactiaveral v. Dale, 442
Sachet v. Wheaton, 22, 23
Sacheverell v. Trogate, 2259
Sackett's Case. 1456
Sackett v. Giles, 661
V. Sackett, 149, 552, 1153
V. Twining, 88g
Sacltville Westz*. Holmesdale, 1609
Saddler's Co. v, Badcock, 1077
Sadler's Appeal, 1777
Sadler z/. Hobbs, 1732, 1733
V. Langham, 2327, 2328
•V. Pratt, 1838
Safely v. Gilmore, 1248, 2255
Baffin's Case, 980
Safford v. Annis, 51, 52
V. Rantoul, 1588
V. SafEord, 712, 759, 762, 777, 781, 819, 820
Sagar v. Eckert, 493, 519, 520
V. Tupper, 2153, 2172
Sage V. Central R. Co., 2155
V. Sherman, 1671
V. Truslow, nor
Sager w. Tupper, 2136
Sag^tary -v. Hide, 1626
Sagoharie, Jackson ex d., u. Dobbin, 1213
Sahler v. Signer, 215
Sailer 7'. Sailer, 1894
Sainet v. Duchamp, 2254
Sainsbury v. Matthews, 46, 49, 51, 52
Saint V. Pilley, 125, 142
St. John V. Benedict, 1538
V. Bumpstead, 2x51, 2154
V. Camp, 2027
■V. Palmer, 1128, 1168, 1172
V. Quitsom, 12 19
V. Quitzow, 1212, 1220
V. St. John, 1034
V. Standring, 1247
St. Johnsbury & L. R. Co. -u. Willard, 61
St. Louis V. Kamie, 1202
?'. Morton, 1029, 1213, 1221
St. Louis, J. M. & G. R. Co. v. Hecht, 198,
995. 1315* 1317
St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co. v. Green,
2304
St. Louis University v. McClune, 2296
V. Kemp, 1586
St. Mary's Church v. Miles, 59
V. Stockton, 1S72
St. Michael's Church v. Behrens, 116S
St. Saviour's v. Smith, 1074, 1077
St. Victor's V. Daubert, 1241, 1242, 1243
Sainter v. Furguson, 1872
Salade v. James, 1234
Sale V. Crutchfield, 409, 416, 419, 469
V. Moore, 347, 162-7, ^^3*^) ^^S^i 1684
V. Saunders, 1367
Salem v. Edgerly, 2176
Salisbury v. Bigelow, 1791
V. Hale, 1131
V. Marshall, 1200
V. Shirley, 1026,2261, 2262
Salisbury, Earl of, v. Bennett, 271
Salle V. Primm, 2293
Sal lee z/. Chandler, 162 1
Salmer v. Forbes, 96
Salmon V. Bennett, 1623, 1625
V. Clagett, 515, 2080, 2081, 2187
V. Hoffman, 2004
V. Matthews, 11 76
V. Smith, 979
V, Stuyvesant, 1039
Salter's Case, 529
Salter v. Kidgley, 2361
Saltmarsh v. Beene, 1765, 1774
V. Smith, 718, 733, 735, 736, 739
Saltonstall v. Sanders, 1685
Salusbury v. Denton, 1685
Sames v. Payne, 885
Samllman v. Onions, 572
Sammes' Case, 1556, 1557
Sample v. Robb, 2303
V. Rowe, 2106
z'. Sample, ^17, 955
Sampson v. Bumside, 2238
%). Easterby, 1071, 1078
z<. Graham, 142
V. Grimes, 2250, 2258
V. Henry, 1356, 1357
V. Hoddinott, 2224, 2227, 2228, 2248
V. Shaeffer, 1140, 1296
V. Williamson, 1378, 1408, 1467, 1468,
1473, 1475. 147S, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491,
1502, 1518
Samson v. Thorton, 2034
Sanborn v. Chamberlin, 1093
V. Kittridge, 1773
V. Morrill, 1247
V. Osgood, 2060
V. Rolinson, 2038
V. Woodman, 1870
Sandback v. Quigley, 870.
Sanderlin v. Baxter, 2241
Sanders v. Cassady, 2100
V. Ellington, 82, 1205, 1207
V. Hooper, 2089, 2090
V. Hyatt, 415, 447, 471
V. Martin, 2235
V. Merryweather, 1058
V. Morrison, 1729
z/. Partridge, 1072. 1108,1115,1117, mg,
1 1 19, 1 143, 1156, 2262, 2265
V. Pope, 1157, 1158, 1872
V. Reed, 2186
V. Richards, 2159
V. Wilson, 2185
Sanderson v. Dobson, 202
V. Jackson, 998, 1043
V. Mayor, 1166
■V. Price, 1998, 2078
Sandford v. Clarke, iigg
V. Harvey, 1274, 1335, 1340, 1343
•u. Irby, 288, 299, 1594, 1711
V. Jackson, 916, 917, gi8, 934, 942, 955
V, Johnson, 1263^ ^274, 1281
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
cxcix
Sandford v. McLean, 885, 867, 873, 886, 905, 930
Sandfoss v. Lones, 1643
Sandhill 7/. Franklin, 13 10
Sands v. Ale Brewing Co., I7t re, 2119
7K Church, 2112
V. Hughs, 1 1 12, 1148
V. Lynliam, 236, 279, 2347
V. Pfeiffer, 136, 137
Sandwith v. De Silver, 2262
Saner w. Bilton, 1083, 1153
Sanford v. Bulkley, 2147
V. Jackson, 944
V. Jarvey, 1340
7'. Lackland, 253
V. Non-is, 16^3
V, Turner, n6o
San Francisco v. Canavan, 2212
z>. Fulde, 229S
Sangamon & M. R. Co. v. Morgan Co., 98
Sanger v. Uptown, 1581
Sangster v. Love, 2103, 2106, 2111, 2140
Sangston v. Love, 2105
Sansom v. Harrell, 1464
Santell v. Armor, 1425
Sanxay v. Hunger, 2218
Sarabusw. Fenlon, 1388, 1390
Sargent f. Adams, 20
V. Ashe, 2260
V. Baldwin, 1792
7>. Ballard, 2214, 2226, 2240
V. Courier, 1230, 1231
V. Howe, 2]o6
V. Parson, 1894, 1967
V. Pierce, 32
V. Smith, 1074
V. Townes, 337, 557
V. Wilson, 1523
, Sarles v. Sarles, 545. 54^, 555. 557. 565. 5^6,
1141
Sarsfield 7/. Healy, 1251, 1261, 1275
Sarter v. Gordon, 1697
Satterfield v. John, 1662
Satterlee v. Matthewson, 1221
Sander's Lessee v. Morningstar, 449
Sauer z*. Meyer, it 56
Saul V. Creditors, 755
V. His Creditors, 1946
Saumerez v. Saumerez, 307
Saunders v. Edwards, 1609
z'. Evans, 1839
V. Frost, 2073, 2089,2090, 2173
V. Hanes, 287, 973
V. Harris, 1598
V. Leslie, 832
V. Musgrove, 1264, 1292
V. Newman, 2229, 2247
V. Saunders, 1887
V. Schmaelzie, 1663
V. Webber, 1667
Savage v. Bumham, 917
V. Crill, 910
V. Dovley, 2062
zf. Foster, 2147
V. Hall, 728, 806, 809, 810, 2097, 2103,
2131
V. Holyoke, 201 1
V. Mason, 1063, 1972
V. O'Neil, 646
V. Savage, igS/, 1982
Savery v. King, 76
Savile v. Blacket, 1847
V. Scarburough, 60
Saville's Case, 442
Saville v. Saville, 511
Savings Bank 7/. Allen, 2332
V. Ayres, 1454, i495. 149^
V. Rates, 2332
V. Freese, 2t48
V. Grewe, 2099
Sawter 7/. Kendall, 734
Sawyer's Appeal, 1647
Sawyer v. Adams, 2119, 2121
Sawyer v. Davis, 4
V. Dozier, 339
V. Hanson, 2331
V. Hoag, 15S1
V. Kendall, 2299, 2357
2>. Lyon, 2026
V. Skowhegan, 1707
V. Twiss, 78, 79, 103, 106, 184
V. Wall, 683
V. Zachary, 1023
Saxton V. Hitchcock, 2044
V. Mitchell, 311
Say V. Barwick, 1034
V. Stoddard, 1278, 1281, 1293, 1297
Say-and-Seal v. Jones, 1709
Saye v. Jones, 1797
Sayers v. Hoskinson, 812
7/. Wall, 678, 682, 699, 1372
Saylor v. Kocher, 310
V. Paine, 1637
Saylors v. Saylors, 1600, 1601
Sayre v. Hughs, 1647
V. Townsends, 1634, 1646, 1651
V. Weil, 1588, 1669
V. Wisner, 671
Scales T'. Maude, 1587
Scammon v. Campbell, 841, 853
Scanlan v. Geddes, 2021
V. Porter, 321
V. Turner, 903
V. Wright, 215, 492, 503, 1657, 2014
Scantlin v. Allison, 1894
Scarborough v. Bormaii, 1373
z'. Smith, 1894
V. Stinson, 2090
V, Watkins, 647, 895
Scarry v. Eldrich,207i
Schadt V, Heppe, 1521
Schaefer v. Reilly, 2109
Schaeffer v Beldsmeier, 1520
V. Weed, 891
Schaick ex d. Jackson v. Davis, 1150
Schall V. Williams' Valley R Co., 2300
Scharfenburg w. Bishop, 2018
Schearff 7/. Dodge, 2131
Schee v. Wiseman, 974, 975
Scheerer v. Dickson, 1202
V. Stanley, 1120
ScheferingT'. Huffman, 646
Scheible 7/. Bacho, 2059
Scheldt v. Belz, 2258
Scheifele v. Schmitz, 123
Scheiffelin v. Carpenter, 1168
Scheller v. Stein, 2122
Schellinger v. Blackerly, 982
Schenck i'. Conover, 2144, 2145
V. Ellingwood, 1840
V. O'Neil, 2059
7'. Schenck, 1734
Schenley's Appeal, 1226
Schenley v. Commonwealth, 971
Scheppi V. Gindele, 1066
Schermer's Appeal, 1509
Schermerhorn v. Buell, 988
V. Gouge, mo
V. Miller, 611
V. Negus. 249, 259, 261, 262, 185S
z'. Vanderheyden, 169S
Schiack, Jackson ex d., v. Vincent, 488
SchiefEelin z*. Carpenter, 1159
V. Stewart, 1715, 1716. 1725
Schiffer v. Pruden, 707, 774. 883, 894, 919, 920,
921
Schile 7'. Rrokhahus, 2236
Schilling 7/. Holmes, 1128, ij68
Schindel v. Schindel, 5S8, 681, 682
Schinkei v. Hanewinkle, 2129
Schintz V. McManamy, 2341
Schlaeferw. Corson, 1622, 1760
Schlarb 7/. Holderbaum, 1520
Schlarfenburg v. Bishop, 1050
Schley v. Fryer. 2068
cc
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
S:hley V. Lyon, 1553, 1560, 1583
Schlemmer v. North, 135
Schluter v. Bowery Savings Bank, 165S, 1659
Schmidt, Estate of, 1446, 1449
V. Pettit, 109S, 1176
Schmit V. Auferty, 996
Schmitz V. Lauferty, 1323
Schmucker v. Libert, 2070
Schnelby v. Ragan, 2004
ZK Schnelby, 776, S06, 856
Schneider v. Botch, 229S
V. Lord, 1322
V. Staihr, 1364, 1367, 1827
Schmitt V. Willis, 813
Schoch's Appeal, 661
Schoch's Estate, 662
Schoffen v. Laudauer, 1391,1392, 1420, 1433
Schofield V. Doscher, 2165
School Directors v. Carlile, 1554
V. Dunkelberger, 1744
School District v. Benson, 517, 2299
V. Lynch, 2299
School Trustees v. Hovey, 1479, 1506
Schoonmaker v. Stockton, 342
Schott V. Harvey, 976
Schouton v. Kilmer, 1503
Schreiber v. Creed, 2214
Schribarz*. Piatt, 1485
Sihriverz*. Meyer, 313, 328, 330>33i. 33z» 333
334
V. Meyer, 306
V. Teller. 2154
!-'chroeder w. Gemeinder, 1052
Schuck V. Gerlanch, 2074
Schuessler v. Dudley, 1403
Schuff V. Ransom, 2345
Schuisler v. Amos, 1131, 1132
Schult V. Harvey, 1201
Schultz V. Moll, 661
Schumeier v. St. Paul & Pac. R. Co., 69
Schutt "v. Baker, 1247
V. Large, 2365
Schuyler.z/. Broughton, 1949
V. Hanna, 1520, 1521
V. Leggett, 996, 1013, 1321, 1322, 1323
V. Smith, 969, 1131, 1132, 1 134. 1 135, 1 136,
13157 1317, 1343. 1348
Schuyler, Jackson ex d., v. Corliss, 1056, 1105,
1113
Schuykill v, Dauphan R. Co., 1067
V, Schmoele, 1 129
Schuykill, etc., R. Co. v. Schmoele, 1082, 1167,
1127
Schuykill Co. v. Thobum, 2062
Schwartz's Estate, 102 1
Schwartz v. Kuhn, 2295
Schwarz v. Sears, 1999
Schweickhardt v. St. Louis, 1193
Schwoerer v. Boylston Market Assoc., 1069
Scituate v. Hanover, 1588, 1592
Scoggins V. State, 597
Scofflns v. Grandstaff, 2301
Scofield z^. Hopkins, 1500
Scorell V. Eoxall, 49, 52
Scott V. Alberry, 307
V. Avery, 1051
V. Bentel, 2-'4i
V, Buchanan, 985, 986, 1031, 2052, 2073,
2343. 2344
V. Clinton, 98
c/. Deyer, 1379, 1444
V, Elkins, 2298
V. Featherston, 2177
V. Freeland, 1766, 1768, 1773, 2163
V. Gallagher, 1764
V. Gibbons, 247
V. Guernsey, 653, 1905
V. Hancock, 849, 860
V. Hawsman, 1162,2260
V. Henry, 2038, 2039
V. Howard, 731
V. Johnson, 985
Scott V. Key, 1633
r'. Levy, 1217, 1222
V, Liverpool, 1051
V. Logan, 315
T'. Lunt*s Admr., 1071
V. Lunts, 1004, 1 12 1
V. McFarland, 2039
•u. NicoU, 224S
V. Perkins, 1806
V. Porcher, 1600
V. Purcell, 1773
V. Ramsey, 1234
V. Rand, 1662
V. Scott, 856, 865, 1098, 1164
V. Simmons, 1054, 1191, 1201, 1202
V. State, 1923
V. Stewart, 1754, 1755
V. Stipe, 1S50
V. Terry, 2288
V. Turner, 2105, 2106
V. Tyler, 271, 1S5S
V. Umbarger, 1620
V, Ward, 712
Vy Ware, 2065, 2087, 2333
V. Webster, 811, 2081
V. Wharton, 218S
7'. Whipple, 2356
V. Willis, 1227
Scott's Exrs. V. Gorton's Exrs., 1766
Scovell V. Boxall, 537
Scovill V. Kennedy, 1979
Scoville V. Canfield, 2056
Scranton 7r. Stewart, 103 1
Screven v. Gregorie, 2207
Scribnerz'. Hockok, 2177
Scrimshire, 753
Scriver v. Smith, 22 11
Scrivner v. Dietz, 1791
Scruggs V. Blair, 824, 1964
V. Murray, 485
Scudder v. Trenton, 2325, 232S
Scuffield V. Brown, 220S
Scull V. Beatly, 1519, 1522
ff. Reeves, 1600, 1729, 1786, 1794, 1795
Scully V. Delany, 1733
V. Murray, 1326, 1327, 1328, 1329
Scurfield v. Howes, 314, 1608, 1733, 1735
Scuylerz*. Leggett, 2274
Seabrook v. King, 2207
V. Meyer, 1174, 2268
Seabury, Doe ex d., v. Stewart, 1289
Seagrave v. Seagrave, 773, 921, 939, 965
Seager z'. McCabe, 813
Seagood v. Meale, 1087
Ssale V. Soto, 1986
Sealer z/. Kittner, 11 13
Seals 7'. Cashien, iggg
Seamans v. Carter, 1504, 1505, 1517
Searcy v. Short, 1398
Seargent %k Steinberger, 1729
Searle v. Chapman, 1494
V. Price, 883
zi. Whipperman, 2151
Searles v. Jacksonville R. Co., 2136
Sears v. City of Boston, 1455. 1456
V. Cunningdam, 305, 1684, 1S24
V. Dewing, 2254
V. Dixon, 1450, 1475, 1478, 2042, 2043,
2053
V. Hanks, 1394, 1415, 1481
V. Hind, 1250
V. Hyer, 641
V. Munson, 1893
V. Russel, 323, 1796
V. Sears, 1407
V, Sellew, 1894
V. Smith, 997, 1131, 1315, 1316
V. Stinton, 1046
Seaton v. Davis, 1344
V. Jamison, 874
V. Marshall, 1397
V. Son, 1426
Reierenccs are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CCl
Seavcr v. Durant, 20S7, 2iSs
w, Phelps, 9S7, 1032
V. Spiuk. 2120
Seawell z'. Greenway, 1724, 1725, 1728
Sebastian v. Ford's Heirs, 1290
V. Johnson, 2159
Sebring 7'. Mei-sereau, 1984
Second Congregational Church of North Bridge-
water 7'. Waring, 33
Second Nat. Bank s-. The O. E. Merrill Co.,
1316
Second Pres. Church 7>. Disbrow, 336
Second Reformed Pres. Churchz'. Disbrow,
317. 319. 320, 346, 1593, 1632
Secor, Ke, 2266
Secor z'. Pestana, 1309, 1319, 1340
Secrest t: McKenna, 760
7'. Pruner, 2052, 2053
Sedgewick 7'. Cleveland, 2132
V. Laflin, 2S1, 283, 284, 285, 531
See z'. Deer, 292, 203
Seeger v. Pettit, 1224
Seeger's Exrs. z'. Seeger, 1754
Seekonk v. Rehoboth, 1005
Seekright z/. Moore, 826
Seelers z'. Seelers, 202
Seely's Appeal, 897
Seely v. Seely, 411, 415
Seelye, Jaykson ex d., v. Morse, 1356, 1635
Seem v. McLees, 1336, 1339, 1340
Seers z'. Hind, 1057, 1249
7'. Russell, 324
Segee v, Perley, 54
Segond 7'. Garland, 1373, 1562
Seibert z-. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 2141
V. Wise, 423
Seibold zi. Christman, 1640
Seichrist's Appeal, 1643
Seidenpnrger v. Spear, 2212, 2213
Seider z'. Seider, 836, 1406
Seiders z'. Giles, igSr
Seifert v. City of Brooklyn, 5
Seimon z'. Schurck, 1652
Selby V. Alston, 1580, 2096
V. Greaves, 2250
7'. Stanley, 2005
Selden v. Seymour, 2349
z/. Vermilya, 1597
z>. Vermilyea, 1S08, 1809
Seldon's Appeal, 1592, i6gi
Self's Admr. v. Tune, 534
Selkrig v. Davies, 358, 719, 2289
Sellars v. Davis, 883
Selleck v. Selleck, 953
Sellers v. Lester, 2020
V. Sellers, 203
z'. Stalcup, 2048,
Selliman z/. Cummins, 904
Sellman v. Bowman, 757, 758, 866, 870, 873,875,
g3o
V. Sellman, 234
Sellon 7K Reed, i4;«2
Sellwood V. Gray, 2147
Selwin v. Selwin, 1572
Semmons v. McKay, 694
Semmes v. United States, 1253
Semple v. Burd, 2126
V. Lee, 2151
Senhouse v. Christian, 2220
Senter v. Mitchell, 2020
Sentill V. Roberson, 679, 680, 699
V. Robinson, 6S9
Sentney v. Overton. 1723
Sergeant ?'. Ingersoll, 1777
7'. Ruble, 2133
V. Steinberger, 1876, 1881, 1SS2, 1920,
1036, 1969
Session v. Donnelly, 531
Seton V. Shade, 2050, 2168
Settegast v Schrimpf, 216, 223
Settembre ?'. Putnam, 1622
Seuzeneau v. Saloy, 2059
Severance v. Griffith, 2082, 2103
Sevier v. Greenway, 2049
7'. McWhorter, 1795
Sewall w. Cargill, 1556
V. Lee, 726, 750, 883
7'. Proctor, S27
V. Roberts, 292, 1791, 1792, 1798
z'. Sewall, 662, 774
Seward z'. Huntington, 2152
z'. Jackson, 1626, 2349
Sewell V. Angerstein, 105, 121
7'. Denning, 1637
7'. Holland, 1923
V. HoUian, 1923
z>. Howard, 403
Sexton 7/. Chicago Storage Co., 1122
ZK Wheaton, 64S, 1626
Seymour's Case, 370, 372, 390, 456, 457, 827, 884,
8S5
Seymour z>. Canandaigua, N. F. & R. Co., 2017,
2018
V. Carli, 2298
T'. Darrow, 2027, 202S
7'. Delaucey, 1033, 1697,1758
V. Davis. 2074, 2172
7' Freer, 94, icgo, 1663", i6go, 17S2
v. Harvey, 1847
z'. Lewis, 2244
V McDonald, 1184
V. McKinstiy, 2109
V. Sanders, 2309
Seys V. Price, 953
S. F. & O. R. Co. ». Oaklandj 1029
Shaak's Estate, In re, 755
Shackleford v. Bailey, 2295
z: Hall, 270, 1858
z>. Handley, 1696
Shaeffer 7^ Chambers, 1087,2185
V. Mill, 778
V. Ward, 814
V. Weed, 744, 745
Shafcr z/. Wilson, 2233
Shaffer v. Anderson's Admrs., 8gi
w. Enew, 22S3
V. Richardson's Admr.j 887, 892, 894
T*. Shaffer, 947
V. Sutton, 1299, 1303, 1327
z>. Weed, 922, 923
Shaftesbury v. Duchess of Marlborough, 1S32
Shafto zf. Butler, 1361
Shakespeare v. Alba, 996
Shall z'. Biscoe, 2004, 2007
Shallenberger v. Ashworth, 1364
Shaller w. Brand, 911
Shankland's Appeal, 273, 299, 500, 1583, 1606,
1675. 1741, 1748
Shanks 7', Blackiston, 415
V. Klein, 1964
Shannon z'. Bradstreet, 1039, 1040
T. Burr, iiii, 1123
V. Frost, 34
V. Marselis. 2180
7'. Marsellis, 2154
Shapland v. Smith, 300, 1605, 1797
Shapleighe^. Pillsbury, 1556, 1557, 1569
Share v. Anderson , 947
Sharkey v. McDermott, 2282
V. Sharkey, 2039
Sharman v. Eakin, 2309
7'. Jackson, 292
Sharon 7', Davidson, igoi
Sharon Iron Co. v. Erie, 1835
7'. City of Ene, 1869
Sharp 7'. Bailey, 1477, 1480
V. Barker, 2089
V. Fly, 1789
7'. Goodwin, 1622
7'. Johnson, 1515
r'. Orme, 2354
7/. Pettit, 443, 461, 875, 876, 885
z>. St. Sauveur, 750
V. Sharp, 308,2333
ecu
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Sharp V. Speir, 1515, 2335
V. Thompson, 416
Sharpe z/. Cosserat, 1677
V. Gerry, 2027
V. Kelley, 1146, 1221, 1297, 1309
V. Orme, 2364
Sharpless v. Borough of Westchester, 651
z/. Welsh, 1585
z/. West, 633, 670
Sharpley v. Jones, 717, 731, 737
Sharpsteen v. Tilton, iSio
Shatterwhite v. Rosser, 2297
Shattock V. Shattock, 1821, 1S25, 1826
Shattuck V. Gregg, 807, S35, 847, 851, 852, 862
V. Lovejoy, 1058, 1138
Shaver v. Shaver, 1920
Shaw V. Eeebe, 2303
V. Beers, 515
V. Beery, 1887
V. Beveridge, 30, 31, 32, 38, 83
V. Bill, 2018
V. Bowman, 1208
V. Boyd, 898, 954, 957
%'. Bunny, 2086,2155
V. Burton, 2082
V. Famsworth, 1000
V, Foster, 2002
V. Gould, 719
V. Hearsey, 1887, 1919, 1930, 1931, 1932,
1938, 1952, 1967, 1969
V. Hoadley, 2150, 2164
V. Hussey, 344
V. Lawless, 347, 1627, 1632
V. Lenke, loi, 121, 135, 139
V. Norfolk, 2040, 2041
7'. Norfolk Co. R.. 2146
V. Partridge, 1024, 1033, X360, 1363, 1364,
1368, 1369, 2264
V. Read, 1647
w. Russ, gog
V. Simmers, 1040
z/. Spencer, 1622, 1637, 1714, 1745, 1746,
1749. 1765
V. Stenton, 1166
V. Thompson, 820
11. Walbridge, 216S
V. Wallace, 983, 1287
V. Weigh, 422, 1553, 1594
V. White, S23, 843, 844
V. Wright, 288, 289, 1594
Shaw, Jackson ex d., ?'. Spear, 1160
Shawhan v. Lang, 2258
V. Long, 2251, 2257
Shaw-mut Bank v. Boston, 1176
Shawmutt Nat. Bank v. Boston, 66, 1015
Shaw's Trust, Re, 1038
Shea's Appeal, 899
Shea V. Sixth Ave. R. Co., 1195
7'. Tucker, 1651
Sheaf e z/. Gushing, 534, 536
V. Gerry, 2027. 2029
z'. O'Neil, 215,673, 732, 864, 865
Shearer z/. Corbin, 2336
v. Loftin, 1794
V. Ranger, 729, 1092, 1093, 1094
V. Shearer, 694, 1961, 1964, ^965
Shebert v. Winston, 1440. ^975
Sheckell v. Hopkins, 2051, 2055, 2168
Shee V. Hale, 253, 260, 272, 273, 1677
Sheecomb v. Hawkins, 1040
Sheedy z'. Reach, 1683
Sheehy v. Miles, 1520. 1521, 1950
Sheen, Re, Thomas, Ex parte, 105, 108, no
Sheerer v. Stanley, 2259
Sheet's Estate, 500, 1675
Sheets r/. Peabody, 1722
w. Selden, 1005, 1083, 1106, 3157, 1177,
1182, 2256
Sheetz's Will, 416, 424
Sheffield z'. Lovering, 2286
Sheible v. Bacho, 2056
Sheildsz/. Atkins, 1783
Shells zi. Stark, 1969
Sheirburn v. Cordove, 15 16
Shelby v. Hearne, 1074
V. Shelby, 1782, 1874
Sheldo V. Smith, 1795
Sheldon v. Bird, 2170
V. Bliss, 916, 935, 956
V. Davey, 1269, 1271, 1293, 1319
•u. Edwards, no, 125, 810, 2098
V. Estate of Rice, 1715
V. Hoffnagle, 2136
V. Hopkins, 920
V. School District, u8o
V- Vail, 35
V. Wildman, 1782
V. Wright, 2158
Shell V. Duncan, Sgr, 1453
V. Martin, 2331
Shelley's Appeal, 1509
Shelley's Case, 302, 359, 423, 439, 440, 441, 460,
498, 881, 1539, 1693, 1694
Shelley, Doe d., v. Edlin, 300, 1595, 1605
Shelley z/. Shelley, 60, 1609
Shelton v. Alcox, 2276
V. Armor, 2363
V. Bliss, 933
7/. Carroll, 729, 847, 861
V. Codman, 975, 1072, 1074, 1120, 1125
7). Doe, 1212
V. Eslava, 1144
V. Lewis, 1622
V. Marshall, 2056
V. Orr, 1423, 1424
V. Shelton, 1590
Shepard v. Brewer, 1464, 1466
V. Briggs, 1 1 85
V. Elliot, 2088
V. Martin, 1213
V. Merrill, 1172
V. Philbrick, 47,49
V. Pybus, 1200
V. Rinks, 1978
V. Shepard, 322, 323, 646, 648, 2141
•V. Spaulding, 115, 130, 145, 146, 1164,
1 187
V. Taylor, 2096
V. Wood, 2335
Shepardson z*. Rowland, 191 1, 1924
Sheperd z'. Adams, 2153
V. Burkhalter, 2123
V. Cassiday, 1455, 1457, 1460, 1461, 1462,
1465* 1495
V. Cummins, 996
V. May, 2069, 2072
7/. Nottidge, 1629
V. White, 1497, 1649
Shephardz* Little, 1538
Shepherd z*. Commissioners of Ross Co., 1662
V. McEvers, 1599, iJoo, 1660, 1661, 1662,
1671, 1672, 1729, 1760, 1764, 1777,
1786, 1787, 1795, iSoo
V. Shepherd, 1697
V. White, 1647
V. Young, 1897
Shepley v. Cowan, 2307, 2308
Sheppard v. Pratt, 2094
V. Warden, 903
Sheppard, Doe d,, v, Allen, 1104
Shepperd v. Cummins, 1322
Sheratz v. Nicodemus, 2007
Sherbunie v. Jones, 1267, 1284
Sherensbury's Case, 2340
Sheridan v. Welsh, 2091, 2101
Sherill v. Sherill, 2302
Sherman v. Champlain Transp. Co., 1144, 1150
V, Dodge, 297, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1605, 1753,
2315
V. Dutch, 2251, 2257, 2258
V. Kane, 1897
V. Willett, 45, 821
V. Williams, 1014, loSr, 1127, 1166, 1168
Sherratt v, Bentley, 178S
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CClll
Sherred z'. Cisco, 2235. 2237
Sherrid z*. Southwick, 1471, 1472, 1524
Sherrill v. Hopkins, 2056
Sherrod v. Calleghan, 646
Sheny v. Picken, 51. 52
Sherwin v. Lasher, 2254, 2256
Sherwood v. Andrews, 1791
V. Barlow, 2322
V. Dunbar, 2132
V. Harral, 1102
V. Phillips, 1322
V. Reade, 1515, 1755
V. Seaman, 1197
v. Vanderburgh, 764, 800, 870
Shiblaz/. Ely, 1781
Shiel zf. McNitt, 1872
Shields v. Atkins, 373, 17S2
V. Batts, 717, 836
zf. Hunt, 838
V. Keys, 667
V. Kinbrough, 1087
z'. Loyear, 688, 1219
V. Lozear, 1996, 1998, 2078, 2(29, 2131
V. Netherland, 486
7/. Shinn,
V. Smith, 1752
V. Stark, 1876
Shields' Heirs v. Batts, 735, 741
Shiells z;. Blackburne, 1183
Shilling «». Holmes, loSi
Shillingford zf. Good, 2259
Shillito v. PuUen, 1026
Shimer w. Hammond, 810, 2136
7'. Mann, 396
Shindelbeck v. Moon, 1085, 1198
Shina v. Budd, 2137
V. Fredericks, 2096, 2130
7'. Holmes, 307, 309, 312, 326
V. Shinn, 1932, 1944, 2150
Shintz V. Laufeity, 995
Shipbrook v. Hinchinbroek, 1732, 1733
Shipe 7'. Renass, 1481
Shipley v. Fifty Assoc, 1202
Shipman v. Beers, 2223
z/. Horton, 1031
V. Mitchell, 1274, 1315. 1317, 1319, 1330
Shippen's Appeal, 519, 520, 636, 746
Shipper v. Stokes, 2016
Shippey z/. Derrison, 998, 1043
Shipwerth z/. Sreed, 1025
Shipwith's Exrs. v. Cunningham, 1601
Shirack v. Shirack. 1465
Shirey v. Postelthwaite, 353
Shirkey 7/. Hanna, 2147
Shirley v. Bunch, 2033
Zf. Burch, 2060
V. Jones, 2148
V. Shirley, 1361, 1371, 1561, 2008
V. Sugar Refining Co., 2006
V. Terne, 2354
Shirras v. Craig, 2022, 2023, 2027, 2028, 2030,
2036, 2123
Shirtz V. Shirtz, 791, 823, 841, 842, 845, 876
Shitz V. Diffenbach, 2004
Shivers v. Goar, 267
Shober v. Houser. 1703
Shoemaker v. Huffnagle, 416, 433
V. Simpson, 113, ir6
V. Smith, 1613, 1651
V. Walker, 679, 703, 781, 815
ShoUenberRer v. Brinton, 2253
V. Filbert, 2251
Shone v. Larsen, 2366
Shonk V. Brown, 251, 257, 904, 1371, 1561
Shoofstall z/. Powell, 4'4. 4f5. »8o6
Shook v. Shook, 1885
Shoplane v. Royderer. 1022
Shore, Doe d., v. Porter, 1135, 1136, 1254, 1270,
1299, 1301, 1308, 1334
Shores v. Carley, 604, 692, 693, 703
Shorey v. Farrell, 1270
Short V. Battle, 2012
Short 7'. McGruder, 1432
Short, Doe d., v. Prettymaii, 1984
Shortall v. Hinckley, 588, 632, 633, 634, 635,
641, 642, 643, 651, 1366
Shortz V. Unangst, 1730, 1085
Shote V. Tighe, 976
Shotwell V. Mott, 1659
V. Sedam's Heirs, 923, 924
V. Shotwell, 772
Shore v. Dow, 1918
V. Sarsen, 2123
Shotwell 77. Smith, 2067
Shouse V. Krusor, 2251, 2254, 2257, 2259
Shouton V. Kilmer, 1403
Shovelton v. Shovelton, 1629, 1633
Show V. Hussey, 536
V. Show, 491
Shrank v. Zubler, 2299
Shreve z'. Hankinson, 1036
Shrewsbury's Case, 570, 1277
Shrieker z'. Field, 2145
Shrieve v. Stokes, 2233
Shroder z>. Brenneman, 2220
Shropshire ?>. Bums, 2343 >
V. Shepperd, 1244
Shroyer z'. Nicknell. 1929
Shrunk v. Schuylkill Nav. Co., 69
Shryock v. Waggoner, 1622, 1748
Shubert v. Stanley, 2055
Shufelt z'. Shufelt, 2083, 2111
Shulenberg 7*, Herriman, 1861
Shull V. Kennon, 1979, 1980
Shult V. Baker, 1153
Shultz V. Elliott, 1 149
V. Shultz, 323
7/ Sprain, 2249, 2251
Shumway v. Collins, 1050, 1058, 1073, 1115, "29,
1 174
Shury 7/. Piggott, 2208
Shute V. Grimes, 2077, 2084
V. Harder, 1579
Shutler's Case, 2204, 2352
Shutt V. Rambo, 346
Shuttleworth z/. Greaver, 918, 944
Shutz V. Desenberg, 2052
Sibley v. Hoar, 983
z>. Johnson, 2346
V. Williams, 706
Sicard v. Davies, 2338
Siceloff V. Redman's Admr., 118, 440
Side V. Hodley, 2241
Sidenberg 7/. Ely, 504, 2089
Sidle V. Maxwell, 2120
V. Waters, 1588
Sidmouth V. Sidmouth, 682, 1640, 1647
Sidney v. Sidney, 664, 939, 963, 965
7/. Stevenson, 2002
Siefke z/. Roch, 2264
Siemasen v. Bofer, 216
Siemon v. Schurck, 1622, 1962
Sientes v. Odier, 12 13
Siewert V. Hamel, 2165, 2167
Siglar z/. Van Riper, 19:7
Sigmund v. Howard Bank, 1079
V. Wilkins, 1067
Sigoumey v. Eaton, 1918
7'. Munn, 824, 825, 1777, 2359
V. Stockwell, 734
Silcock 7'. Farmer, 1141
Sill v. Worswjck, 368, 719, 2057, 2288
Sillard v. Robinson, 305
Sillers z/. Lester, 2018, 2019
Silloway v. Brown, 1403, 1405, 1425, i449i i503»
1903, 1907, 1998
Silsbury v. McCoon, 62
Silsby 7/. Allen, 1264, 1300, 1301, 1312, 1322,
1325, 1326, 1336.1337
V. Bullock, 635, 638, 650, 651, 657
Silva z>. Cambell, 1139
Silver Lake Bank v. North, 1541, 2014, 2090,
2136
Silvernail v. Cole, 55
CCIV
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Silverstein v. Stem, 2260
Silvester v. Ralston, 1022
V. Wilson, 288, 1594, 1605, 1712
Silvester ex d. Law v. Wilson, 299, 300
Silvey's Estate, 918, 943
Silvey v. Summer, 1164
Siinar &. Canady, 708, 709, 712, 716, 725, 726,
727* 797. 821, 879, §93, 922
Simers v. Saltus, 47, 1125, 1172
Simmons 7'. Brown, 1247
V. Gooding, 675
zt. Hervey, 2340
V. Johnson, 1504
V. Lyles, 837, 884
V. McElwain, 646, 648
V. Norton, 543, 544, 559, 1227
V. Palles, 1793
V. Sines, 2217
Simon v. Walker, 1425
Simonds %>. Powers, 1517
V. Simonds, 259, 261, 263, 1682, 1862
z'. Turner, 1108
Simons v. Farren, 1103
Simonton's Estate, 2354
Simonton v. Conielius, 1932, 1933, 1940
V. Gray, 783, 802, 808, 810, 1580, 2097
V. Houston, 938, 948, 949
Simpkin v. Ashurst, 1354
Simpkins v. Rogers, 1267, 1268, 1280
Simpson v. Ammons, 1969, 1971
V. Downing, 2299
z/. Feltz, 1242, 1243
V. Gutteridge, 1021, 1888
V. Kelso, 75
V. Leach, 787
V. McAllister, 832
V. Mundee, 2005, 2364
». Pearson, 1944, 2301
V. Robert, 2025
zi. Savings Bank, 1518
V. Seavey, 1897
V. Simpson. 436
Sims V. Dame, 1923
V. Huntphries, 1344
V. Hundley, 2160
V. Irvine, 2305
7'. McClure, 1034
ZI. Ray, 1830
V. Rickett, 645
V. Thompson, 1425
z). Walsham, 1430
Simson v. Brown, 2072
Sinclair v. Armitage, 2015
V, Jackson, 1038, 1040. 1731, 2300
V. "Slawson, 2365
Singer Manfg. Co. v. Sayre, 994, 1315, 1316,
1317
Singleton v. Bremar, 236, 2S2
z). Huff, 1411
V. Scott, 1667, 1755, 1758
V. Singleton, 835, 836, 849,860
Singleton's Heirs z). Singleton's Exrs,, 737, 859
Singstack z'. Harding, 1707, 1766, 1769
Sinnet v. Herbert, 1872
Sinnickson 7'. Johnson, 198
Sip zt. Lawback. 856
Sir Ralph Bovy*s Case, 1626
Sisk v. Smilli, 801, 927
Sisson z/. Donnelly, 281,284, 286
V. Hibbard, 117, 141. 143
Sistare zi. Sistare, 750, 774
Siter V. M'Clanachan, 76, 2140
Sitliff V. Forgey, 750
Sitzer. Jackson ex d., zi. Waltermire, 712
Skaggs V. Elkus, 1327, 1330
7'. Nelson, 2006
Skally V. Shute, 1166, 1168
Skeel V. Spraker, 520, 811,1580,2036,2123,2127,
2131
Slcidmore v. Ramline, 1034
Skillen v. Loyd, 346
Skillman z/. Temple, 2130
Skinner v. Beatty, 1491, 1497, 2157
V' Buck, 1999, 2076, 2146, 2151
V. Crawford, 2296
V. Dayton, 1870, 1871, 1872
z>. Harrison Township, 1657
z). Hendrick, 2047
V. Miller, 2047, 2052, 2168,2169
V, Reyni-ck, 1488
V. Wilder, 5G, 57
V. Young, 2169
Skipwith's Exrs. v. Cunningham, 1600
Skipworth v. Cunningham, 1789, 1791, 1794
Skrine v. Walker, 1633
Slater v, Breese, 2024
V. Dangerfield, 423
7/. Jepherson, 210
V. Nason, 216, 672, 673
V Rawson, 206, 601; 2297
Slatorz'. Brady, 1031
V. Trimble, 103 1
Slattery v. Wason, 1677, 3678
Slaughter v. Foust, 839
Slaymaker v. Gettysburg!! Bank, 43
Slayton v. Blount, 234
Sledge V. Reid, 1247
Slee 7/. Manhattan Co., 2016
Sleigh V. Strider, 411, 412
Sleight V. Read, 234
Slemmer v. Crampton, 479
Slevin v. Brown, 1553, 1797
Slice 7'. Derrick, 1976
Sloan V. Coolbaugh, 1523
V. Holcomb, 2061
V. Whitaker, 947
V. Whitman, 868
Sloane zt. McConahy, 1555
Slocum V. Catlin, 811
ZK Hooker, 2343
7'. Marshall, 1593
V. Seymour, 53,55
7'. Slocum, 434
Sloper V. Saunders, 1258
Slowey V. McMurray, 2054
Slowley V. McMurray, 2044, 2045
Slughter v. Foust, 2106
Small V. Clifford, 1882, 1912, 1914, 1968
V. Marwood, 1713, 1788
V. Nainie, 257
V. Proctor, 211, 831
Smalley v. Hickok, 2174
Smallmau zK Onions, 576
Smart v. AUegaert, 2268
V. Morton, 91, 92, 93, 2233, 2237
7/. Taylor, 756
V. Whaley, 755, 756, 769, 770
Smelting Co, v. Kemp, 2304
Smiles z>. Hastings, 2222
Smiley 7/. Fries, 2301
V. Van Winkle, 1122, 1159, 1160, 1164
V. Wright, 781, 885, 923,924
Smilie zi. Bifile, 75, 1723, 1784, 17S5
Smillie t/. Titus, 2060
Smith's Appeal, 414, 444, 788
Smith, Re^ 95, 1432
Smith zj. Ackerman, 729, 730, 1094
z). Acton, 1782, 1783
V. Adams, 781, 2230
V, Addleman, 7S2, 822, 841, 842, 844
V. Aiken, 1236
V. Allen, 14S1, 1956, 1962, 2012
V. Allt,_ii3r, 1135, 1317
V. Ankins, 1177
ZI. Ankrim, 1126, 1175, 2269
7'. Atkins, 1050
ZI. Ausboniie, igo6
V. Baldwin, 932
7'. Barrett, 1019, 1029
V. Bell, 302, 339, 345, 419, 1131, 1132, 1806
V. Benson, 56, 141
V. Berry, 306, 308, 309
V. Blaisdell, 1138, 1140, 1150
V. Bowen, 1548, 1592, 1808, 1809, 1810
References are
to pages.
Smith V. Brannan, iS6i
V. Brannon, 1849
V, Brinker, 1108, 2262
V. Bryan, 51, 52, 55
V, Bunn, 1466
V. Bumham, 1623, 1634
V. Burtis, 209, 210, 211, 212, 1917, 2297
V. Calloway, 1781
V. Carney, 1094, 1095
ZK Carroll, 144
V. City of Rochester, 69, 70
v> Clark, 249, 1770, 2264
V. Clay, 872
•u. Clayton, 1205
V. Coe, 1278
zK Coffin, 307
■'■ Collyer, 574, 577
t'. Colson, 2250
"'.Columbia Ins. Co., 2114, 2 118
I'. Colvin, 670, 679
V. Commonwealth, 135, 136
V. Cooke, 491
•V. Cooper, 516
V. Countryman, iiro
V. Croom, 1456
V. Crosby, 2044
V. Cushing, 2303
V. Daniel. 552, 1759, 1764, 1777
V. Darby. 92, 93, 94
V. Day, 1040
ZK Death, 1844
V, De Russy, 2301
V. Deschavimes, 1425
V. Dinsmoor, 2138
V. Dinsmore, 2136
•V. Dodds, 974, 975
V. Doe, 1807
V. Dorr, 2283
V, Durell, 2132
V. Dyer, 1996, 2085, 2102, 2104
V, Eldridge, 125S
V. Elliott, iig4
V. Emerson, 1964
V. Estell, 974
V. Eustis, 2182
V. Evans, 2352
7/. Fellows, 795
V. Floyd, 2191,2194,2250,2273,2287
V. Ford, 1592
V. Freeman 1000
V, Frost, 1620
V, Fulkinson, 338
V. Garland, 1791
V. Godfrey, 2056
•V. Goodwin, 2186
•u. Grant, 1253
V. Green, 2172
V. Hance, 498
V. Handy, 901,902,911
V. Harrington, 323, 1604, 1753
V. Harrison, 977, 1249,2262,2263,2264
V. Heiskell, 107
V. Hitchcock, 2100
-v. Hosmer, 2298
V. Houston, 1259,2271
V. Howell, 903
V. Hoyt, 2157
V. Hunt, 2363
V. Hurst, 2083
V. Jackson, Soi, 814, 818, 1963
V. Jewett, 541
V. Johns, 2077
V. Johnson. 46, 136,2084
V. Jordan, 2126
V. Kehr, 1481
V. Kelley, 800, 2074,2085,2100, 2128
V. Kenrick, 2227, 2231
V. King, 102 1, 1906
V. Kinkaid, 2271
V. Knight, 1924
V. Kniskem, gi6, 934. 955
V. Knowlton, 523, 1786
TABLE OF CASES.
ccv
Smith?'. Lavilts, 1794
V. Lewis, 2080,2091
V. Littlefield, 1,130, 1132, 1135, 1317, 1346,
1347, 1350
w. Low, 1023
V. Lynne, 1791
V. Malings, 2268
V. Mallone, 1467
V. Manlings, 1174
V. Mapleback, 2252
V. Marrable, 1055, 1168, 1200
V. Marc, 14S9, 1516
V. Matthews, 1589, 1592, 1692
V. Mayo, 103 1
V. Maxwell, 645
V. McCampbell, 1093
v. McCann, 1709, 171 1, 1750
V. McCarty, 765
V. McGregor, 61
V. Metcalf, 1553, 1709, 1797
V. Miller, 1047, 1479, 1506, 2198
V, Monmouth Ins. Co., 2115, 2116
V. Monmouth Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 240
V. Moore, 139, 253, 2080
V. Morehead, 660
7/. Morrow, 2298
V. Mundy, 1159, 1212
V. Neale, 1000
V. Newton, 2059, 2161
V. Niel, 1625
V. NIver, 1162
V. North, 1076
V. O'Hara, 223S
V. Orton, 1746
V. Osborne, 316
V. Ostermeyer, 810
V. Otley, 1349
V, Pacard, 1518, 2157
V. Painter, 889, 890, 1773
V. Park, 1020
V. Parkhurst, 516
•V. Parks, 1871, 2078, 2079
V. Pattom, 1634, 1646, 1647,1648, 1651,1700
V. Paysenger, 924
XI. Pendergast, 1159
V. People's Bank, 2031, 2040
V. Pettee, 1248
V. Pollard, 2322
V. Porter, 2219
V. Poyas, 541
V. Price, 103, 104, 135
V. Pringle, 1 134
V. Provin, 2160
V. Putnam, 1056, 1057, 1105, H13
V, Quiggans, 1420, 1435, 1446
«*. Raleigh, 1168, 1174
V. Rice, 1234
V. Roberts, 2097
V. Rowe, 1274
V, Rowland, 2005
z>. Rumsey, 14S1
V. Sanger, 2152
V. Schiiver, 333
V Shackleford, 744
V. Sharpe, 549, 552, 575
V. Shaw, 717, 1253
V. Shay, 2171
V. Shepard, 497, 1171, 1220
V. Sheperd, 2065
V. Simons, 983, 985, 990, 991, looi, 1046
V. Sinclair, 2174
V. Smith, 300, 355, 469, 522, 712, 727, 731^
752. 769, no, 772, 844, 84S, 855, S57,
1393,
1606,
igo6,
2005,
_ gi2, 933, 953, 1219,
1627, 1634, 1651, 1718,. 1883,
1933. 1947. 1956, 197s. 1979)
2007, 2104, 2134, 2164, 2229
. Spencer, 6go, 692
. Stanley, 804, 829
. Starr, 75, 317, 31S, 329, 1673, 1674
.Stewart, 1268, 1271, 1272, 1276, 1283,
1291, 2271
CCVl
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Smith V. Stigleman, 1128
V. Strahan, 778,779, 1613, 1615, 1639, 1640,
1646, 1647, 1651, 1658, 1703
•u. Stuart, i6go
V. Surman, 54, 55
V. Tankersley, 2254
V. Taylor, 1027, 2063
V. Thomas, 2252, 2259
V. Thompson, 2012, 2013
V. Thurston, 1166
V. Townsend. 1703, 1727, 1735, 1746, 1772
V. Tritt, 49) 5I) 52
V. Truslow, 2o6g, 2070
V. Union Ins. Co., 2116
V. United Stales, 3
V. Van Gilder, 1518
V. Van Ostrand, 344
V. Vincent, 2128
V. Waggoner, 141, 143
V. Watson, 1242
V, Wheeler, i5'f4, 1788
V. Whitebeck, 1060, 1154
V. Widlake, 1266, 131S, 1838
V. Wiggin, 221 1
V. Wilkinson, 1691
V. Williams, 2301
V, Wooding, 1289
V. Wright, 1241
V. Zaner, 1657
Smith ex d. Teller v. Burtis, 489, 518
Smith d. Teller v. Lorillard, 517
Smith's Heirs, v. Smith, 849
V. Stewart, 1213, 1268, 1272
Smith, Jackson ex d., v. Adams, 672, 673, 1657
Smith's Lessee v. Hunt, 1713
Smith Paper Co. v. Servin, 133
Smithdeal v. Smith, 203
Smitheal v. Gray, 1639, 1640, 1641, 1700, 1764
Smithers v. Hooper, 76
Smithurst v. Edmunds, 2018
Smithwick v. Ellison, 80, 82, 1263
V. Jordan, 269, 1560
Smoot V. Lecatt, 600, 664
V. Strauss, 2273
Smyles v. Hastings, 2241, 2247
Smyrna B. L. A. v. Worden, 1028
Smyth V. Carlisle, 959
V. Tankersley, 1233, 1234 '
V. Mayor of New York, 96
V. Naugle, 1008
Smythe v. I^orth, 11 14
Snape v. Thourton, 1807
Snavely v. Pickle, 2046, 2176
V. Wagner, 485, 1773
Snedecor v. Freeman, 1425
Snedeker v. Warring, 103, 107, 113, 116, 133,
137- 1923
Sneeld w. Ewing, 757, 758
Sneed v. Atherton, 1990
•V. Hooper, i6g8
Sneider v. Heidelberger, 1510
Snelgrave v. Snelgrave, 942
Suell V. Atlantic Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2331
V. Kirby, 759
V. Young, 287
Snelling v. Utterback, 1648, 1649, 1699, 1701
Snoddy v. Kreutch, 2297
Snodgrass v. Reynolds, 1245
V, Ricketz, 2302, 2305
Snook V. Snook, 949
V. Sutton, 1022
Snow V. Cutler, 1040
•v. Orleans, 2021
V. Parsons, 2225
V. Perkins, 80
V. Stevens, 783
V. Tifft, 829
Snowden v. Craig, 132
». Dunlavey, 1980, 1984
V. McKinney, 1286
^nowdon v. Dales, 253
z<. Pales, 1576
Snowdon v, Wilas, 72
Snowhill V. Snowhill, 1810
Snyder v. Kunkleman, 2273
V. Riley, 1120, 2258, 2259
V. Snyder, 783, 803, 810, 940, 2097
V. Stafford, 21533 2154
V. Vaux, 62
V. Wolfovd, 1643
Sobey v. Brisbee, 997
Society v. Clendinen, 1837
V. Haight, 983
Society for Propagation of the Gospel v. Hart-
land, 297, 1548
V. New Haven, 1554
Sock V. Suba. 1984
Sockett V. Wray, 1836
Soggins 71. Heard, 1643, 1781
Soliier v. Massachusetts General Hospital,
2329, 2333
V. Trinity Church, 31, 39,40, 41, 514, 2333
Solary v. Hewlett, 1443, 1444
Solme v. Bullock, 2197
Solomon v. Congregation B'nai Jeshurun, 39
V. Fitzgerald, 1964, 1965
Soltau V. Soltau, 682, 683
Somers, Den ex d., v. Peirson, 412, 415
V Pumphrey, 986, 987, 2345
Somerset v. Fogwell, 982, 2198
Somes V. Skinner, 2080
Sommers v. Johnson, 1517
Soper V. Guernsey, 2032, 2064
Sorrels v. Self, 2309
Souders v. Van Sickles, 2065
Soulard v. United States, 2, 3
Soule V. Abbe, 2027
V. Barlow, 2297
V. Soule, 465
South V. Thomas, 1723
South Bridge Savings Bank v. Stevens Tool
Co., 106
South Cong. Meeting-House v. Hilton, looi
Soutliall V. Leadbetter, 1102
Southard v. Central R. Co., 1849, 1855, 1861,
1867, 1972
V. Dorriugton, 2089
Southerin v. Mendum, 492, 1998, 2074, 2105,
2107, 21S2
South Sciluate Savings Bank v. Ross, 1754
Southsett V. Stowell, 1569
South-Side Town M. & M. Co. -v. Rhodes,
16S9
Southworth v. Smith, 1922
V. Southworth, 1912
V. Van Pelt, 799
Souverby v. Arden, 1791
South Wales R. Co. v. Wythe, 1083
Southwestern R. Co. v. Thomason, 42
Soutter V. McRea, 1999
Souverbye v. Arden, 2354
Sowers 7'. Vie, 1225
Spaulding t;. Shalmer, 1749
Spangler v. Stauler, 225, 711, 784, 785, 78S, 821,
„ . . |f3, 969, 974
Spachius, Den ex d., v. Spachius, 450, 470
Sparahawk v. Cloon, 253, 273
Sparger?/. Compton, 1513
Sparhawk v. Bagg, 1998, 2064
z'. Broome, 11 14
V. Sparhawk, 1662
Sparkman v. Gove, 2068, 2069
Sparks v. State Bank, 138, 2124, 2126
Sparrow v. Hoven, 2297
V. Kingman, 764, 870
V. Pond, 53
V. Shaw, 422
Spaulding v. Brent, 2349
V. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 568
V. Crane, 1443
V. Hallenbeck. 266
V. Warren, 229S
V. Woodward, 1972, 1973
Speake v. Kinard, 890
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CCVll
Spear v. Cutter, 1152
V. Fuller, 1058, 1143, 1150
V. Fulton, 1138
V. Lowell, 1034
V. Orendorf, 13 16
V, Spear, 1715
Speckles v. Sax, 1084, 1086
Speidel z'.Hetirici, 1782
Speight, Ke, 1664
7>. Gaunt, 1713, 1714, 1720, 1724, 1728
Speiglemeyer v. Crawford, 2136
Speir V. Opier, 1032
Spelman v. Aldrich. 1428
Spence v. Spence, 300, i6o6,'i6g3
z>. Steadman, 1027, 2046,2254
Spencer's Case, 982, 1070, 1071, 1074, 1075, ^o77)
107S, 2250
Spencer v. Austin, 1908
V. Ayrault, 811, 1580
V. Carr, 1016
V. Chase, 370, 373
V. Chick, 412
V. Clarke, 436
V, Geissman, 1304, 1502
V. Godwin, 1624
V. Harford, 2157
V. Kunkle, 983
z'. Lapsley, 2304
V. Lewis, 1360
V. Roper, 523
V. Spencer, 658, 795, 1734
V. Tobey. 1282
V. Waterman, 2085
V, Weston, 867, 875, 930
Spencer, Doe d., v. Clark, 436
Spendolmes v. Bun'itt, loig
Spenesly v. Valentine, 2217
Sperling V. Rockfort, 1373
Sperry v. Pond, 259
V. Sperry, 1061, 1155, 1861, 1862, 1867
Sperry's Lessee v. Pond, 265, 266, 269, 478, 481,
1852
Spessard v. Rohrer, 289
Spicer V. Spicer, 769, 770
Spicer, Doe d.. v. Lea, 1308
Spielmann v. Kliest. 2036
Spies V. Chicago & E. L R. Co., 2019
Spillerb v. SpiUer, 2x51
Spindle v. Shreve, 1747, 1748
Spindler v. Atkinson, 1768, 1771, 1773
Spinning v. Spinning, 837
Splits V. Wells, 1975
Spooner v. Brewster, 33, 60
V. Lovejoy, 302, 305, 308, 335, 341, 346,
348, 1593, 1632, 1684
V. Spooner, 1159
Sprague z'. Barnard, 1684
z'. Duel, 2345
V. Dull, 1034
V. Martin, 2142
zi. Quinn, 1275, 1279, 1297
V. Spargue, 297, 1607
V. Woods, 1537, 153S
Spraker v. Cook, 2249
V. Van Alstyne, 340, 342
Sprange v. Bamhard, 347, 1627, 1632
Sprecker r.-. Wakeley, 1518
Spriggs V. Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 2046, 2048,
2049
Spring V. Hyde Park, 2260
Springer v. Arundel, 329, 336, 1673
V. Berry, 1539, 1647, 1658
V. Phillips, 2262
V. Shields, 730
V. Young, igoo
■Springfield, City of, v. Norris, 2227
Springle v. Shields, 729, 841
Sprin^stein v. Schermerhom, 517
Spruill 71. Moore, 322
Snurgeon v. Collier, 2o.i;i
Spurgin z'. Adamson, 2074, 2 171
Spurr V. Taimble, 522, 523
Squire v. Harder, 1612, 1635, 1700
Squires v. Clark, 1898, 1912
V. Huff, 1254, 1256, 1263, 1303, 1319, 1337
Stacey v. Elph, 1660, 1788
V. Rice, 1602
Stackable v. Stackable's Estate, 1891
Stackbergir v. Mosteller, 997, 1013
Stacky v. Keefe, 1920, ig4J
Stackpole ?'. Arnold, 2047
V. Beaumont, 270, 1848
7'. Curtis, 2246
Stacy V. Vermont Central R. Co., 1292
Stadden v. Hazzard, 999
Staepler v. Knerr, 1945
Stafford, hi re, 1719
V. Buckley, 24, 44, 435, 819
zf. Coyney, 2206
V. Stafford, 2359
7'. Van Rensselaer, 2005, 2125
Stagg V. Eureka Tanning & Currying Co., 1216,
1217
Stahl V. Stahl, 819
Stahle 7'. Spohn, 1217
Stainback v. Geddy, 2073, 2171
Staines v. Morris, 2263, 2265
Stainforth v Fox, looi
Stainsbury v. Matthews, 50
Stall 7/. Cincinnati, 1749
V. Wilbur, 821
Stambaugh 7/. Yeats, 47
Stamford Bank v. Benedict, 2136
Stamper zi. Griffin, 1259
Stamps. Den ex d., v. Irwine, 1231
Stanard v. Eldridge, 2000
Stanberry v. Sillon, 2336
Stancer v. Roe, 1158
Stancliffe v. Hardwick, 1246
Standard Bank v. Stokes, 2233
Stauden v. Chrismas, 112a
V. Standen, 1823
Standish v. Dow, 2148
Stanfield V. Hobson, 2095
St. Andrew's Church's Appeal, 1076
Stanford v. Andrews, 2027
V. Hurlestone, 571
7*. Kempton, 2103
Stanhope v. Suplee, 106
Stanley v. Beatty, 2147, 2148
V. Brunswick Hotel Corp., 998, 1017, 1019,
1043
V. Colt, 257, 1594, 1607, 1705, 1712, 1739,
1752, 1850
V. Gilmer, 1579
V. Greenwood, 1379, 1387, 1395, 143 1,
1445
V. Leonard, 300
V. Stanley, ig, 315
V. Stocks, 2155, 2181
z'.Towgood, logS
7'. Valentine, 2134
Stansbury, Jackson ex. d., v. Farmer, 1356
Stansell v. Roberts, 1492, 2121
Stansfield v. Habergbam, 231, 1572, 1638
V. Mayor of Portsmouth, 1158
Stanton v. Hall, 1372, 1677
V. King, 1578
V. Lewis, 2
Stantons v. Thompson, 8ro, 2096, 2098, 2130
Stanwood v. Clampitt, 2177
V. Dunning, 765
V. Stanwood, 647
Staple V. Heyden, 2222
Staples, Ex parte, 492
z>. Anderson, mo, ri68, 1200
V. Brown, 635, 638, 650
V. Emery, 79, 106
Stapley zf. Cowan, 2306
Starbird v. Barrens, 1247
Starin 7'. Mayor of New York, 1029
Stark V. Barnett, 1967
V, Cheatham, 2083
V. Hunton, gi6,934
CCVUl
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to ijages.
Stark V. McGown,2325
V. Mercer, 2158,2165
V. Stark, 2288
Starke z/ Etheridge, 2060
V. Harrison, 1364
v. Starke, 1782
Starkeweather v. Martin, 2363
Starks v Traydor 223
Starling v. Blair, 2024
V. Parker. 42
Starr z*. Ellis, 811, 2og6
V. Jackson, 1252
V. Moulton, 1739
V. Pease, 632, 663, 769, 893
V. Peck, 751
Starry v. Starry, 862
State z/. Atherton, 2206
V. Atwood, 671
V. Auditor, 671
V Bank of Maryland, 1554, 2342
V. V. Batesm,225
V. Beakmo, 215, 216
V, Bonham,9c), 125
V. Boston, C. & M. R. Co., 215, 216, 224
V. Brown, 2136
V. Burwell, 1237
V. Canatoo National Intelligencer, 87
V. Carver, 2206
V. Cincinnati, 1754
■V. Collector of Bordentown, 1456
V. Crowell, 233
V. Curtis, 1287, 1288
V. Danieils, 1456
V. Diveling, 1422, 1424
v. Davis, 2068
V. Dawson, 2325
V. Doherty, 2324
V. Elliott, 115, 145, 1268
V. Ferguson, 671
V. Finn, 1397
V Foy, 1247
V. Franklin Falls Co., 2325
V. Fry, 893
V. Geddis, 1524
V. Glen, 6g
V. Goodwill, 5
V. Graton, 2335
V. Green, 2243
V. Guilford, 1732, 1734
V. Harden, 2203
V. Hayes, 1288
f. Heron, 2336
V. Hodgskin, 597
V. Horn, 2243
V. Huntly, 706
V. Jewell, 1234
V. Johnson, 878
V. Jones, 1237
V. Killian, 220
V, Lash, 1515
V. Lawson, 2083
V. Martin, 2262, 2263, 2264
V. McCauley, 1036, 2263
V. McKay, 1766
V. McM. & M. R, Co., 1036
V. McMinnville, 1268
V. McReynolds, 2192
V. Meagher, 1713, i7i4t 1724, 172S
V. Metz, 976
V. Moore, 706, 1350
V. Murphy, 594, 596, 751
V. Nanert, 2061
V. Newark, 2332
V. North Carolina, R. & D. R. Co., 1019
V. Noyes, 4
V. Page, gSi, 990, loio, 1048
V. Patterson, 752
V. Peck, 501
V. Poor, 50
V. Pottemeyer, 68, 70,71, 72
V. Preble, 221
v. Romer, 1514
State V. Rood, 595, $^-j, 752
V. Rose, 2272
V. Samuel, 595, 752
V. Simons, 2324
V. Slater, 1399
V. Smith, 2ig
V. Spencer, 1399, 1452
V. Staten, 2324
V. Stewart, 1309
V. Sutcliffe, 706
71. Sutton, 1036
V. Tachanatah, 595
V. Titus, 2155
V. Traphagen, 498
V. Trask, 1568
V. Trinity Church, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35
V. Warren, 1659
V. Winkley, 596
V. Whaley, 596
V. Wheeler, 198
V. White, 597
V. Whitener, 976
V. Williams, 596
V, Wilson, 596
V. Wincroft, 725
V. Worthington, 596
V. Yopp, 5, 199
State Bank v. Cox, 1746
V, Hinton, 926, 928
V. McCoy, 1033
V. Smith, 1599
State Bank of Elizabeth v. Ayers, 2071
State of Georgia w. Canatoo National Intelli-
gencer, 86
State Savings Bank w. Kircheval, 132, 133
V. Kirchenall, 2080
State ex rel. Barton County v. Kansas City, F.
& G. R. Co., 233, 522, 523
State ex rel, Spencer v. Moore, 522, 523
State Treasurer z'. SummerviUe & E. R. Co.,
98
Stauffer v. Morgan, 1947
V. Eaton, 1291
Stayton v. Morris, 2250
St. Clair v. Morris, 782, 925, 928
V. Williams, 860, 966, 1072, 1115
Steacy v. Rice, 1561, 1597, 1655, 1694, 1695, 1711
Stead V. Nelson, 1035, 1562, 2012
V, Newdigate, 76
V. Piatt, 1360
Steadman v. Gassett, 1354
V. Pulling, 678
Steams v. Earnett, 2349
V. Godfrey, 1144
V- Harris, 1861
V, James, 2242
V. Palmer, 290, 1796
V. Quincy Mut. Ins. Co., 2118
V. Sampson, 1355, 1356
V. Swift, 822, 841, 844, 901
Stears v. Hollenbeck, 2091
Stebbins v. Hall, 2068, 2150
V. Peeler, 1503
V, Watson, 2060
Stedman v. Korlune, 717, 835
V. Gassett, 1319, 1350
V. Mcintosh, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1256, 1257,
1271, 1299, 1307, 1310, 1313, 1315, 1319,
1324, 1334, 1335, 1337, 1342
Steed V. Hinson, 2250
z/. Preece, 95
Steedman v. Weeks, 1982
Steel V. Cook, 407, 433
V. Frick, looi, 1234, 1237
V. Galleatly, 930
V. La Framboise, 8rg
V. Sioux Valley Bank, 910
V. Steel, 1371, 1998, 2037, 2040, 2042, 2043
Steele, In re, 506
Steele, Matter of, 541
Steele v. Babcock, 1708
V. Boone, 2125
References are
to pages.
l-ABLE OF CASES.
CCIX
Steele v. Carroll, 7S1, 7S1
V. Fabre, 46
e>. Johnson, 2299
V. Lowry, 1610
c. Marks, 2353
c. Magee> 893
w. Mill*, 2254.
e/. Taylor, 2305
0. Thompson, 302, 309, 35s
Steen v. Wardsworth, 1219
Steeple -a. Downing, 2336
Steere ■?. Childs, 2153, 2154
p. Steers, 1590, 1592, i6i2> 1635^ 1655,
1690, 1691, 1696, 1700, 1701
Steers z». City of Brooklyn, 2294
Stees V. Kran/,, 1 15S
Sleffens v, Karl, 1*71, 1327, 1329, 1330, 13^3^
'335. i337> »339> »340
Steffy c. Carpenter, S2i6
ff. Steffy, SS2. 990
Stegallw. StegaU> 773, 887J 894, ^921
Steifel V. Mitz, 2268
Sieigerjf. Hillan, 875
Stein z: Burden^ 2292
c. Jones, 2263, 2264.
E/. Hanck, 2223
Steinbach v. Relief F, Ins. Co*, &330
Steinhausef 3. Kuhn, 1144
Steininger -p. Williams, 997, 2273
Steinle v. Bell, 2158
Steinman v. Ewing, 1375, 1376
Steinway v. Steinway> 1586
Stell's Appeal, 1732
Stetz V, Shreck. 1952, 1954
Stemple v. Hentiinghouser^ 216, 774
Stephen's Appeal, 2005
Stephen v. Beald, 1775
V. Beall, 2150
Stephens -p. Bridges, 1165
e*. Cornell, 2070
w. Gibbes, 947
•V. Hume, 603, 605, 612
v. James, 1677
V. Martin, 199
z>. Reynolds, 1004.
<v. Sherrod. 766
z'. Smith, 760
V. Stephens, 918, 944
z'. Westwood, 1Q7
Stephenson's Trusts, l7i re, 271
Stephenson v> Haines, 2266
V'. Hancock, 2259
f. Osborne, 1510
7/. Thompson, 1646
Sterlien v. Daley, 2365
Sterling v. Baldwin, 54, 56, 2020
J'. Penlington, 607, 191 1
V. Warden, 1351, 1356. 2212
Stem z^. Florence Sewing Machine Co., 11 17,
2264
Sterne, Ex parte, 490
Stemfels v. Clark, 1247
Sterrett v. Wright, 2260
Sterricker v. Dickinson, 1617
Sterry v. Arden, 959, 1962
Stetson z'. Day, 740, 744
V. Gulliver, 2041, 2364
V. Kempton, 37
u. Massachusetts Ins. Co., 2080
V. Massachusetts Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2357
%'. Patten, 1041
Stevens v. Bridger, 1165
V. Brown, 1999
V. Buffalo & N. Y. C. R. Co., 98
V. Buffalo & N. R. Co., 113
V. Campbell, 250
V. Cooper, 2072, 2076, 2176, 2181, 2184
■V. Dedham Institution, 2176
V. Dewing, 285, 1005
V. Doe, 2346
V. Dufour, 2157
V. Enders, 706, 1982
14
Stevens \t. GAge, 1725, 1728
v. Hampton, 2123, 2364, 2366
c. Hollingisworth, 1434
V. HolUster, 2298
w. Hunt, 729
«/. Kelley, 7i
7'. Mayor^ 2357
7J-. McNamai-a, 522, 523
c. Nashua, 2206
w. Owens, 777, 807, 833, 900, 901, 9*1
w. Paterson & N. R. Co., ^o
■v. Reed, 868
c. Smith, 598, 6t 1, 748, 749, 759, 761, 766,
779> 78i> 797> 52o,«2i,«27,S3i, ^^32,
940
riK Stevens, 537, 739, 740, 778, 844. 847,
848^ 953. 9657 *074. 3492^ J640, 1G47,
2212, 2213
T'.Sieverts"' Heirs, 81^
7'. Thompson, 65, 1893
IT'. Watsoft, '2124
^. WinslMp,^i7,5iS,3J9, 456, 743
z>. Win*lop, 536
w. Winthrop^ 3^^
Stevens, Jackson "e^ ^.>^. Silvernail, 1104, 1113
Steven'son 'fr, Oofferfn, 1:901, 1928
?/, Dunlap'^s Heirs, 236
W-. Gray. 75:;, 754
c. Leslie, 1741
n). Lombard, ro72, i[073, tiij, 1^74, 2262
7/. Wallace, ■223t. 2240
Stevenson^s 'Heirs?'. McReary, 517
Stewart C'. Apel, ■996^ "344» 1300, 1301, 1321,
1322
?'. Appeal, n^So
rv-, Barclay^ 609, 611, 692, 700, 703
c. Bavow, 359, 263
IK Barrow, 1997, 1998, 2076, 2077, 2079
?), Beard, 927
^K Brady, 259, 263, 1S5S
v. Brand, 1457, 1459
f. Brown, 1399, 1514
z'. Caldwell, 2009
V. Chadwick, 88, 1577, 1622, 1741, 1753
7'. Clark, 497, 501, 531, 2266
J'. Crosby, 20S5, 2128, 2132
V. Doughty, 47, 48,49. 51. 52. 53-498,537.
538, 540, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1234, 123S,
1239
7'. Fitch, 2270, 2271
z>. Hall, 1794
V. Hartman, 2220, 2327
zj. Hutchings, 2040
■V. Jones, 2288
zi. Kenower, 424
11. Long Island R. Co., 1122, 1123, 2262
•V. Mackey, 1450, 1458, 1460, 146S, M^J^'i
1475, 147S, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1495
V. Martin, 733, 734, S38, 942, 944
z). Meilish, 1615
V, Pearson, 841
V. Pettus, 16&3, 1730, 1SS5
V. Putnam, 1201, 1202
V. Reditt, 2353
V. Roderick, 1220
"v. Rogers, 1625, 1626
V. Ross, 587, 589, 592, 593, 606, 652, 653,
658, 668, 670, 672, 688
V. Sanderson, 1719
V. Smiley, 2257
•v. State, 1758
ZK Stewart, G54, 7597795.914.917.918,955
zi. Stokes, 1737
V. Walker, 344
V, Winters,268, 1103, 1104, 1107, 1184,
1 185
z}. Wood, 2009
Stewart, Den d., v. Johnson. 915
Stewart, Jackson ex d., zj. Kingsley, 12S3
Stewart's Lessee v. Stewart, 794, 913
St. Felix t/. Rankin, 7892
St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping, 2240
ccx
TABLE OF CASES.
References arc
to pages.
Sticklehorn 7/. Hatchman, 563
Stidman v. Mathews, 896, 903, 1777
Stierlin v. Daly, 2335
Stiger V. Mahone, 2166
Siiles V. Japhet, 1948
V. Looney, 2056, 2059
V. West, 756
Still v. Spear, 273
Stilley V. Folgev, Sg8, 947, 957
Stillman v. Flenniken, 107
V. White River Mfg. Co., 2226
Stillson v. Stillson, 719
Stillwell V. Doughty, 505
V. Pease, 1666
Stilphen 7/. Houdlette, 771, 919
Stimmel v. Waters, 2263
Slimpson v. Battermaii, 1969
V. Bishop, 2107
V. Fnes, 1795
V. Tliomaston, 764
Stinchfield v. Milliken, 20S9
Stine V. Wilkson, 1755
Stinebaugh v. Wisdom, 599, 601, 603, 610
Stiner t/. Cawthorn, S50
Stines v. Dorman, 259, 267, 269
Stinson v. Dousman, 1292
V. Richardson, 1421, 1422
V. Roas, 2064
V. Ross, 2063
V. Sumner, 745, 792, 793, 905, 906, 927
.Stoakes v. Barrett, 87
•Stoate V. Stoate, 661
'^ockand z>. Bartlett, 1949
Stockard v. Stockerd's Admr., 1600, 1601, 1613,
1791- 1795
Stockbridge z>. Stockbridge, 1608
Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Cone Iron Works, 1139,
* J14Z
V. Hudson Iron Co., 283
Stockett V. Holliday, 647
Stockport Water Works Co. v. Potter, 2227
Stocks V. Booth, 30, 33 '
Stockton V. Dundee Manfg. Co., 2156
v Ford, 1585
V. Martin, 433, 437
Stockwell r/. Campbell, 103, no, 113, 120, 126,
135' 136
v.. Couillard, 283
2/. Hunter,, 20, 64, 66, 507, 1015, 1176, iiSo
V. Marks, 115, 145, 1310, 1315, 1334, 1336
V. National Bank of Malone, 1438
V. Phelps, 47
V. Sargeant, 724, 725, 738
Stoddard v. Gibbes, 601, 609, 611,692, 693, 703
V. Hart, 2003, 2030, 2331, 2129
Stoddart v. Cutcompt, 923
Stoddert v. Newman, 2260
Stoever v. Stoever, 308, 2037, 2039, 2164
Stoffel V. Schroeder, 2322
Stokee v. Singers, 2224
Stokes V. Cooper, 1173
V. Dawes, 236
V. Detrick, 76
V. Henshiger, 2247
V. McAllister, 838
V. McKibbin, 611, 653, 654, 655, 656, 677,
680, 6Sg, 6gg, 1216, 1372
V. Moore, 998, 1017, 1044
V. O' Fallon, 750, 775, 889, 927
7>. Payne, 1832
V. Solomans, 2170
V. Upton, 123
Stokoe V. Lingers, 2245
Stomfil V. Hicker, 1300, 1314
Stone V. Bishop, 1707
V. Bohn, 2272
V. Che.shire, 1194
V. Dar»ell, 1442, 1497
V. Ellis, 1870, 1871
V. Gazzam, 647
V. Godfrey, 2074, 2170
z/. Griffin, 1599
Stone V. Hackett, 1594, 1791, 1792
V. King, 1598, 1787, 1789, 1790, 1791
V. X/ane, 2140
V. McMuilin, 418, 420
V. Newman, 386
V. Patterson, 2250, 2258
V. Proctor, 78, 79, 135
V. Sprague, 1282
V. Stone, 795
V. Theed, 519, 1832
7f. Wait, 970
Stonehewer v. Thompson, 2073, 2136, 2171
Stoner's Appeal, 328
Stonestreet v. Doyle, 1684
Stoney z/. Schultz, 2155, 2180
Stookey v. Carter, 1923
V. Stookey, 841
Stoolfoos V. Jenkins, 604, 612, 614
Stoops V. Devlin, 1218, 1315, 1316
Stoppanios v. Richards,. 2264
Stopplebein v. Schulte, 726, 784
Stopplekamp z/. Mangeot, 1300, 1327, 1328,
1329, 1330, 1331, 1334, 1340, 1343
Storerz/. Batson, 673, 1538
V. Freeman, 99
V. Hunter, 49, 125
V. Steiner, 1148
Storm V. Manchang Co., 72
V. Mann, 571, 574
Storms z*. Storms, 2030
Story V. Marshall, 77S, 1947, 1949
V. Odin, 2223
z/. Saunders, igo8, 1913
Stose V. Heissler, 2260
Stott V. Rutherford, 1081
Stoughton z/. Leigh, 88, Sg, 561, 692, 703, 710,
742, 77S, 779, 790,801, 811,814,853,
860, 861
V. Pasco, 2029, 2030, 2032
Stout V. Curry, 1906
V. Folger, 2025, 2026
V. Kean, 1120, 2250
7/. Keyes, 118, 458, 706
V. Merrill, 1172
Stoutenburgh, Jackson ex d., v. Murray, 518
Stoutz 7/. Rouse, 2168
Stouvenal v. Stephens,
Stovall zf. Austin, 678
V. Barnett, 2359
Stovell V. Bennett, 2350
Stover V. Bounds, 2170
V. Cadwaller, 1013, 1305
V. Cory, 1890
V. Eycleshimer, 2017
V. Herrington, 1625
Stow V. Steel, 781, 782, 799
V. Tifft, 765, 766, 805, 818, 829, 830, 1492,
. 2358
Stowe V. Bowen, 1732
Stowell's Case, 773
St. Paul's Church v. Ford, 31, 32
Straat v. Uhrig, 1637
Strachn z/. Force, 1412, 1413
V. Foss, 1522
Strafford v. Wentworth, 497
Strahan z>. Smith, 1318, 1326
Strang v. Allen, 2174
Stratford v. Twynam, 1770
Strathmore v. Bowes, 659, 794
Stratton 7>. Gold, 2007
V. Rogers, 645
z/. Staples, 1202
Strauss' Appeal, 2004
Strawbridge v. Cartledge, 2349
Strawn Exrs. v. Slrawn's Heirs, 736, 867, 875
Strawns v. Strawn, 1397
Streaper v. Fisher, 1071, 2216
Street v. Beal, 2 171
V. Bell, 2074
V. Sanders, 723, 724, 789, 846
Streeter v. Streeter, 1080
Streubel v. Milwaukee & M. R. Co., 1518
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CCXl
Stribling V. Ross, 88$
Strieker T*. Mott, 1980, 1984
Strickland v. Aldridge, 1701, 1738
V. Hudson, 1023
V. Parker, 96, 137, 142
Strickland, Doe d., v Spence, 1333, 1337
Strickler v. Todd, 2242, 2292
If. Tracey, 853
Strikers. Kelly, 1515
■D. Mott, 299, 1607
Strimpfler v. Roberts. 517, 1552, 1576, 1638, 1639,
1641, 1648, 1653, 1654. 1700
Stringer 7/. Young, 2304
Striplin v. Cooper, 1485
Strode v. Russell, 2084
V. Swim, 47
Stroebe v. Fehl. 1364, 1366, 1369, 1370
Strong T*. Blanchard, 2184
V. Bragg. 717, 733, 735, 736, 739
2-. Clem, 651, 670, 711, 733, 734, 736, 839,
8c)3
V. Colter, 1904
z/. Converae, 728, 806, 808, Sog, 873, 925,
928, 2068, 2069, 2134
w. Crosby, 1321, 1323
7). Dennis, 722
7*. Doyle, 78, 79, 81, 143
V. Gregory, 1825
V. Jackson, 2108, 2111
V. Manfs. Ins. Co., 2089,2113, 2114, 2115,
2117
V, Skinner, 990
•u. Smith, 2364
7/. Stewart, 2045, 2048
V. Waterman, 196
Stronghill v. Auterey, 1S32
Stroiher v. Butler, igog
z/. Law, 1670,2147
Stroud, In re, 1266
Stroud V. Morrow, 319
Stryker-z*. Lynch, 1979, 19S0, 1981
Stuart v. Beard, 891
V. Bute, 134
V. Kissam, 1371
7/. Palmer, 2324
•V. Phelps, 2060
7*. Walker, 344, 534
V. Worden, 2166
Stubbings v. Village of Evanston, 1171
Stubbs V, Kahn, 2363
V. Sargon, 1638
Stuck V. Mackey, 75
Stuckeyj'. Keef*s Exrs., 1887, 1939
V. Keefe, 1931, 1933
Studdard 7/. Lemmond, 2302
Studebacker Bros. Mfg. Co. v McCar-jur, 2107
Stukely v. Butler, 55, 249, 499
Stults V, Sale, 1403, 1405
Stultz V. Dickey, 1208
Stump V. Findlay, 461, 515, 516, 1142
V. Henry, 517, 1751
Stuphen v Leebas, 11 10
Sturges V. Crowninshield, 1512
V. Knapp, 1574
Sturgis V, Corp, 1562
v. Ewing, 711
■V. Holiday, 1900
V, Hull, 671
7/. Morse, 1784
77, Paine, 1824
V. Warren, 108
Sturm v. Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co., 631
Sturtevant v. Jaques, 1637
V. Norris, 721
V. Sturtevant, 1576, 1590. '7oi
Stuyvesant v. Davis, 1138
7/- Hall, 2027, 2113. 2120, 2153, 2154, 2184
V, Mayor, 1856, 1972
V. Mayor of N. Y., 1862, 1864
7/. Woodruff, 2215, 2242, 2244
Styers v, Robins, 2331
Style V. Rector, 997, 1039, 1733
Styles 71, Wardle, 2256
Suarez v. Pumpelly, 1587, 1662
Succession of Christie, 1397, 1407, 1410
Succession v. Navarro, 770
Suffem V. Butler, 2352
V. Townsend, 1256, 12S2
Suffern, Jackson ex d., -v. McConnell, 1024
Suffolk Ins. Co. %>. Boyden, 2 118
Sugg V. Tillman, 2023
Suggate V. Suggate, 1475
Suiter v. Turner, 2366
Sailings v. Richmond, 897, 958, 960, 964
V. SuUings, 964
Sullivan v. Bishop, 2252
V Burnett, 216
V. Carberry, 115, 145, 147, 1253
V. Cary, 1300, 1307, 1315, 1316, 1322, 1336
V. Enders, 1256, 1261, 1337
z*. Hendrickson, 1499, 1504, 1518
7'. Jones, 142, 1313
■V. La Crosse, 1514
V. McLenans, 778, 1638, 1640, 1642, 1646,
logo
V. Sullivan, 1983
z'. Toole, 2021
Sully V. Nebergail, 930
V. Schmidt, ijg6
Sulphine v. Dunbar, 2302
Sulzbaclier 7'. Dickie, 1193
Summer 7/. Waugh, 2153
Summerlin v. Livingston, 883 '
Summers 7/. Eabb, 710, 713, 718, 731.733. 734.
735. 737. 739. 741. 790. 79«. 792. 793.
822, 838, S41, 842, 844, 891, gi4
7". Brownley, 2158
V. Cook, 54
7/. Dame, 830
V. Daniel], 1864
V. Donnell, 855, 85S
7/. Pumphrey, 1032
7/. Roos, 2030
Summersworth Savings Bank 7*. Roberts, 2027,
2028, 2029
Sumner 7/. Bromilow, 1158
z/. Coleman, 2151
V. Hampson, 787, 824, 1671
V. Partridge, 675, 696, 697
7'. Stevens, 2303
V. Williams, 449, igSg, 2361, 2362
Sumney v. Patton, 786
Sumwalt V. Tucker, 1998, 2077
Sunday v. Boon, 282
Sunderland v. Sunderland, 1642, 1647
Supervisors, etc., v. Patterson, 1S56
Surget V. Byer, 1757
Surplice v. Famsworth, 1065, 1201
Surrogate, Re, of Cayuga County, 1824
Sury V. Brown, 982, 983, 2250
Sussex V. Roth, 1040
Sussex Co. Mut. Ins. Co. «/. Woodruff, 2118 '
Suterw. Hillaird, 1686
Sutheriand v. Brush, 1888
v. Carter, 1234, 1246
7'. De Leon, 1517
7'. Ooodnow, 1053
7'. Sutherland, 765, 2330
Sutliff 7/. Atwood, 984, iioo, 2249, 2257, 2262,
2263, 2264
<... Forgey, 713, 731, 733. 734.736. 739) 74'.
767. 774, 1929
Sutphen v. Cushman, 2045, 2047
7'. Seebass, 1054
■v. Elis, 2102
Sutter 7/. First Dutch Reformed Church, 34
7'. San Francisco, 1925, 1978
Sutton V. Aiken, 1563, 1654
V. Askew, 711, 721, 727
I'. Uurrows, 719, 847
V. Calhoun, 2335
V. Jervis, 791, 799, 800
V. Mandeville, 2270
V. Mason, iggg, 2078
ccxu
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Sutton V. Miles, 472
V. Robertson, 338
V. Rolfe, 7S5, igii .
V. Stone, 214s, 2147, 2157
V. Sutton, 1759
V. Temple, 1055, 1200
v. Warren, 753, 754
Sutton, Doe d., v. Harvey, 1040
Sutton Parish v. Cole, 224, 1541, 1555
Suydam v. Barber, 920
•V. Bartle, 2082
V. Jackson, 1176
V. Jooes, 1074
V. Moore, 1195
V. Williamson, 15 16
Swabey v. Palmer, 1195
V. Swabey, 2098
SwafEord v. Ferguson, 2343
V. Whipple, 2349
Swaine v. Kennerlay, 2281
V. Ferine, 510, 519, 727, 746, 783, 792, 794
795, 796, 802, 814, 840, 866, 867, 880,
892,900,912, 913, 915, Q18, 927,929,
932, 952, 953, 955, 963, 2182
Swaineburn z<. Milburn, 1009
Swallow V. Swallow, 1904, 1906
Swan V. Clark, 995, loio, 1319, 2259
V. Patterson, 2177
V. Swan, 1892
V. Yapple, 2103, 2109
Swann v. Wilson, 1220
Swanner z/, Swanner, 2254, 2255
Swansborough v. Coventry, 2223
Swart V. Service, 2045, 2047
Swartwout, Jackson ex d,, v. Johnson, 489, 513,
517- 589, 590. 592. 593> 598, 602, 603,
604,605,607,608, 612, 6t4, 621, 622,
623, 624, 629, 630, 692
Swartz V. Ballon, 2340
V. Leist, 2147
V. Page, 2192
Swazey v. American Bible Soc, 1687
V. Little, 2270
Swearinger, In re, 1424, 1426
Sweat V. Hall, 647, 2348
Sweeney v. Garrett, 1062
V. Mallory, 923, 924
Sweet V. Dutton, 291, 1675
V. Gloversville, 1193
V. Jacocks, r6i7, 1618, 1619, 1643, 1644,
1738. 1771
V. Parker, 2045, 2048
Sweetapple v. Bindon, 598, 609, 6ti, 679, 695
Sweetland v. Sweetland, 2038
Sweetzer z/. Jones, 96, 133, 138, 2069
V. J^^owell, 1028
Sweezey v, Thayer, 2164
V. WilHs, 363
Swenson v. Moltine Plow Co., 2148
Sweny v. Meany, 1978
Swetland v. Swetland, 2045, 2052
Swett V. Horn, 2131
V. Patrick, igo8
V. Sherman, 808, 809, 2178
Swezay v. Shady, 924
Swift V. Dean, 1149
V. Dewey, 1474. 1490
V. Kdson, 2142, 2149
•V. Goodrich, 983
•u. Kraemer, 1497
V. Kromer, 2134
V. Moseley, 984
V. Mutual Ins. Co., 1668,2113, 2"7
V. Thompson, 105, 108, no, 112. 114, 116,
1 186
V. Tyson, 1516
Swigert v. Bank of Kentucky, 2164
Swinburne v. Swinburne, 1621, 1622, 1760
Swinfen v. Swinfen, 2098
Swinnock v. Lyford, 2172
Swisher v. Swisher, 2349
Switzer v. Skiles, 1617, 1738
Sword V. Low, 116,1085, '^39) 1198
Sybum v. Slade, 1149
Sykes v. Sykes, 7S6, 816, 825, 886, 974, 975
Sylvester v. Downer, 1702
V. Ralston, 1276
Sym's Case, 1024
Syme v. Sanders, 1219
Symington v. Symingtpn, 1464
Symouds v. Hall, 1230, 1234, 1236
V. Harris, 138
Symondson v. Tweed, 1087
Sympson v. Turner, 1553
Syms V. Mayor, 1009
Symson v. Turner, 299, 1583
Syndorw. Syndor, 414
Sypher v. McHenry, 1766
Syracuse City Bank v. Davis, 67 1
V. Tallman, 1027, 2065, 2066
Syracuse Savings Bank y, Holden, rSoS
V. Porter, x8o8, 1809
Tabb V. Baird, 15S4
Tabele v. Tabele, 8r8, 926
Tabeville z*. Ryan, 1029
Tabler Z'. Wiseman, 702, 1975, 1980, igSr, 1982
Tabor z*. Bradley, 2211
V. Robinson, 104, 120, 137
Tadlock v. Eccles, 1408, 1413, 1414, 1472, i486,
1523
Taffe V. Harteau, 1075
V. Wamick, 105, loS
Taft V. Kessel. 2009
V. Stevens, 2085, 2102, 2103
V. Taft, 1592
Taggard v. Rosevelt, 1013, 1319, 1321, 1323
Taggart's Appeal, 885
Taggart v. Murray, 337
Tainter f. Clark, 1599, 1663, 17S7, 17S8, 1S32,
1833, 1835, 1841, 1842, 1844
Taintor v. Cole, 1026, 1924, 1925
Tait V. Hannum, 2071
Takeway v. Barrett, 21 r, 212
Talamo v. Spitzmiller, 1323
Talbot 2/ . Braddil, 201:0
V. BradhiU, 2051
V. Miller, 723, 724, 846, 1206
V. Whipple, 130, 146, 1 161, 11S7
7>. Wilkins, 2t77
Talbott V. Armstrong, 722
V. Grace, 2243
V. Todd, 1574
Talbott's Exrs. v. Bell's Heirs, 1759, 1764, 1777
Taliaferro v. Barnewall, 780
V. Burwell, 619, 690
V. Gay, 2063, 2162
Talley v. Alexander, 1192
V. Giles, 1091
Tanin2:er 7/. Mandeville, 647, 896, 897
Tallmadge v. Sill, 180S, 1820, 1825
V. The East River Bank, 268
Tallman J/. Coffin, 1071, 1078
V, Ely, 2000, 2156
V. Snow, r86o, r866, 1867
V. Wood, i6og, 1694
Tally V. Redd, 1751
Talmo V. Spitzmiller, 12S4
Talson v. Gamer, 1032
T..itarum's Case, 400
Tamm zi. Kelogg, 493
Tamworth v. Ferrers, 544
Taner v. I vie, 1667
Tanguay v. Felthousen, 206S
Tanner v. Fowler, 266
V. Hicks, 2007
w. Hills, 1234, 1909
V. Livingston, 333,343
V. Morse, 307
V. Niles, 1985
V. Skinner, 1587
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CCXIU
Tanner v. Volentine, 2212
V. Wise, 30S, 311
Tantlingerw. Sullivan, 11S4, 1233, 1234
Tapley v. Smith, 123
Tapner v. Meriott, 1564
Tappan's Appeal, 501
Tarbell -v. Tarbell, 897, 964
V. West, iq62
Tardy w. Williams, 1017
Tarletou v. Goldthwaite's Heirs, 1781
Taipley -v. Gunnaway, 801
■V. Hamer, 1518
Tarpy v. Persing, 2272
Tarrant v. Swain, 1421, 1425
Tate V. Blackburn, 1187, 1224
1*. Crowson, 1060, 1139, '^54
V McClure, 1140
V. McCormick, 2262, 2265
V. Stoolfoos, go4
V. StooUtzfoos, 671, 2332
». Tally, 416
V. Tate, 727, 794, gi2, 914
Tatem v. Chaplin, 1076
Tatom V. McLellan, 305, 497, 1773, 1776
Tator V. Tator, 322, 323
Tatro r'. Tatro, 919
Tattersall v. Howell, 1S50
Tatum V. Hunter, 1624
V. Thompson, 1192
V. Young, 2366
Taul V. Campbell, 227, 1919, 1920, 1930, 1931,
1932. 19331 1940, 1942, 1951
Taunton v. Costar, 1347
zi. Taylor, 4
Tavemer's Case, 1178
Tawney v. Crowther, 10S7
Tayleur u. Wildin, 1307
Tayloe v. Gould, 59S, 600, 608, 692, 694, 703
Taylor, Matter of, 752
Taylor, Re, 596
Taylor v. Adams, 1028, 2152
V. Agricultural Assoc, 2100
V. Atlantic R. Co., 2031
z*. Baldwin, 1892, 1893
•V. Beebe, 982, 1029
V, Benham, 218, 1585, 1636,1664, 1756
V. Birmingham, 939
V. Blake, 1984
V. Boulware, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1403, 1404,
1454, 1457, 1495
V. Boyd, 1662
2/. Bradley, 223, 1229, 1235, 1245
V. Brodrick, 841, 844, 876
V. Buckner, 517
V. Bumsidcs. 2296
V. Carondelet, 1029
V. Carryl, 1516
V. Chary, 532
V. Collins, 117
7). Cornelius, 2030
•V. Cox, 1882
z/. De Bus, 977, 1249, 2263, 2264
V. Dickinson, 1731
V. Duesterberg, 1431
7}. Dulwich Hospital, 1037
V. Eubanks, 1625
V. Fields, 1958
V. Fowler, 782, 891, 926, 92S
V. George, 1629, 1630
V. Glazer, 501
V. Hampton, 2243* 2244, 2247, 2303
V. Hargous, 1378, 1386, 1406, 1407, 1442,
1448, 1451, 1460, 1461,1463, 1466, 1495
V. Harwell, 501
•V. Haygarth, 1638
V. Heideron, 1071
7'. Henry, 1587, 1594
V. Hepper, 2362
V. Heriot, 1625
v. Hopkins, 2159
v. Horde, 207, 209, 210, 398, 399, 459
V. Hotchkiss, 2122
Taylor v. Inhabitants of Plymouth, 4
V. Kearn, 781
V. King, 17C6, 1757
V. Langford, 314
p. Luther, 2046, 2048, 2049
V. Mason, 249,265, 1S57, 1863
V. Maule, 1159
V. Mayo, 1747
V. McClain, 2175
V. McCracken, 731, 783, 838, 940
V. Meads, 1807
z/. Millard, 2218, 2240
V. Moore, 934
V. Mosely, 1760
V. Needham, 1073
V, Owen, 1076
V. Patrick, 1033
■V. Perkins, 1925
7'. Plumer, 1760, 1761
V. Porter, 197, 2074, 2170, 2323,2324, 2325,
2327
■V. Preston, 1063, 2069, 2362
V. Pugh, 653, 794, 795
z*. Rhyne, 1502, 1519
V. Salom, 1644
7'. Sample, 722, 723
V. Sangrain, 2300
V. Short, 2183
7>. Shum, 1074, 2265
V. Smith, 616, 620, 629, 634, 679
V. Spader, 1047
V. Stearns, 15 12
V. Stibbert, 1009, 1765
V. Sutton, 1848, 185s, 1857, 1859, i860,
1867, 1872
V. Sweet, 757, 758
V. Taylor, 402, 4r8, 422^ 423, 461, 888,
974. 975. 1517. 22O7
V. Thomas, 2126
V. Townsend, 2067
7f. Wamaky, 2217
V. Weld, 2040, 2042, 2049
7'. Whitehead, 1:53, 2208
V. Whitmore, 2069, 2072
7/. Zamira, iioi
Tazewell r-. Smith, 75, 76
Teacle's, Re, 657
Teaff p. Hewitt, 103, log, no, in, 112, 113,
114, n6, 118,133, i3S»>3S, 144
Teague v. Downs, 664
Tealz*. Auty, 53, 54
7'. Walker, 2066
Teasdale v. Reaborne, 1625
Tedford v. Wilson, 2018
Teed v. Caruthers, 200S
TefEt V. Munson, 2091, 2121
V. Tefft, 755
Telfair 17. Howe, 1888
Telford v. Frost, ii6i
Tellman v. Spann, 760
Tempest v. Rawling, 993
Temple v. Scott, 1515
Templemau v. Biddle, 1209
V. Gresham, 2272
Templeton v. Twitty, 593, 598, 6n, 616, 619
Tenant 7/. Goldwin, 64, 507, 1891
Ten Eyck v. Caspard, 2087
v. Creig, 2080, 2086,2155
Ten Eyck, Jackson ex d., v. Richards, 488, 1016
Tennant v. Stoney. 818, 924, 1794
Tennent 7'. Pattons, 2333
V. Tennent, 1693
Tennessee v. Sneed, 151S
Tenney v. East Warren Lumber Co., 2013
Tenney d. Gibbs v. Moody, 1594, 1605
Tenney d. Whinnett %>. John, 1743
Tenny v. Agar, 322
V. Moody, 299, 300, 1712
Terhune v. Oldis, 2033
Term v. Smart, 1141
Terrel v. Page, 326
Terrell v. Andrews Co., 2122, 2123
ecxiv
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Terrell v. Martin, 1882, 1900
V. Matthews, 1732
Terrett v. Taylor, 234, 235
TerriU v. Murray, iSgg
Terrio v. Guidry, 2129
Territory %i. Lee, 220, 2014
Terry z>. Berry, 1426, 1432
V. Briggs, 415
u. Burnell, 736
V. Ferguson, 1021 12 12
V. Hopkins, 654, 794
V. Resell, 1997,1998, 2076
V. Tuttle, 2061
V. Wiggins, 311, 337, 338
Terry, Doe d., v. Collier, 1574, 1655
Terry's Will, In re, 1627
Tertelling, Re, 1391, 1446
Terwilliger v. Brown, 1763
Tevis V. McCreary, 950, 955, 956
7'. Steele, 760
Tevis' Exrs., 89S, 8gg, 936, 938
Tew V. Jones, 1278, 12S5
V. Winterton, 966
Tewksbury -u. Magraff, 1212
Texas Land and Loan Co. v. Blalock, 1409
Texas Land Co. v. Truman, 1222
■V. Williams, 2365
Teynham v. Mullins, 1626
Tharp v. Allen, 974
V. Beltz, 20S5, 2087, 2088
Thatcher v. Candee, 1660, 1778
V. Omans, 1557, 1559, 15S3
V. Powell, 2335
V. St. Andrew s Church, 1777, 2353
Thaxter v. Williams, 829
Thayer v. Campbell. 2103, 2104, 2111
V. Clemence, 1093
V. Crammer, 2000, 2078
V. Rock, 45
v. Smith, 2151
11. Society of United Brethren, 12 19
V. Thayer, 727, 728, 773, 794, 795, S87, 891,
912, 913, 914, 921
V. Waples, 1 144
V. Wellington, 1683
V. Wright, 20
Theall v. Theall, 917
Thebaud v. Schmerhom, 1792
Theibaud v. First Nat. Bk., 1135
Thelluson v. Woodford, 618, 22B0
Thelusson v. Smith, 1992
Theobald z/. Duffy, 1361
Theological Inst. v. Barbour, 226
Theological Semmary v. Wall, 466
Thetford v. Thetford, 1025
V. Tyler, 1258
Thiebaud 7/. First Nat, Bk., 1052, 1304, 1315,
1335. 1338
Thimes v. Stumpf, 14S5
Thobolds V. Duffy, 971
Thomas' Appeal, 2134, 2140
Thomas v. Allen, rioi, 2025, 2026
V. Blackemore, 976
V. Brinsfield, 1781
V. Connell, 1108
j7. Cook, 1 161
•V. Crout, 128, 145
V. Davis, 123, 131, 132, 137
V. De Baun, 1027, 1887, 1920, 1950
V. Dickinson, 2071
u. Evans. 504, 505
V. Folwell, 1562, 1674, 1675
V. Gammel, 908
V. Garver, 1979
V. Hanson, 804, 826
V. Harris, 888
V. Hatch, 1913
V. Hesse, 721, 799, 857,888, 889,904, 908,
927
•u. Howell, 1864
V. Kapff, 1 103
V. Kelly, 1349
Thomas v. Le Baron, 2363
V. Marshtield, 2191, 2299
v. Moody, 1267, 1269
V. Nelson, 996, 1322, 1323
V. Noel, 1205
V. Packer, 1316, 1324
V. Pemberton, 2266
V. S. Co., 1273, 127s
V. Scruggs, 1735
V. Simpson, 733, 736, 741
V. Standiford, 1622, 1646, 1648
V. Stewart, 2138
V. Stickle, 2301
z/. Thomas, 50S, 600, 760, 763, 1785, 2226,
2243
V. Van Kapff, 1074
V. Vanlieu, 2120
V. Walker, 1623
V. West Jersey R. Co., 2314
V. Willialns, 1457
V. Wood, 434, 937, 939, 2324
V. Wright, J301, 1303, 1308, 1320, 1325,
1333. '335. '336
. V. Zumbalen, 1141, 1316, 1317
Thomas' Admr. v. Kelly, 2118
Thomas' Exrs. v. Van Kaff's Exrs., 2119
Thomas Iron Co. v. Allenton Mining Co., 198
Thomas' Lessee %>. Blackemore, 1225
Thomason 7/. Anderson, 416, 447, 472
V. Boyd, 103 1
Thompson, Matter of, 1456
Thompson v. Barks, 2054
V. Platter. 20^7
V. Blair, 1781
V. Eostwick, 514
V. Bowman, 1960
V. Boyd, 764, 783, 803
V, Branch, 1291
V. Browcr, 1291
V. Brown, 1715
V. Chandler, 2073, 2097, 2139
V. Clark, 1223
V. Cochran, S04, 813, 814, 818, 874
V, Commissioners, 1951
11. Craigmyle, 49, 51
V. Davenport, 2168
V. Davies. 1770
V- Egbert, 932, 933
V. Finch, 1732
V. Gant, 267
V. Garwood, 325
V. Gerrisli, 1903
V. Gibson, 297
V. Green, 651, 1366
V. Gregoi7, 283, 2240
V. Heywood, 805
V. Hickery, 2059
V. Hoop, 947
V. Kenyon, 2100,2103
V. Ketchani, 1702, 2056
V. Lawley, 1807
V. Leach, 9S6, 987, 1786, 1788
V. Lyon, 1781, 1827
V. Maberly, 1335
V. Madison, B. & A. Assoc, 2160
V. Marrow, 791
V. Mawliinney,97o, 1233, 1234, 1909
V. May, 763
V. McClenachan, 2358
V. Mead, 2272
V. Meek, 1788
V. Miner, 2241 '
V. Morrow, 789, 823, 841, 844, 845, ^3
908
V. Murray, 1827
V. Murry, 761, 788, 820, 832
V. Newton, 1S89
V. Pioche, 16S7, 2297
V. Rose, 1078
V. Salmon, 1921
V' Simpson. 1 142
V. Spencer, 2321
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CCXV
Thompson zf. Stacey, 719
V. Swoope, 346
•u. Thompson. 498, 538, 595, 764, 781
784, 16S5, 1S67, 2070, 235s
V. Vance, 780, 820, 821
V. Waters, 224
V. Wlieatiey, 1622
V. Wilhte. 51
Thompson, Doe d., v. Gebron, 1549, 1550
V. Pitcher, 16S7, 2297
Thompson's Lessee v. Green, 517
V. Hoop, 306, 309
V. White, 1699
Thorns V. Thorns, 1409, 1452, 1524
Thomson's Estate, j^^. 4S7, 1S06, 1836
Thomson v. BarkerviUe's Case, 2149
T'. Guyon, 1157
V. MackworLh, 373
r. Peake, 1219, 1610, i6n, 1614
1'. Sanborn, 2216
v. Shakespeare, 1689
V. Waterloo, 22 11, 2216
V. Wilcox, 2121
Thomson, Doe d., v. Amey, 13 16
Thorn v. Ingraham, 804
V. Ingram, 832
V. Thorn, 1425, 1438, 1964, 1988
Thombrough v. Baker, 2049
Thomburg z/. Jones, 1755
V. Tliornburg, 731
Thomdike v. Burrage, 1097, 1106
V. Norris, 2100
Thomdyke v. City of Boston, 1455
Thome z*. Deas, 1183, 1191
V. Newby, 2165
V. Thorne, 2063
Thomhill v. Hall, 345
Thomley v. Thornley, 1952, 1953
Thorns v. Adams, 733
Thornton,/?/ re, 21
Thornton v. Appleton, 1032
V. Boyden, 1388, 1419, 1450, 1479, 1506
V. Exchange, 1919
V. Gaillard, [810
V. Irwin, 1766, 2163
V. Knapp, 6gi
V. Knox, 2005, 2006
V. Krepp, 6S9, 690
V. McGrath, 671
V. Mehring, 974, 975
V. Mulquinne, 201, 202, 311. 312
V. National Exchange Bank, 904
z'. Payne, 992
■V. Stokill, 1760
V. Strauss, 1292
'u, Thornton, 1920, 1937, 1952
V. York Bank, 19 12
Thornton's Exrs. v. Kreeps, 656, 657
Thorough's Case, 2354
The rough good's Case, 2353
Thorp, In re, 1715
Thorp, Davies, /« re^ 695
Thorp V. Keokuk Coal Co., 2068, 2069, 2071,
2072, 2322
Thorpe v. Dunlap, 2006, 2007
V. Fowler, 996, 2272
Tj. Goodall, 1825
V. Owen, 1587, 1824
V. Rutland, etc., Co., 4
V. Durbond, 2124
Thortons v. Dick, 786
Thrall v. Omaha Hotel Company, 989, 1213,
1222
Thrash v. Bennett, 2020
Thrasher v, Bettis, 1449
V. Pinkhard, 729, 844, 864
Throgmorton v, Whelpdale, 1308
Throop zi. Field, 1157
V. Hatch, 1592
Throp V. Johnson, 841, 844, 1849
V Throp, 754, 1955
Thrusby v. Plant, 2263
Thunder d. Weaver v. Bekher, 134S
Thurber f. Dwyer, 996, 1264, 1308, 1321, 1322,
'335, 1338
It. Townshend, 585, 651, 653, 670
Thurber & Co. zk Conners, 976
Thurbett v. Thurbett, 311
Thurman zk Jenkins, 2023, 2024
Thurston v, Dickinson, 514, i8gi
V. Hancock, 223*, 2232, 2235
zj. Haddocks, 1425
V. Maslerson, 1882, iggo
V. Minke, igir, X984
z>. Prentiss, 2140
Thynn v. Duvall, 518
z>. Thynn, 777, 779, 1701
Tibbals v. Jacobs, 1016
Tibbetts z'. Percy, 1083, 1084, 1086
Tibbiis V. Tibbits, 347, 1630, 1631
Tibbson v. , 773
Tibbs 7/. Allen, 19S6
z). Morris, 2045
Tice ZI. Annin, 2126, 2150, 2272
Tickner z'. Wiswall, 2061
Ticknor z/. McLelland, 51
Tidbali 71. Ij.ipiou, 416, 425
Tidd 7'. Lister, 1371
Tidswell ?'. Whitworlh, 1 102
Tierman 71. Hiiiman, 2051
V. Thurman, 2004, 2006
Tiernan 7'. Binns, 960
V. Creditors, 1420
V. Johnson, 1319, 1324, 1334
V. Roland, 466
Tifft ». Horton, 116, 117, 122,132,141
Tilden v. Barker, 668, 701
Tiley v. Meyers, 9S3
Tilford », Fleming, 11 20
z/. Torrey, 1622, 1645, 1760
Tilghman's Estate, 630
Tilghman ?'. Little, 1217, 1220, 1222, 1291
Tilley zf. Simpson, 202, 306, 307, 326
Tillingliast :-, Bradford, 253, 274
ZI. Champlin, 1957, ig6i
z). Coggsliall, 645, 656, 678, 679, 680, 683,
6S4, 1372, r6o9
V. Troy & Boston R. Co., 198
Tillman t. Cowand, 2366
V. Delacey, 116, 133
7'. Fuller, 997
Tillotson 71. Boyd, 2068
v. Doe, 1 144
V. Kennedy, 2301
V, Millard, 1378, C3S6, 1442, 1443, 1445,
1504, 1513, J517
V. Smith, 2223, 2229
ZI. Wolcott, 1503
Tillson 7'. Moulton, 2047
Tilly z'. Tilly, 1583
Tilson V. Thompson, 865, S78
Tilt, Doe d., v. Strattom, 1269, 1293, fjio
Tilton V. Hunter, 2365
V. Vail, 641
Tilyoun v. Graveeend, 1029
Times Co. v. Siebrecht, 1157
Ttmewell v. Perking, 33S
Timlin zi. Standard Oil Co., 1197
Timmins v. Rawlinson, 1270, 1299, 1307, 1313,
1320, 1338, 1344
Timms v. Shannon, 136, 1993, 1995, 1997
Timothy v. Chambers, 1524
Tinder v. Davis, 1316. 2271
Tinicum Fishing Co. v. Carter, 2189, 2213, 2214
Tinker v. Cobb, 2272
V. Van Dyke, 151S
Tinnen v, Mebane, 1782
Tinney v. Tinney, 955
Tinsley v. Jones, 416, 447, 472
Tinsman zk Belvidere, 2248
Tippet ZI. Eyres, 1843, 1844
V. Jett, 1213
Tippets V. Waller, 42, 43, 817
Tippin r/. Coson, 1537
CCXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Tipping 7f. Cozzens, 153S
V. Eckersley, 1 185
V. Robbins. 1026, 1926
Upton V. La Rose, 396
V. Martin, 1521
Tisdale 2'. Harris, 817
V. Jones, 957
?'. Risk, 832
7'. Tisdale, 1766, 1770
Titcheneli I'. Jackson, i6go
Titcomb 7/. Morrill, 1537, 15S6, 1637
Titman v. Moore, 1449, 1454, i459> >4'^i» 1462,
1467
Titterton 2'. Cooper, 2266
Titsworth 7>. Stout, i8go, iggo
Titus 7/. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 2114
V. Miller, 730
7/. Morse, 2302
■V. Neilson, 68g, 783, Soo, 813, 814, 81S,
940
Titusville Novelty Iron Works v. Graham, 976
Tobey v. McAllister, 2005, 2008
7'. Moore, 266, 268
Tobias 7*. Francis, 106, 108, J26
V. Ketchum, 917, 918, 942, 944, 955, 1227,
1592
Tobin V. Young, 1227
Toby V. County of Bristol, J051
7'. Reed, 2067
Todd V. Austin. 2326
V. Raglow, 823
V. Beatty, 839, 843, 844,890
V. Flight, 1194, 1198, 1 199
V. Gordy, 1445
v^ Hardie, 2054
r. Jackson, 1356
r. Lee, 1373, 20I2
v^ Moore, 1776
V. Outlaw, 203S
v. Oviatt, 692, 703
7'. Pratt, 445
V. Sawyer, 217
V. Zachary, 1940
Toker v. Toker, 1790
Tolar v. Tolar, 307
Toledo, P. & W. R. Co. v. Curtenins, 924
Toler V. Seabrook, 2249, 3255, 2257
V. Sebrook, 2255
V. Siator, 1025, 1368
Toleman v. Fortbury, 553, 1140, 1152
Tollz/. Hiller, 2130
Toll Bridge v. Osbom, 43
Telle V. Orth, 969, 1131, 1135, 1304, 1315, 1316
TolJes V. Wood, 1798
Tollett 7/. ToUett, 1840
Tolman v. Emerson, 207
V. Sparhawk, 2303
Tolson V, Tolson, 1593, 1631
Tom V. Daily, 924
Tome V. Merchants and Builders* Loan Co.,
2148
Tomey f. Gerhart, 2165, 2167
Tomkins 7'. Lawrence, 1300, 1301, 1306
Tomlin v. Dubuque & M. R. Co., 69
V. Hilyardj 1421, 1426
Tomlinson v. Dighton, 319, 337, 487
7f. Monmouth Ins. Co., 2042, 2116
Tompkins, Estate of, 1382, J406, 1451
Tompkins z'. Elliot, 1853, 1855
V. Fonda, 733. 734, 735.736* 741, 838
V. Snow, 1148, 1216, 12 17
V. Wheeler, 1600, 1794
V. Wiltberger, 2153
Tompson ?'. Mawhinney, 2254
Toms 7'. Boyes, 2080
V. Williams, 1592
Tondre v. Cushman, 1214
Tone 7<. Brace, q74, 1065, 1080
Tonkins 7'. Ennis, 1626
Tong V. Eifort, 1475
V. Marvin, e;86, 587, 653, 1362, 1514
Tongue v. Nutwell, 1224
Tood v. Pratt, 466
V. Sands, 2106
Tooke V. Hardeman, 717, 916, 935. 955
V. Hartley, 2157
Tookerv. Smith, 1303
Tooker's Case, igii
Toole 7/. Beckett, 1196
Toombes z*. Conset, J034
Tooney v. JNIcLean, 764, 80S
Topham v. Portland, 1841
Topping z/. Sadler, 1024, 1919, 1941, 1945
Torpy V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 1194
Torrence v. Carberry, 766
7>. Carby, 760, 764
V. Bank of Orleans, 1617, 1707, 1769
Torrey v. Burnett, 122, 130, 142, 145, 146, 1224
V. Deavitt, 2100, 21J0
V. Minor, 731, 733, 734, 736, 741, 83S, 8S4
V. Torrey, 1025, 1344, 1920, 1931, 1932,
'9St
V. Wains, 1074, 1077
Torriano v. Young, 563, 1153
Torres Estate, 1021, 2182
Tottel V. Howell, 983
Totten V. Stuyvesant, 785
Totten, Jackson ex d., v. Aspell, 718, 733, 734,
736, 739» 741
Touchard t/. Crow, 2321
Toulmin v. Austin, 2349
Tourv V. Cassin. 2056
Tourville V. Pierson, 1378, 1416, 1434, 1442
Tousley v. Tousley, 2027, 2122
Tower*s Appropriation, 1773
Tower v. Davys, 939, 965
2'. Divine, 810
Towery v. Henderson. 1212
Towie ?}. Ayer, 206, 209, 211,601
z'. Palmer, 1853, 1S55
V. Remsen, 1853, 1855
Towles V. Burton, 1699, 1701
Town 7'. Needham, 1892, 1900
Town of Lemington v. Stevens, 1041
Town of Pawlet 7/. Clark, 149, 234
Towne v. Ammidown, 1734
V. Butterfield, 1149, 1213, 12S2, 1297
V. Campbell, 1312
V. Fiske, 105, 108, iro, 123, 138, 139, 1224
Towner v. McClelland, 2106, 2109, 2127
V. Wells, 2140
Townley v. Gibson, 84
V. Rutan, 1319
71. Sherburne, 1732, 1733
Townsend 7>. Asli, 44
71. Brown, 896
71. Downer, 1913
7>. Empire Dressing Co., 2031
7'. Gilsey, 979
V. Griffin, 661
V. Harwell, 1794
V. Jsenberger, 1230, 2230
V. Jemison, 2299
7'. Mathews, 645
V. Mayer, 2325
7', McDonald, 2226
7'. Reed, 1124
V. Riley, 2057
7'. Stansgroom, 554
V. Townsend, 671, 865, gio, 956, 960, 15:7
V. Ward, 2070
V. Wils*on, 1731, 1817, i8tS
TownshendT'. Marquis Stangroom, 2048
7^ Townshend, 1782, 1783. 17S4, 1984
V. Windham, 1626, 1820, 1825
Townson v. Tickell, 1786, 1788, 1780, 1844
Trabuez/. McAdams, iirfi, 2262, 2264,227c
V. Ramage, 1220, 1223
Tracy v. Albany Exchange Co., 10S7, icSS, logi
1092, 1320
V. Atherson, 2291
V. Atherton, 1913, 2219, 223S
V. Colby, 1620
V, Craig, 1620
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
ccxvu
Tracyt^ Dutton, T014
■V. Hereford. 509, 572
V. Jenks, 2061
7'. Kelley, 1622, 1760
V. Kilborn,305, 311
I'. IMunay, 937
1}. Norwich, 229S
"u. Suydam. 1902
1'. Tracy, 1502
Trade Ins. Co. v'. Barracliff, 632
Trader 7'. Lowe, 646, Sgs, 193S
Traders' Ins. Co. v. Newman, 632
Trafford v Boehm, 1721
Trafton 7'. Homes, 2316, 2317, 231S
7'. Howes, 2315
Train 7' Boston Disinfecting Co., 4
Trammall v. Trammall, 63
Trammell z>. Harrell, 18S4
Transportation Co. v. Clijcago, 2232
Traphagen 7'. Burt, 1652
Trapnall z'. Brown, 1586, 1590, 1637, 1645
Trappes 7'. Harter, 125
V. jMeredith, 253
Trash i-. White, 2094
Trask v. Donoghue, 1598
■V. Ford, 2292
V. Patterson. 1364, 1365, 1367
•u. Wheeler, 1849
Traote 7'. White, 2235
Travellers zk Noland, 707
Travis z/. Bishop. 2125
Trawick z/. Harris, 1405
Tray nor 7'. Palmer, mo
Trayser v. Trustees of Indiana, 2146
Treackle v. Coke, 2265
Tread way v. Sharon, 123
Treadwell v. McKeon, 1621
V. Salisbury Mfg. Co. 2342
_v. Williams, 19G2
Treat v. Pierce, 2077
V. Reilly. J901
Trelawney v. Booth, 94, 434
Tremmel v. Kleiboldi, 654, 655, 678, 679, 682,
6S3. 1372
Tremmouth i'. City of San Francisco, 2308
Trench z'. Harrison, 1623
Trent 7/ . Hanning, 1594
Trenton 7'. Water Power Co., 186G
Trenton Banking Co. ?'. Woodruff, 1371
Treon's Lessee 7'. Emerick, 1924
Tress 7/. Savage, 1136. 1310, 1321
Treves v. Townshend, 1725
Trevivan ik Lawrence, 2301
Trevor 7/. Trevor, 1693
Trible v. Anderson, 2254
V. Frame, 1356
Trickey 7'. Sclilader, 2205
Trim v. Marsli, 2295
Trimble v. Trimble, 597
Trimm v, Marsh, 1093, '*304> 2000, 2078, 2085
Trimpston v. Hamill, 21S4
Tripe v. Marcv, 2077, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2126,
2146, 2175
Triplett v. Graham, 1428
Tripp V. Brownell, 2020
V. Hasceig, 46
V. Riley, 1909
7>. Tripp, 1697
Triscony v. Orr, 982
Tritt V. Calwell, 13"
Tritton v. Foote, loog
Trivillo v. Tilford, 50
TroUope v. Linton, 2344
Tromans 7/. Mahlman, 1383, i445» '446
Troth V. Hunt, 745. 923, 2149
Trott V. City Ins. Co., 1051
Trotter v. Blocker. 1670
V. Cassady, 517
V. Dobbs, 1499
V. Howard, 1625
71. Hughes, 266, 2068, 2069
Trough's Estate, 1739
Troughton v. Troughton, 1825
Troup V. Haight, 2121
7'. Sherwood, 625
V. Wood, 1770
Trousdale z', Darnell, 1337
Trout V. McDonald, 1025, 1041
V. Rumble, 1440
Trow V. Berry, 2041
Trowbridge v. Cushman, 2028
V. Sypher, 802
Trowbridge, Jackson ex d., u. Dunsbagh, 1566
Trower v. Chadwick, 2232
Troy V. Troy, 536
Trucks V. Lindsay, 2052
V. Lindsey, 2054
V. Lindslay, 2053
True V. Haley. 2150, 2169
V. Morrill. 31, 137S, 1419, 1420, 1433, 1483,
^5'4, 1515
V. Nicholls, 294, 411
V. Ranney, 594
Truebody v. Jackson, 2006
7/ Jacobson, 2004
Truesdell v. White, 1881
Trull V. Eastman, 1063
V. Fuller, 117, 138, 143
V. Granger, 971, 978, 997, 1092, iiii,
1245
V. Skinner, 2041, 2053, 2055, 2158
Trullinger v. Webb, 45
Truman v. McCallum, 2033
Trumble z'. Trumble, 1521
Trumbull, Den ex d., v. Gibbons, 323
Truscott 7>. King, 2023, 2027
Truss V. Old, 1022
Trust & Loan Co. v. Covert, 2301
Trust National Bank of Tama City?/. Hayzlett,
2120
Trustees v. Center, 1375
V. Dickinson, 2294
V. Dickson, 2077, 2181
V. Kirk, iSq8
•V. Pratt, 777
7'. Spencer, 1043
V. Watson, 2305
Trustees, etc.,?'. Peaslee, 1555
Trustees for Support of Public Schools r/.
Anderson, 2166
Trustees of Bridgewater Acad. ?>. Gilbert, 1670
Trustees Concord Township z'. Miller, 1029
Trustees of Farmington Academy v. Allem, 1670
Trustees First Baptist Church of Ilhaca v.
Bigelow, 31, 32, 36, S3
Trustees of Frazier v. Centre. 826
Trusteesof tween Tp. z'. Robinson, 1017, 1213
Trustees of Hawesville v Hawes, 89
Trustees of Limerick Acad. 7>. Davis, 1671
Trustees of Louisville v. Gray, 2014
Trustees of Mclntyre v, Zauesville Canal &
Manf. Co., 16S4
Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church in
Pulteney v. Stewart, 1706
Trustees New York Prot. Epis. Public School,
Re, 1517
Trustees South Baptist Church z/. Yates, 1557,
2150
Trustees, etc.. Town of E. Hampton -v. Kirk,
1916
Trutch V. Bunnell, 233
Trutt V. Spotts, 1063. 2362
Trutton v. Foote, 10S8
Tryon v. Munson, 2036, 2076, 2077
V. Sutton V. 2023
Tscheider z'. Biddle, 1086, 1089
Tubb V. Fort, 2250, 2257
Tucker v. Adams, 1276, 1282
21. Andrews, 654, 658, 794
71. Baldwin, 1701
V. Buffum, 2090
V. Burrow. 1647
V. Campbell, igoi
V. Cox, 2255
ccxvm
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Tucker z*. Crowley, 805,806, 808,810
V. Femio, 2014
V. Field, Soo, 2024
V. Fields, 2022
V. Fitts, 876
V. Kenniston, 1440, 1502, 1519
V. Moorland, 985, 986
V. Moreland, 1031,2342
V. Palmer, 1704
V Tucker, 292, 293, 914* 1721, 1722, 1808
V. Vance, 733, 736, 739
V. Whitehead, 2259, 2267
Tucker, Doe d., v. Morse, 1325
Tudor w. Samyue, 136 c
Tufts V. Adams, 729, 1095 '
V. Tufts, 1770, 2314
Tuffnal V. Page, 203
Tuick V. Ludborough, 1844
Tuite V. Stevens, 2125
Tulk V. Moxhay, 267, 2214
Tull V. David, 1735
Tuller, Re, 671
TuUett V. Armstrong, 252, 257, 270, 1361, 1373,
1561
TuUey v. Alston, 827
Tullis' Admr, v. Young, 1035
Tullit V. Tullit. 77, 95
TuUoch V. Hailley, 719
V. Hartley, 36S, 2057, 2289
Tumlinson ^, Swinuey, 1378, 1386, 1439, 1442,
M47. 1448. 1457. 1458
Tunis V. Grandy, 2268
Tunno v. Roberts, 2031
Tuno V. Trezevant, 959
Tunstall v. Christian, 2223, 2233
V. Jones, 1497
Tuolumne Redemptiou Club "V. Sedgwick, 2171
Tupperw. Fuller, 1920
Turbett V. Turbett's Exrs., 201, 202
Turbeville v, Gibson, 784
Turing, Ex parte, (i(yi, 756
Turing v. Turing, 316
Turk V. Funk, 2125
Turley v. Massengill, 336, 499, 1709
Tuillr/. Fuller, 103
Turly V. Rodgers, 1217
Turnag; v. Greene, 1577
TumbuU V. Rivers, 2207
Turner v. American Baptist Union, 2307
V. BisssU, 1241, 1242, 1244
V. Cool, 45
V. Eford, 1612
V. Fowler, 259
V. Jenny, 795
V. Johnston, 2160
V. I vie, 1709
V. Kerr, 2044, 2052
V. Lowe, 1213, 1220
V. Meymott, 1347
V. Meyers, 594
V. Morgan, 1973
V. Peck, 161 1
■V. Pettigrew, 1623
V. Quincey Mut. F. Co., 2119
V. Richardson, 1115
V. Rusk, 2345
V. Steep, 2364
V. Street, 1764
V. Teddult, 1855
V. Thomas, 1290
V. Thompson, 2223, 2241
V. Timberlake, 1806
V. Tuolumne Water Co., 1099
7'. Turner, 24, 1361
7'. Watkins, 1997, 1998, 2083
V. Whittem, 1398
V. V/illiams, 2268
V. Wright, 231
Turner, Doe d., z/. Bennett, 1293, 1296
Tuniey v. Smith, 870, 876
V, Sturges, 845
Tumipseed v. Cunningham, 2052
Turnure v. Hohenthal, 2267
Tuthill V. Scott, 2228
Turrill v. Northrup, 414
Tuttle V. Amstead, 2166
V. Bean, 1151, 1344
V. Burlington & M. R. R. Co., 733
V. Reynolds, 1214, 1309
V. Strout, 1509
V. Wilson, 872, 931
Twelves v. Nevill, 292, 293
Twinings' Appeal, 1792
Twitchellw. McMurtie, 2102
Twombly 7'. Cassidy, 2136, 2137, 2172
Twomey v. Crowley, 1700
Twopenny v. Peqton, 274
Twort V. Twort, 576, 1903, 1969
Twynman v. Pickard, 1072
Tyler v. Mina. F. Ins. Co., 1912
v. Beecher, 2328
V. Carlton, 1698
V. Disbrow, 1168
V. Hammond, 2243
V. Heidorn, 252, iro8, 1139, 2262
7/. Lake, 1371
zi. Taylor, 1905
V. Tyler, 1689
7'. Wilkinson, 2224, 2291,2292, 2334
Tyrrel's Case. 299, 1559, 1564, 1582
Tyrrell v. Marsh, 1S45
V. Ward, 2136, 2138,2150
Tyrringham's Case, 547, 2199
Tyrwhitt v. Tyrwhitt, 2098
Tyson v. Blake, 344
v. Harrington, 799
v. Post, 106, 107
7'. Postlethwaite, 2286
V. School Directors, 671
u.
Udall V. Kenney, 1757, 1758
Udell V. Peak, 1214
Uelker v, Hochn, 2011
Uhler -v. Hutchinson, 2126
V. Sample, 694, 824
Uhlig V. Garrison, 984, 1035
Ullman v. Herzburg, 1132
Ulp 7'. Campbell, 909
Underbill v. Collins, 1159, 1161
V. Harwood, 2356
V. Saratoga, 1848, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1862
Underwood v. Birchard, 1079, 1080
V. Birchwood, 1037
V. Campbell, 501, 2319
V. Carnig, 2218
V. Hitchcox, 1087, 1758
V. Lilly, 671, 904, 905
Z'. Staney, 1870
V. Stevens, 1733
V. Sutliffe. 1652
Unfried v. Heberer, 291
Unger v. Bamberger, 1304
V. Leiter, 715, 818
V. Mooney, 2296, 2297
V. Smith, 2166 1
Uniacke, In re, 1786
Union Bank v. Emerson, 103, 104, 132, 138
z>. Meeker, 1701
V. State, 42
Union Banlcing Co. v. Gittings, 996, loio, 2260
Union Canal Co. v. Young, 370, 390, 2297
Union Gold Mining Co. v. Rocky Mountain
Nat. Bank, 1042 '
Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 1592
Union Mut. Life Ins. Co.z/. Levitt, 1999
V. Slee, 2100, 2106
z/. White, 2169
Union Nat. Bank v. Matthews, 225
Union Pac. Co v. De Busk, 198
V. Durant. 1661, 1697, 1698, 1768, 1782
Union Savings Bank v. Pool, 2040
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CCXIX
Union Water Co. v. Crary, 2238, 2239
V. Murphy's Fluming Co., 2017,2021
Unitarian Soc. v, Woodbury, 1590, 1691
United States z*. Amedy, 1540, 1554, 1553
V. Appleton. 2223, 2234, -241
V. Arredondo, 2304
V. Athens Armory, iggg
V. Bostwick, 1067, 1068, 1152, 1153, 1228
V. Canibuston, T96
V. Castillero, 88
V. Crosby, 36S, 720, 2057, 2058, 22S8, 22S9
V. Cutts, 2003
V. Duncan, 055, 956
V. Fitz^rald, 2306
V. Gratiot, 970, 983, 2249, 2254,2314
V. Hall, 1428
V. Harmon, 5
V. Hooe, 2030
V. Kimmull, 1199
V. King, 2357
V. Lambert, 596
V. McCorraick, 596
V. McRae, 1036
V. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 201S
V. Parrott, 98
V. Railroad Bridge Co., 2307
V. Reese, 370, 390
V. Reid, 1516
V. Schuler, 53, 58
V. Shinn, 2309
V. State Nat. Bank of Boston, 1761
V. Sturges, 2028
V. Sturgis, 2170
United States Bank v. Bavery, 1605
V. Covert, 2105
V. Huth, 2342
United States ex rel. Van Hoffman v. City of
Quincy, 1512
United States Ins. Co. v. Shriver, 2120
Universities of Oxford v. Richardson, 572
University v. Bank, 1783
University of North Carolina 1'. Nat. Bank,
1781
University of Oxford 71. Clifton, 424
University of Vermont v. Joslyn, 1118, 226S
V. Reynolds, 1881
V. Reynold's Exrs., 517
Updegraff v. Edwards, 2106
Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 1603, 1604, 16S1
Upham z>. Archer, 2341
V. Bradley, 1979, 1981
V. Vaiing, 1579
V. Vamey, 1597, 1604, 1796
Upjohn V. Richland Board of Health, 41
XTpman 7/. Second Ward Bank, 1504
Upshaw V. Hargrove, 2006
z'. Upshaw, 947, 948
Upton V. Ferrers, 60
V. Greenlees, 1174
V. Townend, 1166, 1168, 1173, 1174
V. Tribilcock, 1581
Upton, Doe d., v. Witherwick, 1206
Urann v. Coates, 1587, i68g, 1690
Uray v. Davenport, 1448
Urich's Appeal. 1815
Urch V. Walker, 1786
Uridiasw. Morrell, 1317, 1351
Usher V. Moss, 1300, 1315, 133*?
V. Richardson, 901
Usina v. Wilder, 2024
Vail V. Foster, 2008
V. Vail, 300, 1605
V. Weld, iig6
Valentine v. Ford, 2346
V. Havener, 2147
V. Jackson, 2273
V. McCue, 2158
V. Piper, 2290, 2291
Vallauce v. Bausch, 670, 679
Valle V. Obenhause, 590
Valletta 7/. Bennett, 1739, 1998
Valley Falls Co. v. Dolan, 2242
Valliant v. Dodemede, 2265
Valpey v. Rea, 1032
Valton V. National Life Assurance Co., mo
Vanables v. Morris, 1583
Van Aken v. Clark, 1958
Van Allen, Jackson ex d., t*. Rogers, 1270
Van Alstyne v. Spraker, 340, 535
Van Amee v. Jackson, 1633
Van Arsdale v. Drake, 515
2>. Van Arsdale, 918, 940, 955
Van Arsdall w. Fauntelroy, 517, 607, 608, 610,
612
Van Blarcom v. Kvp, 1268, 1271
Van Bracklin v. Fonda, 1 199
Van Bramer v. Cooper, 103 1
Van Brocklin v. Corporation of Brantford, 1245
Van Brunt 7'. Pope, 1961, 20S2, 2260
Van Buren v. Olmstead, 2073, 2184
V. St. Joseph Co. Ins. Co., 2114
Vance's Heirs v. McNairy, 1773
Vance w. Campbell, 271, 1858
V. Johnson, 1215, 1284^ 1998, 2076, 2077
V. McNairy, 2365
V. Vance, 950, 954, 956, 963, 1739
Van Cleaf 7'. Barnes, 919
Van Cleave ?', Wilson, 1409, X523, 1524
Van Cortland v. Laidley, 221, 222
Van Cortlandt v. Tozer, 492
Van Cortlandt, Jackson ex d., v. Parkhurst,
1125, 1270, 1271, 1335
Van Cott V. Prentice, 1690
Vandecourt zf. Gould, 1035
Van Denburg, Jackson ex d., Bradt, 1270, 1271
Vanderbilt v. Schreyer, 2166
Vanderburgh 7/. Hull, 1241, 1242
Tandercook 7'. Baker, 2106
Vandergrift's Appeal, 976
Vanderheyden 7/. Craudall, 300, 359, 471,601,
1605
Vanderhorst t-. Bacon, 1399, 1402
Vanderhuel v. StoiTs, 2270
VanderkarT*. Reeves, 2263
Vanderkam v. Neuderkan, 2362
Vanderkemp 7'. Shelton, 811, 2097,2126, 2147.
2149
Vanderplank v. King, 1693
Vanderpool z>. Allen, no
V. Van Allen, loS, 113
Van der Volgen 7'. Yates, 297, 1538,1551, 1564,
1586, 1610, 1637
Vanderwerker v. Vanderwerker, 342, 1980^
1984
Van Derzee v. Van Derzee, 332, 536
Van Deusen v. Young, 543, 557
Vandever's Admrs. v. Freeman, 1697, 1759
Vandever's Appeal, 1731
Vandever z'. Baker, 890
Vandike's Appeal, 1923
Van Diveer v. Slickney, 1283, 1286
Van Doren v. Everitt, 1022, 1023, 1209
V. Todd, 2005
V. Van Doren, 789, 823, 841, 843
Van Duyne v Thayre, 783, 801, 803, 940
V. Vanduyne, 346, 1593, it32
Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 635, 636, 637, 642
Van Dyck v. Van Buren, 1915
V. Johns, 1611, 1613, 1707, 1767, 1769, 1776
V. Johnson, 1776
Vane v. Barnard, 544, 559, 569, 572
Van Epps v. Van Epps, 1617, 1707, 1769
Van Etta v. Evanson, 2341
Van Every 7'. Ogg, 1084, 1086
Van Gelder7^ Post, 841, 843
Van Gilder zl Park, 823
Van Gordon v. Jackson, 518
Van Grnder v. Smith, 182 1
Van Guidler ?'. Justice, 955
Van Horn v. Goken, 2272
ccxx
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Van Horn z*. Harrison, 1564
V. Keeuan, 2013
Van Home v. Campbell, 344, 345, 349
V. Grain, 1072, 1074, 1076, 1077
v. Fonda, 1617, 1738. iqgo
Van Home's Lessee %', Dorrance, 852, 1853,
1854, 1855, 1857, 1863, 1869
Van Houten v. First Reformed Dutch Cliurchj
38.39
Van Husan v, Kanouse, 2131, 2144
Van Keureu 7/. Central R. Co. of N. J., 96
V. Corkins, 2109, 2110
Van Kirk v. Skillman, 2012
Vanleer z/. Vanleer. 761, 762, 815
Van Meter?'. McFadden, 2004
Vann v. Rouse, it66
Vanmeter v. Vanmeter. 2028
Vannatta v. Brewer, 1138, 1150, 1151
Van Ness w. Hyatt, 782
V. Pacard, 118, 119, 122, 123, 130,458,707,
1 187, 1209
Van Nests'. Latsom, 2150
Vannice %>. Bergen, 2134
Van Nostrand -v. Wright, Hill & D., 985
Van Note v. Downey, 1362, 1363, 1364, 1366,
1368, 1369, 1370, 1376
Van Ordenz/. Van Orden, 916,918, 935,944,946,
947
Van Peltz;. McGraw, 2186
Van Rensselaer u. Akin, 1798
V. Ball, 251, 1049, 1139, 1849, 1852, 1859,
1 861
V. Barrington, 2262
V. Bradley, 1071, 1072, 1108, 1116, 2262
V. Chadwick, 11 16, 1227
V. Clark, 2365
1}. Dennison, 249, 252,2015,2262
V. Gallup, 1115, 1116, 1120, 1121
V. Galop, 2267
V. Hays, 194, 252, 1004, 1071, 2262, 2273
2'. Jewett, 1051, 1138, 1150, '154, 1155
V. Jones, 1072, 1 1 16, 2252, 2259
•v. Kearney, 401, 471, 1516, 2300, 2301,
2358
•v. Poucher, 20, 203, 205, 206, 22S, 402,
447. 471
z/. Radcliff, 547, 548, 2igo, 2193, 2195,
2ig6, 2200, 2201, 2262
V. Read, 1076
V. Smith, 1067, 1071, 1076, 1098, 1099,
1 108
V. Snyder, 1139, 1517
V. Van Rensselaer
V. Whitbeck, 1139
Van Rensselaer, Jackson ex d. t/. Andrew,
565
Van Rensselaer, Jackson ex d. -u. Collins, 488,
1146, 1 148
Van Reynegan?'. Revalk, 1489, 1454
Vansant v. Alleman, 1998
V. Allman, 2106
7'. Allmon, 2157
Van Schaick, Jackson ex d. v. Davis, 1108
Van Schaik 7/. Third Ave, R. R. Co, 1108,
1 109
Van Schaik, Jackson ex d. Vincent, ii40j i*44.
1 146, 1 149
Van Schuyverr-. Mufford, 1982
Van Sickle %>. Haines, 2224
Van Thormley i>. Peters, 2038, 2126
Vantilberg z/. Shann. 2203
Van Tuyl v. Van Tuyl, 596, 752
Van Vetchen v. Keator, 76
Van Voorhis v. Brintnall, 753, 754, 756
Van Vocrhiss v. Hyatt, 782
Van Vronker v. Eastman, 744, 803, 814, 891, 922
V. Van Vronker, 778
Van Wagenen z'. Brown, 810, 2097
V. Van Wagener, 2029
Van Wagner zf. Nan Nostrand, 1094, 2258
Van Wert v. Benedict, 1837
Van Wickle &. Landry, 1489, 1506
Vanzant v. Vanzant, 1405, 1450, 1462, 1472, 1473,
i475j 14791 1506
Van Wicklenz'. Paulson, 2251, 2252
Varick v. Edwards, 1:781
V. Jackson, 210, 211
V. Smith, 197, 2323, 2324, 2327, 2328
Varnerz/. Rice, 2272
Varney v. Howes, 2040
•V. Stevens, 489, 504, 505, 740, 744
Varnum v. Abbott, 1925, 1967, 1919
V. Leek, 1894
7'. Meserve, 2083, 2164
Vartie v. Underwood, 818
Vasey v. Board of Trustees, 1450, 1460, 1469,
1478
Vason V. Ball, 1993, 1999, 2063, 2078
Vasquez v. Ewing, 2192
Vass V. Wales, 1051, 1052
Vassar v. Camp, 1243
Vasser v. Vasser, 1697
Vauduyn v. Hepner, 977
Vaughan v. Bacon, 1912, 1913
V. Blanchard, 1166, 1167
V. Dickes, 414, 418
V. Menlove, 2232
V. Nurfeesboro. 3
V. Thompson, 1481
V. Tracy, 1047
V. Vanderstegen, 1821, 1825, 1826
Vaughan, In re, v. Thomas, 1687
Vaughen v. Haldeman, log, 121, 134, 138, 139
Vaughn -v. Atkins, 830
7'. Hancock, 46
7'. Locke, 2250
•V. Lovejoy, 271
V. Parr, 2344
Vauxz/. Parke, 254. 300, 500, 1577, 1606, 1675,
1753
Veale v. Pryor, 982
Veasey v. Graham, 2013
Veeder 7/. Fonda, 2158
Vegely v. Robinson, 1316,1322, 1324, 1327, 1330,
^45
Veghte V. The Raritan Water Power Co., 2212,
2213, 2240
Vehue v. Moser, 78
Vetle V. Elodgett, 1622, 1761
Venable v. Beauchamp, 1738, 1973, 1974, 1990;
igOi
7). McDonald, 1290, 1294
Vendever Admrs. v. Freeman, 1703
Vennum v. Babcock, 2055
Ventress v. Collins, 1425
Venus, The, 1456
Verdier v. Youngblood, 502, 532
Vermilyaz/. Austin, T174
Vermont v. Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel, 1862
Vermont Mining Co. w. Windham Bank, 2354
Vernam v. Smith, 1080, 1213, 1221
Vernon's Case, 854, 936,951, 956, 957, 958, 960
Vernon v. Bethell, 2054
7'. Smith, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1082,
2118
V. Valk, 2333
V. Vernon, 8g8, 936, 940, 941, 954, 955,
1629
Verplank t*. Sterry, 959, 1625, 2315
V. Wright, 1076
Vertner v. Humphrey, 720
Verry v. Robinson, 925
Vetter's Appeal, 2250, 2257
Vick V. Ayers, 1292
z'. Vicksburg, 1985
Vickery v. Dickson, 2060
Vicksburg, etc., R. R. Co. v. Ragsdale, 1247
Vidal V. Commagere, 2282
V. Gerard's Exrs., 2348
V. Girard's Exrs., 1604. 1657, 1658, 1681
V. Girard, 266, 1541, 155^
Viele V. Judson, 2108, 2109
V. Osgood, 31, 35, 38
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CCXXl
Viele V. Troy, etc., R. Co., 1697
Viely, Jackson ex d., v. Cuerdeu, 1273
Villa w. Rodriguez, 2169
V, Rodroguez, i66[
Village of Brooklyn v. Smith, 68,70
Village of Delhi v. YoumaLis, 7230
Villen V. Beaumont, 1025
Villers w. Beaumont, 1791
Villiers v, ViUiei-s, 288, 1563, 1594
Villines v. Norfleat, 1621
Vincent f, Bishop, 1831
V. Bishop of Sodoer, etc., 1831
V. Corbin, 1006, 1300, 1335
V. Ennys. 1844
V. Hallowell, 2272
V. Spooiier, 897, 933, 951, 956
Viner v. Vaughn, 495, 561
Vinety v. Abbott, 1791, 1792, 1798
Vintner v. Bix, 271
Violett V. Brookman, 267
Visager zk Schofield, 1036
Visard v. Longden, 955
Viscount v. Morris, 2127, 2128
Voe V. Handy, 2132
Voegt V. Resor, 1 164
Voelckner v. Hudson, 737, 836, 837
Vogle V. Brown, 1890
V. Ripper, 2133
Vogler, Re, 1483
V. Geiss, 224s
V, Montgomery, 1415, 1481, 1502
Voight V. Resor, 2260
Voisey, Ej: parte, 1027
Vole V. Handy, 2076
Volentiiie v. Johnson, 1922
Voller V. Carter, 417, 423, 424, 444
VoUz V. Harris, 2267
Vou V. Brashead, 2358
Voohees z/. McGinnis, in, 112, 113, 114, 117,
127, 144, 1186
V. Presbyterian Church, 31, 38, 39, 40,
990, 1549, 1551, i6ig, 1644
V. Presbyterian Church of Amsterdam,
646, 970, 1617
Voorhis v. Freeman, 104, 106, in, J13, 114,
126, 127, 130, 133, 135, 138, 20Z2
Vorebeck v. Rowe, 53, 54, 55
Voiisz'. Renshaw, 1867
Vornberg z'. Owens, 1381, 1515
Vose V. Handy, 2100, 2105, 2107, 2132, 2357
Voss V. King, 12 14
Vost V. Handy, 799
Vredenburg v. Morris, 975, 1225
Vreelau v. Jacobus, 728, 818
Vreeland v. Blarcom, 2166
V. Van Blarcom, 2068
V. Vreeland, 596, 1361
Vroom V. Van Horn, 1835
Vrooman zi. McKaig, 1213, 1315, 1316
Vyvyan v. Arthur, 1070, 1071, 1075, 1078
w.
Wabash Canal v. Brett, 983
Wade's Case, 1865, 1906
Wade V. American Colonization Society, 1555
V. Baker, 1022, 1023
V. Beldmeir, 2130, 2134
V. City of Newborn, 996, 1029, 1042
V, Colbert, 1033
V. Coope, 2772
V. Greenwood, 2005
V. Halligan, 1067, 1080, 1081
z>. Howard, 805, 2128
V. Johnston, 117
V, Jones, 1514
7'. Lauber, 920
V. Malloy, 504, 509
V. Miller, 731, 949
V. Paget, 164, 1579, 1580
V. Wade, 1420, 1433
Waddell v. Cook, 1246
V. Glassell, 1698, 1701
V. Hewett, 2165
Waddingham v. Loker, 1665, 1690
Wadham v. Marlowe, 2263
Wadhams v. Swan, 2301
Wadleigh v. Jauvrin, 103, 104, 124, 127, 131,
132
Wadley v. Janvin, 79
Wadman v. Calcraft, 1871
Wadsworth v. Lorangu, 2045
V. Lyon, 2068
V. Tillotson, 2224, 2225, 2226
V. Wadsworth, 214, 215, 672, 673, 1657,
2014
V. Wendell, 501
V. Williams, 805, 808, 2130, 2134
Wadsworth, Jackson ex d., v. Wendell, 501
Wadsworthville School z*. Meetze, 1144, 1309
Wafer z*. Mocato, 1158, 1871, 1872
V. Pratt, 2291
Wagar %>. Stone, 1999, 2076
Wager v. Wager, 344, 345
Waggeuer 71. Waggener, 1729
Waggoner v. Jermaine, 1199
V. Speck, 1284
Wagner v. Bissell, 118, 458
V. Cleveland, in
V. Cleveland & I. R. Co., ii6
V. Hanna, 2211, 2215, 221S
V. Varner, 2282
V. White, 1168
WagstafE v. Smith, 1562, 1655, 1656
Wahl V. Barroll, 1164
Wain V. Warlters, 2267
Wainborough v. Schank, 522
Wainer z/. Milford Mutual Ins. Co., 631, 2113
Wainewright v. Elwell, 1574
Wainscott v. Silvers, 1181, 1183, 12S1, 12G4
Wainwright zi. Hardesty, 511
Wait's Appeal, 1023
Wait V. Belding, 335, 342
V. Day, 1549
V. Maxwell, 986, 987, 1032, 2344, 2245
V. Wait, 711, 712, 713, 725, 748, 749, 767,
771. 772, 773j 9»9» 920. i3.';9.234i
Waite zi. Bowee, i9r9
V. Paget, 2096
Wake V. Hall, 61
V. Wake, 946
Wakefield v. Buccleuch, 91, 92
ZI. Duke of Buccleuch, 2238
V. Mining Co.. 1151
Wakeman ?'. Roach, 891, 927 '
V. Walker, 1040
Walbridge v. Pruden, 2274
Walcot V. Botfield, 265
:'. McKiiiney, iggg, 2078, 2084
Walcott V. Sullivan, 2 1 10
Waiden 2/. Bodley, 1144, 1293, 1296
V. Karr, 1783
z>. Sherburne, 1242
V. Skinner, Exrs., 161 1
Waldman v. Broder, 1902
Waldo V. Hall, 1077, 2262
V. Rice, 2075, 2094, 2175
Waldrum v. Cheek, 782
Wale V. Hill, 842
Wales V. Bowdish, 1820
V. Coffin, 591, 901, 911, 1886, igirj, 1931,
1932, 1935, 1940, 1941
V. Mellen, 2032, 2063, 2077, 2079
V. Sherwood, 2167
V. Webb, 2071
Wales' Admrs. v. Bowdish Exr., 1677
Walker's Case, 640, 1117,2268
Walker v. At water, 2056
z'. Baxter, 811, 2097
V. Beal, 1658
7'. Burrows, 1626
V. Carringlon, 1621
V. CoUrai:e, 2365
CCXXll
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Walker v. Crowder, 1795
V. Peaver, 721
V. Denne, 202
V. Dilworth, 641
V. Doane, 717
V. Dunshee, 415, 2288
V. Ellis, 1309, 1337
V. Engler, 1138, 1156
V. Fitts, looi, 1233, 1234
V. Furbush, 1275, 1307, 1328, 1342, 1343
V. Gatlin, 197
V. Gilbert, 2366
V. Giles, 1275
V. Grand Rapids Flouring Mill Co., 116
V. Griswold, 2074, 2182
V. Hall, I5q3, 1632, iggo
z/. Harper, 1213
V. Jarvis, 2149, 2156
z*. Johnson, 2000, 2078
V. Kee, 2107
•V. Keile, 2363
V. King, 2078, 2127, 2130, 2138, 2172
V. Lincoln, 2322
V. Locke, 1589, 1591
V. Matthers, 2124
V. Milne, 42
V. Paine, 2021
•v. Physick, 1069
v. Pitts, 1231
v. Pritchard, 1815
V. Quiggs, 1810
V Ricliardson, 983
V. Schindel, 143
■V. Schreiber, 2106
•V, Schuyler, 776, 806, 823, 841, 842, 844
D. Sherman, 78, 97, 104, 108, 109, no, 112,
113, 117, 133, 135, 1186
•V. Sharpe, 1335, 1339
3/. Symonds, 1733
w. Tipton, 982
•V. Tucker, 1152
V. Vincent, 249, 348, 1858
V. Walker, 334, 745, 762, 792, 853, 856,
857» 905. 955. 1538, 1616, 17S1, 2035
V, Wheeler, 1870, 1871
V. Whiting, 1614
z>, Williams, 2007
V. Wilson, 1280
Wall ZK Colshead, 76
V. Fife, 1890
V. Goodenough, 1140, 1146
7/. Hickey, 2035
V. Hill, 841, 844
V. Hill's Heirs, 986
V. Hinds, no, 120, 121, 122, 128, 129, 130,
140, 146. 563, 564, 1084, io36, 1108,
1117, jgoi, 2263, 2264
V. Lee, 33, 35, 36
V. Maguire, 414, 415, 423
V. Mason, 2128, 2129
V. Shindler, 2297
V. Wall, 2316
Wallace -v. Blair, 811, 2097
V. Bowens, 779, 1647
V. Carpenter, 985, 986, 1030, 1031
V. Coston, 1376, 1562, 1674
v. Duffield, 518, 1615, 1623, 1648, 1649,
1651, 1697, 1698, 1699. 2295
V. Fletcher, 1913, 2291
■V. Furber, 2166
•u. Goodhall, 2104
■ V. Hall, 718, 733, 734, 735, 739, 741, S34,
838
■V. Harmstad, 2253
z/. Harmstea.d, 156, 163, 195, 226, 1004,
1227
•V. Headley, 983, 985
■V. Lent, 1109, iiio, n68, 1200
V. Lewis, 103 1
•V. Long Island R. Co., 1019
■V. McCuUough, 1044
■V. Wainwright, 1574, 1590, 1592
Wallace, Jackson ex d., v. Carpenter, 985, 986,
1030, 103 1
Wallach v. Chesley,
V. Van Riswick, 236, 278
Waller v. Mardus, 731, 734, 735* 74^
V Spots, 2099
V. Waller's Admrs., 885, 1314
Walley's Heirs v. Kennedy, 2324
Walling V. Aiken, 2140
V. Burgess, 1956
Wallingsford v. Allen, 647, 648, 2345
Wallis V. Doe, 741
V. Harrison, 2213
V. Hodson, 2213, 2280
V. Manhattan, 2345
V. Wallis, 236,2314,2316, 2317,2319, 2349,
2359
V. Wilson, 1662
Walls z/. Atcheson, 1163
V. Bard, 2132
V. Preston, 970, 992, 1230, 1231, 1233,
1234, 1238
Wallwyn v. Coutts, 1793
Walmesley v. Jewett, 1844
V. Milne, 112, 117, 120, 126, 132, 133, 137,
1 186
Walphal V. Heath, 1026
Walsh V. Horine, 1503
V. Kelly, 773, 920, 956, 960
V. Matthews, 1858
V. Pemberton, 2250
V. Philadelphia F. Assoc, 2113, 2114
V. Phillips, 2103
V. Powers, 2on
V. Reiss, 855, 881, 1411
V. Rutger's Fire Ins. Co., 208S
V. Whitcomb, 1843
tK Wilson, 840, 843, 844, 891
V. Young, 1365
Walsingham's Case, 204, 205, 370, 372, 384, 386,
3S7. 391,457.627
Walston V. Buyan, 1230
Walter v. Alexander, 1139
V. Eould, 455
V. Dewey, 2253, 2256
V. Greenward, 1893
V. Hedge, 648
Walters v. Jordan, 773, 887, 892, 894, 895, 921
V. People, 1386, 1416, 1419, 1438, 1442,
1443. 1444; 1445. M54. 1456, I457»
1458, 1495
Walthall V. Goree, 1933, 1951
V. Rives, 2ogi
Waltham Bank v. Waltham, 43
Waltmeyer v. Baughman, 2296
Walton's Estate, g38
Walton z/. Cronly, 800, 1117, 2042
V. Cronly's Admrs., 1116
V, File, 1271, 1281, 1290, 1357
V. Hargroves, 804, 832, 2006
V. Hollywood, 2089
ZK Johnson, 2081
V. Jordan, 51
V. Tims, 1500
V. Walton, 473,661
V. Waterhouse, 1068, 1107, 1176, 1179,
1183
7/. Withington, 2088
V. Wray, 122, 126
Walz V. Rhodes, 1083. iigi, 1201
Wamble v. Battle, 2005
Wamburzee v. Kennedy, 1782
Wanamaker w. McCauUy, 11 57
Wansborough v. Maton, 123
Waples V. Harman, 415, 418
V. Marsh, 2333
Warburtoh v. Sands, 1663
Ward V. Amory,344, 486, 1553, 1583, 1597, 1796,
1815
V, Arch, 1783
V. Armstrong, 1610, 164S
V. Bull, 1126, 1175
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
ccxxin
Ward r. Carter, 2095
•u. Crotty, 647
V. Eden, 2109
V. Egmont, 2359
V. Fagin, iiq6, 1197
V. Fuller, 208, 209, 492, 764
V. Hugh, 1426
V. Kelsey, 992, 1084, 1086
V. Kilpatrick, 105, 106, 109, iii, 112, 114
7'. Kitchen, 1721
V. Krum, 1931
V. Lewis, 1600, 1734
z/. Mayfield, 1425
V, Neal, 2223
V. New York, 1248
•u. Peloubet, 1631
V. Seymour, 2136, 2138
V. Shallett, 934
V. Sheppard, 550, 553, 555, 556, 558, 743
V. Thurston, 1039
V. Ward, 1024, 1834, 1945, 2247, 2303
V. Warren, 1913
V. Wilson, 2267
Warden v. Adams, 2102, 2105, 2111
V. Enslen, 2175
V. Richards, 1662, 1814, 1885
7'. Southern Ry. Co., 224
Wardner v. Hardwin, 1544
Ward well 7/. Bassett, 237
w. Barrett, 2319
Ware v. Cann, 249
V. Cowles, 1698
V. Hall, 2252, 2259
V. Murph, 76
V. Owens, 721, 846
V. Polhill, 95, 1811
z*. Richardson, 292,294, 1534, 1550, 1551,
156X, 1565, 1566, 1574, 1654, 1797
V. Washington, 760, 784, 821, 823
Warfield v. Fisk, 2041
V. Lindell, 1913, 1914, 1997
V. Warfield, 845
Waring &. King, 1290, 1317
V. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., 1318, 1326
2/. Middleton, 309, 331
V. Slinguff, 2273
V. Smyth, 2000, 2076
V. Smythe, 2063
■ V. Sombom, 2069
V. Waring, 1753
Wark V. Willard, 2080, 2364
Warley v. Warley, 511
Warn v. Brown, 293
Waraecke v. Lembca, 1670
Warner z/. Abbey, 1230, 123 1
V. Bacon, 1290
V. Bates, 346, 1627, 1629
V. Bennet, 259,266, 269, 1849, i860, 1870
V. Blakeman, 2161
V. Brooks, 2027
V. Caulk, 59
V. Crosby, 1479, 1506
V. Crouch, 2345
V. Hale, 996, 1327, 1329, 1334, 1340, 2270
V. Gouverneur, 210S
V. Hitchins, 1068, 1107, 1181
7/. Hoisiugton, 1237
v. Howell, 1837
V. Kenning, 142
V. Tanner, 475, 478, 481
V. Van Alstyne, 777, 802, 804, 2005, 2006
V. Willard, 1824
v. Willington, 1000
Warner, Doe d., v. Browne, 1307, 1308, 1313,
1320, 1336
Warrall v. Jacobs, 648
Warren v. Aller, 1247
V. Blake, 2207, 2241, 2244
V. Chambers, 2293
V. Childs, 207, 211
V. Fenn, 2004, 2006
v. Fredericks, 1976
Warren v. Henshaw, 1904, 1922
V, Homestead, 2102, 2103
V. Jeniiinson, 2128, 2129
V, Leland, 53, 54, 55, 537
V. Lewis, 2038, 2054
V. Lynch, 501. 2339, 2363
z'. Lyons, 1049
V. Moriis, 918, q44
V. Prescott, 1338
V. Rudall, 573
V. Sennett, 2154
V. Torney, 2273
7). Twiller, 785
V. Van Alstyne, 832
7'. Wagner, 1168, 1175
V. Warren, 2097, 2127, 2164
V. Webb, 318, 534
Warrender v. Warrender, 753
Warriner zj. Rogers, 1587
Warrington v. Warrington, 1939
Wartenby v. Moran, 1004, 1138
Warter v. Hutchinson, 1596, 1607, 1797
Warwick z/. Bruce, 50, 51
V. Warwick, 1621, 1759
Washabaugh v. Entriken, 2293
Washburn, Re, 2266
Washburn v. Burnham, 1047
V. Burns, 1024, 1944, 1945
V. Cutter, 2295, 2296, 2297, 2298
V. Oilman, 2225
V. Merrills, 2035, 2046
V. Sproat, 62, 63, 123. 565, 1367
Washington v. Conrad, 1140
Washington's Exrs. v. Abraham, 76
Washington, A. & G. R. Co. v. Alexandria &
N. R. Co., 1599
Washington Ice Co. v. Shortall, 68, 70, 71,
2224
Washington Ins. Co. v. Kelley, 2115
V. Kelly, 2113, 2117
Wass V. Buckman, 590, 603, 607, 608
Wassell 7'. Tunnah, 1379, 1380, 1483, 1514
Watefall v. Penistone, 125
Waterford v. People, 706
Waterman v. Clark, 1139
z'. Curtis, 2060
V. Greene, 305, 310
V. Matterson, 2077
v. Matteson, 688, 1998, 2186, 2187
■v. Soper, 56, 57
Waters v. Gooch, 822, 841, 845, 864, 866, 867,
874, 875, 876, 877, 878
7'. Margerum, 443, 445
V. Taxewell, 645, 1561
Watertown v. Mayo, 4, 5
Water Street, Re, 1129
Waters v. Groom, 2163
V. Hubbard, 2072
V. Lilley, 2213, 2214
V. Stewart, 2000
V. Tazewell, 1857
V. Randall, 2050, 2054, 2055,2159, 2168
V. Young, '1006, 1335
Waterson v. Devol, iggg
V. Kirkwood, 2175
Waterworks Co. v. Burkhart, 73
Watkins, hi re, 864
Watkins v. Blatschinski, 1503
V. Eaion, 1921
V. Gregory, 2040, 2053, 2083
%>. Holman, 278, 279, 1291, 2091, 2092,
2224, 2333
V. Holman's Lessee, 368
z*. Overby, 1499
V. Peck, 2225, 2226, 2227, 2229, 2242
V. Quarles, 315
v. Sears, 401, 418, 447
V. Specht, 1785, 1797, 1885
V. Thornton, 598, 599, 603, 615, 703
V. Wassell, 2300
V. Watkins, 767, 773, 920
V. Wyatt, 2018, 2020
CCXXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Watris z-. First Nat. Bank of Cambridge, 122,
130, 145, 147, 1137, liS?) liBti, iiSg
Watson, Ex Parte, 1240, 1244
Watson V. Bioren, 2218
V. Bondruant, 21 19
z». Clendenin, 802, 925, 2365
V. Dickens, 2039, 2078
•V. Donnelly, 221, 222
V. Doyle, 1437
V. Dundee, 2107
V. Erb, 1620
V. Fletcher, 11 56
•u. Gray, 2235
V. Gregg, 517, 1916, 2358
V. Hayes, 1637
V. Hill, 1901
zi. Hunter, 573
V. Hunsworth Hospital, 1037
V James, 1832
V. Jones, 1658
V. Le Row, 2036, 2123
V. Master, 1008
V. Mercer, 2333
V. Mayrant, 1614
V. McEachin, 1287
V. Mercer, 671, 904
V. O'Hern, 1002
V. Pearson, 1797
V. Penn, 2250
V. Pennsylvania, 2252
V. Powell, 331, 333
V. Spence, 2149, 2151
V. Spratley, 817
V. Thompson, 1623
V. Watson, 580, 581, 589, 591, 624, 628,
629, 634, 636, 637, 652, 672, 864, S67,
868, 8(3g, 874, 1360
V. Wells, 2005
Watt's Appeal, 2300
Watt V. Watt, 2152
Watt, Doe d., ?'. Morris, 1347
Watts V. Ainsworth, 999
V. Ball, 598, 611, 679, 689, 1577, 1741
V. Clardy,'4ii, 413, 415
V. Coffin, 1083, 2065, 2191
V. Cole, 443, 445, 464, 465
V. Corey, 920
V. Gordon, 1424
V. Kinney, 2177
zi. Miller, 1469
V. Symes, 2127
V. Waddle, 36S, 2058, 2289
Waughsv. Carver, 1242, 1243, 1244
71. Riley. 673, 2014
Waugh's Exrs. 7*. Waugh, 281
Wauson v. Hawkins, 2157
Way V. Holton, 2251
V. Raymond, 1292
V. Reed, 1050, 1069, 1072, H15
z>. Way, 840
Way's Trust, In re, 1791, 1792
Wayman v. Cochrane, 2106
V. Jones, 1734
V. Southard, igi6
Wayne v. Hanham, 2159
V. Myddleton, 1832
V. Steamboat General Pike, 1209
Wealde v. Lower, 214
Weare v. Linnell, 1652
V. Van Meter, 1883
Wearce v. Pierce, 2025, 2059
Weatherbee v. Bennett, 730
Weatherby v. Baker, loio, 2259
V. Slack, 2179, 2180
Weatherhead's Lessee v. Baskerville, 201
Weathersby w. Sleeper, 117, 122, 131
V. Weathersby, 2053
Weaver v. Barden, 1746
7'. Belcher, 2065
■V. Crenshaw, 717, 838
V. Cregg, 714, 725, 785, 796, 828, 886, S93
V. Jones, 1259, 2271
Weaver v. Leiman, 1781
V. Sturtevant, 716, 717, 731, 732, 733, 736,
739. 741
V, Toogood, 2154
V. Wible, 1990
%t. Wood, 999
Webb, Estate of, 1593
Webb, Re, 2266
Webb V. Bird, 2291
V, Boyle, 718, 734, 741
^- Byng, 324, 41 J". 4^2
V. Cowley, 1398
V. Danforth, 1905
Webb, Doc d., v. Dixon, 1008
V. Earl of Shaftesbury, 1693
V. Evans, 955, 965
V. Fair'maner, 1005, 2256
V. Holt, 1428
V, Hoselton, 1999, 2012, 2078
■u. Lexington First Colored Baptist
Church, 689, 6go
V. Meloy, 811
V, Mexan, 2147
V. Pond, iioi
%>. Portland Co., 2225
V. Richardson, 2295
V. Robinson, 2005, 2007
v. Russell, 1028, 1069, 1 100
z-. Seekins, 12S1
V. Shaftesbury, 1845
V. Smith, 711
•V. Townsend, 552, 807, 833, 845
7'. Woods, J 629
Webber, Jackson ex d., v. Harsen, 981
7'. Sherman, J132, 1254
Webbs %>. Hynes, 517, 2292
Weber v. Anderson, 2298
V. Short, 1398
V. Weber, 1655
Webster v. Blodgett, 996
V. Bowman, 2309
V. Calden, 2084
V. Clark, 999
V. Cooper, 1655, 1710, 1711, 1796, 1797,
1849, i860, 1866
V. Ellingsworth, 692
V. Ellsworth, 703
V. Hall, 2364
zi. Howe Machine Co., 2056
V. King, 1620
7/. Nichols, 1143, 1156, 1316, 2261, 2262,
2272
7/. Parker, 974, 975
V. Potter, 141
V. Stevens, 2236
V. Upton, 1581
V. Vandeventer, 1662, 1878, 1885, 1900,
1966, 1969, 2TOI, 2146
z). Vandewater, 1881
V, Webster, 478, 541, 545, 546. 547, 549,
550. 552. 555, 557) 559, 5*^4) 5<^^j ^'^^
V. Woodford, 1032
7>. Zielly, 45
Wedderburn v. Wedderbum, 76, 1621, 1715,
1782, 1783, 1784, 2081
Wedge V. Moore, 728, 764
Weed ZI. Beebe, 2149
7/. Crocker, 2255
V. Lindsay, 994, 1281
V. Panama R. Co.. 1195
Weed Sewing maching Co. v. Emerson, 2068,
2070, 2152, 2301, 2345
Weekly v. Weekly, 42, 44
Weeks v. Bowerman, 1054
V. Comwell, 1689
7'. Eaton, 2100, 2103
V. Haas, 1651
z>. Hull, 2256
7'. Sego, 257
V. Tomes, 2152
V. White, 2308
Weetjen v. Vibbard, 1731, 1734
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF cases;
ccxxv
Weeton v. Woodcock, 131, 145, 146, 1224
Wegg z*. Villers, 1571
Weichselbaum v. Curlett, 1214, 1222
Weide v. Geh!, 2045, 2047
Weidman, Jackson ex d., v. Hubble, 1074
Weidner v. Foster, 2064
Weigall z/. Waters, 1182
Weight V. Freeman. 2303
Weil V. Golden, 2056
V. Raymond, 975
Weill V. Lucerne, 2303
V. Thompson, 123
Weimar ?'. Fath, 1S42
Weiner 7'. Heintz, 2151
Weinsteine v. Harrison, igoi
Weir V. Groat, 2012
V. Humphries, 615, 703, 776, 777, 778, 826
v. Simpson, 1083
V. Smith, 487
V. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co., 197, 2325,
2326, 2327
V. Tate, 598, 760, 762, 763, 778, 7U0, 814,
877. 885
Weisbrod z>. Daenicke, 1483, 1484
Weise v. Welsh, 633, 641
Weiser 7/. Weiser, 1971, iq89, 1991
Weisinger v. Murphy, 590, 591, 628, 651, 702,
1366, 1369, 1370
Welch V. Adams, 1220
V. Agar, 1980
Z'. Allen, 289, 1594, 1596, 1655, 1796
V. Anderson. 941, 947, 1981
V. Beers, 2181, 2183
V. Chambers, 699
V. Chandler, 658, 689, 701
V. Clark, 1247
V, Duckins, 760, 783, 826, 893
V. Button, 2322
V. Foster, 2318
V. Meyers, 2266
V. Nash, 57
V. Priest, 2100, 2103
V. Rice, 1407, 1462, 1463, 1472, 1473, 1475,
1482
V. Welch, 1371
Welch's Heirs v. Chandler, 601
Welcome v, Hess, 1160, 1161
Weld V. Oliver, 1905
V. Sabin, 810, 2136
V. Traip, 993
V. Williams, 402, 418, 443, 447
Weldon, Jackson ex. d., v. Harrison, 1104, 1107,
1155
Welford v. Beasley, 998
Wellborn t. Williams, 2007
Weller v. Baker, 1366, 1368, 1369, 1370
V. Rolason, 289, 290
v. Snover, 190
V. Weller, 690, 691, 781, 815, 820, 826,
889, 141 1
Welles V. Cowles, 42, 43, 44, 1023
71. Olcott, 401, 411, 412, 448
Wellford v. Beasley, 1043
V. Chancellor, 1643
Welling V. Ryerson, 2173
Wellington v. Wellington, 373, 418
Wellock V, Hammond, 1848
Wells V. Bannister, 123, 142
V. Beall, 866
7'. Calnan, 1099
V. Castles, 1066, 1084, 1086, »io7, 1126,
1127, 1166, 1167, 1175. 1604, 1753
V. Caywood, 646, 895, 1938
V. Deming, 2260
V. Evans, 1042
V. Hart, 2004
V. Heath, 1594, 1597
V. Jackson, 2298
7'. Lewis, 1663, 1842
7/. Mason, 1079, 1149, 1172, 1220, 1291
V. McCall, 500, 1673
V. Moore, 83 1
Wells V. Morrow, 2007, 2047
v. Morse, 2176
V. Newbold, 447, 463, 471
V. Prince, 207
V. Robinson, 1644, 1760
V. Sheerer, 1140, 1212
V. Thompson, 603, 605, 612,613, 633, 641,
658, 664, 665, 686, 689, 690
V. Wilmington, 1247
Wells, Jackson ex d., v. Welld, 536
Welp V. Cunther, 2067
Welsh V. Foster, 236, 2317, 2319
V. Phillips, 1993, 2102
V. Usher, 2003
V. Wilson, 1797
V. Woodbury, 1815
Welton V. Devine, 779, 1647
Wendell v. Crandall, 226, 227, 228, 471, doi
V. Jackson, 2357
V. Johnson, 1283
•V. Moulton, 211
V. New Hampshire Bank, 2147
Wentworth v. First Parish of Canton, 31, 35,
36, 37. 38, 39. 40
V. Miller, 1236
V. Philpot, 2242
V. Portsmouth, etc., R. Co., 1234
V. Remick, 1920, 1936
V. Wentworth, 523, 956, 1639, 1652, 1699,
1763
Wertz s Appeal, 2126
Wescott V. Delano, 144
V. Edmunds, 1655, 1744
Wesley University v. Troy Conference Acad-
emy, 1019
West V. Barney, 1843, 1844
V. Fitz, 1797
V. Flannagan, 1307
V. Fritche, 1266
V. Hart, 1 106
V. Hendrix, 2044, 2053, 2054
V. Jones, 1733
V. Kelly, 169S, 1701
V. Moore, 724
V. Randall, 2365
V. Stewart, 62
V. Ward, 1426, 1427
West Cambridge v. Lexington, 212
West Coast Lumber Co. v. Apfield, 11S8
West Cumberland Iron Co. v. Kenyon, 200
West Transportation Co. v. Lansing, 1075
West Virginia Trans. Co. v. Ohio R. P. L. Co.,
2214
West River Bank v. Gale, 143 1, 1434, 1457, 1499
West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 2327
West Side Savings Bank v. Newton, 1166,
n68
Westbrook v. Eager, 49, 50, 51, 52
■ V. Gleason, 2125
Westcott V. Campbell, 841, 844
Westerfield v. Bried, 2060
Western v. Macdermott, 267
V. Russell, 1758
Western Bank v. Kyle, 1059
Western Bank of Scotland v. Tallman, 2014,
2016
Western Ins. Co. v. Riker, 2116
Western Mfg. Co. v. Peytonia, 2301
Western National Bank's Appeal, 2235
Western N. C. R. Co. v. Deal, 122, 129
Western R. Co. v. Babcock, 1697
Western Transportation Co. v. Lansing, 1003,
1006, 1087, 1088, 1307, 1320, 1336
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Caldwell, 2082
V. Fain, 996, 1262, 1263, 1274, 1283, 1304,
1329
Westervelt v. Cregg, 2324
V. Matheson, 1697
V. People, 486
V. Pinckney, 50
Westfall V. Hintz, 92S
7'. Jones, 2109
CCXXVl
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Westfall V. Lee, goo
Westgage v. Wixon, 2021, 2022
Westgate v. Wixon, 139, 140, 141
Westlake v. De Graw, 1054, 1175
V. Wheat, 1689
Westmeath v. Westmeath, 648
Westmorland v. Foster, 2250
V. Porter, 2267
Westmoreland & Cambria Natural Gas Co. v.
De Witt. 83, 84, 100, T139
Westmoreland Coal Co. Appeals, 494, 495
Westmoreland, Doe d., v. Smith, 13 14
Westn Univ. v. Robinson, 2191
Weston V. Alden, 2225
V. Arnold, 2236
V. Barker, 1600, 1672
V. Hunt, 234
V. Metropolitan Asylum District Man-
agers, 1 141
•V. Weston, 104
V. Wilson, 2331
Westover v. Chapman, 1715
Wetherbee v. Bennett, 1095
V. Ellison, 79
Wetherell v. Howells, 1223
Wetherby v. Slack, 2154
Wethersby v. Sleeper, 123
Wetmore v. Kissan, 898, 957
V. Laird, 2365
V. Porter, 1798
Wetz-z/. Beard, 1378, 1459
Wetzel V. Mayer, 2272
Whale V. Booth, 1667
Whalen v. Cadman, 1400, 1401
Whaley & Others v. Jenkins, 309
V. Whaley, 1150, 1348, 1349
Whalin v. White, 1125, 1169, 1219, 2156
Whalley v. Eldridge, 2175
V. Small, 2123
Wharf V. Howell, 2031, 2044, 2168
Wharton v. Moore, 2067
V. Taylot, 1509
V. Wharton, 445
Whatman v. Gibson, 267, 2214
Whayman, Doe d., v. Chaplin, 1027
Wheatland v. Dodge, 417, 424
Weatley v. Baugh, 2226, 2230
V. Calhoun, 766, 767, 787, 830, 1671
z*. Purr, 1587
V. Thomas, 277
Wheatley's Heirs v. Calhoun, 803, 804, 805, 818
Wheaton v. Andress, 320, 333, 535
V. East, 985, 2343
V. Gates, 32, 35
V. Peters, 149, 7^7
Whedon v. Gorham, 1516
Wheeland v. Swartz, 2168
Wheeldon, Doe d., v. Paul, 1154
Wheeler v. Atkins, 257
V. Bedell, 123
V. Caryl, 1626
V. Clark, 2236
V. Clutterbuck, 2286
2*. Conrad, 996, 998
w. Cowan, 1274, 1304
V. Crawford, 1083
•u. Dunlap, 2
V. Earle, 1141
V. Factors & Traders' Ins. Co., 2119
V. Frankenthal, 996, gg8, 1013, 1323
V. Gorham, 486
V. Hamey, 1903
V. Hill, 1121
V. Hotchkiss, 592, 624, 661, 662, 670
V. Hughes, 2110
z/. Kirkendall, 1205
V. Kirtland, 532, 726, 797, 818, 893, 921,
922
V. Montefiore, 97S
V. Morris, 799, 800, 926, 2173
v. New Brimswick C. R. Co., 2302
V. Perry, 1720
Wheeler w. Redding, 1512
V. Reynolds, 1590, 1702
•V. Sage, 1586, 1645
V. Stone, 2091, 2092
V. Thoroughgopd, 980
V. Walker, 1847, 1850, 1852, 1855, 1856, 1862
V. West, 995
V. Wheeler, 1021
V. Whitall, 1870
V. Willard, 2136, 2138
Wheelock v. Dozzens, 706
7). Warschauer, 1126, ii6g, 1172, 1220
Wheelwright v. Wheelwright, 465, 1016, 2035,
2354
Whelan v. Reilly, 2161
V. Whelan, 959, 1696, 2350
Whelpdale v. Cookson, 1767
Whetmore v. Kissam, 985
Whetstone v. Bury, 1558, 1559, 1583
V. Davis, 1314
V. Saintbury, 299
Whett V. Whetstone's Exrs., 1783
Whichcote v. Lyie, 1674
Whilden v. Wbilden, 916, 918, 934, 936, 944
Whilton ZK Whilton, 1924
Whipley v. Dewey, 146, 1138
Whipple v. Adams, 1632
V. Farrar, 1751
•v. Foote, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 2334
Whiskou V. Clayton, 338
Whistler v. Hicks, 729, 730, 1094
V. Newman, 1035
V. Webster, 948
Whitaker v. Brown, 88, 2241
V. Cawthorne, 1268
V. Greer, 867, 875
Whitbank's Appeal, 1581
Whitbeck, Jackson ex d., -u. Deyo, 1282
V. Whitbeck, i6g8
Whitbread, Ex parte ^ 2002
Whitcomb v. Cardell, 1592, 1690
V. Reid, 2288
V. Taylor, 317, 417, 418
V. Towers, 984
White's Appeal, 122
White V. Albertson, 1707
V. Amdt, 115, 145, 146
7'. Barker, 299, 1606
V. Bass, 2208
V. Bayley, 1287
V. Baylor, 1796
V. Bond, 2073, 2074, 2170
V. Briggs, 347, 1630, 1632, 1693
V, Brooks, 1923
V. Brown, 2089, 2114
V. Cannon, 1586, 1645
V. Carpenter, 1634, 1635, 1649
V. Chapin, 2226, 2244
V. Chitty, 501
V. Clark, 2328
V. Clarke, 736, 737, 1460, 1463
V. Cox, 1033
V. Crawford, 2208, 2217, 2218, 2245
V. Cutler, 541, 542, 543, 545, 546, 552, 557,
724, 738, 807, 833
V. Denman, 2126, 2364
V. Dougherty, 2008
V. Downs, 2007
V. Dresser, 2233
V. Drew, 761, 763, 1622
V. Elwell, 1280
V. Fisher, 2150
V. Fitzgeralff, 1592, 1964
v. Flora, 1758
V. Foster, 53, 55, 56
V. Givens, 1481
V. Graves, 902
V. GrifEng, 1114, 1164, 2266
V. Hampton, 810, 1599, 1786, 1788, 2096,
2097, 2171
V. Hart, 1512
V. Hicks, 1837
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
ccxxvu
White V. Holland, 1013, 1323
V. Howard, 368,2058, 2289
V. Hunt, 1H4
7'. Hussey, 1626
V. Hutchinson, 1280
■V. Hyatt, 2024
V. Knapp, 811
V. Leslie, 2364
7'. Livingston, loor
V. McGannon, 1697
V. Middlesex R. Co., 1051
■V. Miller, 1247
z>. Molyneux, 10S3, 1126, 1175, 1177
V. Montgomery, 1083, 1192
1'. Moore, 2121
V. Mosely, 1247
V. Nashville, 713, 738, 2325
V. Osbom, 1246
V. Parker, 695
V. Perkins, 630
7'. Polleys, 1494, 2164
V. Reid, 210
V. Rittenmeyer, 688, 1997, 1999, 2062,
2084, 2103, 2112
V. Samson, 1626
7'. Sayre, 1876, 1911
V. State, 596
V. Story, 853, 859
V. Sutherland, 2106
V. Trotter, 1773
V. Trustees Methodist Episcopal Church,
35.40
V. Wager, 1938
•V. Wagner, 552, 553, 563, 568, 570, 646,
647,895, 1152, 1153
V. Warner, 1157
ti. Watts, 1758, 2146
V. Williams, 1888, 2007, 2146
V. Williamson, 532
V. Willis, 807
V. White, 216, 220. 236, 274, 500, 509, 519,
846, 862, 881, 882, 884, 888, 893, 896,
go8, 909, 912,916,918,919, 941, 944,
1456, 1781, 2327, 2331
7'. Whitney, 688, 1095, 2062, 2 112
White, Doe d., v. Simpson, 1595, 1596
White. Jackson ex d., v. Cary, 1557
White's Admr. v. White, 1520, 1521
White's Contract, Re^ 1693
White River Turnpike Co. v. Vermont Cent.
R. Co., 2327
Whiteacre v. Rector, 1403, 1503
Whitecomb v. Jacob, 1761
Whitefield v. McLeod, 1758
Whitehead v. Clifford, 1162
V, Cummings, 886
•V. Foley, 2366
V. Hellen, 2'i63
V. Mallory, 792, 821, 822, 915
V. Tapp, 1398
Whitehead, Doe d., v. Pittman, 1141
Whiteman v. Field, 1466
Whiteside v. Jackson, 1268, 1272
V. Miller, i6go
Whiteside et al. v. Jackson exd. Mumford, 1282
Whitesides v. Cannon, 1373, 1562
Whitewater Valley Canal Co. v. Vallette, 2342
Whitfield v. Bewit, 495
V. Prickett, 260, 272
V. Taylor, 964
Wliitham v. Osbum, 2328
^^'h.ithers v. Yeadon, 1021
Whiti ig w. Brastow, 131, 147, ii37t 1187
V. Dewey, 2025
V. Edmunds, 1144, 1145
V. Gould, 1635, 1646
V. Griffing, 2266
V. Nicholl, 523
V. Ohlert, 997
V. Pittsburg Opera House, 996, 998, 1305
7/. Salter, 512
V. Stevens, 2343
Whiting V. Street, 2258
V. Whiting, 457, 780, 914, 1885
Whitley v. Davis, 2353
Whitlock's Case, 1039, 2361
Whitlock V. Duffield, loog, 1087, 1088, 1089
7'. Gosson, 1471, 1474
V. Hale, 1975
V. Horton, 1162
Whitmarsh v. Cutting, 1205, 1207, 12 10, 1267
V. Walker, 54, 56
Whitmire v. Wright, 823
Whitmore v. Gibbs, 1266
V. Learned, 1635, 1648
%i. Russell, 534
V. Shiverick, 1999
V. Weld, 437
•V. Whitmore, 661
Whitney v. Allaire, 971, 978, 979, mi
V. Allen, 2156
V. Batchelder, 2045
V. Buckman,2ois, 2016, 2024, 2031
V. Closson, 646, 648
V. Cochran, 1291
V. Dutch, 986, 1031, 2343
V. French, 211, 1995,2038. 2039
V. Gordon, 1275, 1307, 1328, 1342, 1343
V. McKinney, 2147, 2150
V. Meyers, 1162
7*. Morrow, 574
7/. Salter, 490, 505
V. Stevens, 750
V. Swett, 1262, 1264, 1265, 1284, 1295,
1303. 1305. 1329
V. Union R. Co., 268
Whitridge v. Barry, 1878
Whitsellw. Mills, 662, 770, 771, 919, 920
Whitt V. Mayor of New York, 1321
Whittaker z'. Hawley, 982, 983, 1126, 1176,1177,
1178, 1180
Whittemore 7'. Farrington, 2071, 2330
V. Gibbs, 1998
V. Moore, 1316
Whitten v. Whitten, 647, 1975, 19S2
Whitter v. Cochego, 2247
Whitthaus v. Shack, 933
Whittick, Jackson ex d., -u. Deigo, 1309
Whittier v. Whittier, 779
Whittingham's Case, 1031
Whittington v. Wright, 2298
Whittle V. Samuels, 1483
Whittlesey v. Fritter, 1920, 1934
V. McMahon, 1625
Whitton V. Whitton, 191 1
Whitwell 7/. Harris, 1050, 1141
V. Warner, 1621
Whitworth v. Gangain, 2003
V. Stuckey, 416, 417
Whyte z'. Nashville, 506, 710, 723, 731, 737,740
Wickersham v. Bills, 284
V. Irwin, rio8
Wickes V. Clarke, 633, 642
V. Jordan, 539, 1206
Wickham v. Berry, 299, 1037, 1606, 1675
V. Hawker, 90, 93
Wickliffe v. Lexington, 1781
Wickman v. Robinson, 2009
Wickoff V. Davis, 2068
Wicks z*. Mitchell, 896, 2012
V. Scribens, 2173
Widdowson v. Duck, 1721
Widger v. Browning, 1344
WiedlerT*. Farmers' Bank, 8go
Wien z/. Simpson, nog
Wier V. Humphries, 693
V. Michigan Stove Co., 305
V. Simmons, 1867
V. Tate, 600
Wiesner v, Zann, 2301
Wigg's Case, 1026
Wiggin V. Berry, 1850
7'. Buzzell, 1445
V. Chance, 1502, 1519
CCXXVIU
TAJBLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
"Wiggin V. He5''wood, 2082, 2083
Wiggins I/. Holley, 210, 211,2297
V. Keizer, 961
V. McCleary, 2303
V. New York, 2268
V. Peters, 1005
V. Wiggins, 64, 65, 507, 1278, 1876, i8gi,
2270, 2271
Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 370,
390, 107 r
Wiggleswoith z/ Dallison, 1205, 120S, 1209,1210
V. Steers, 1032, 1033
Wight XK Gray, 133
V. Sliaw, 591
V. Thayer, 252, 396, 411, 412, 427, 448, 449,
450
Wightman v. Gray, 2165
V. Pettis, 678
2'. Wightman, 660, 661, 751, 753, 754j 755,
756, 757
W^igley V, Beauchamp, 837, 938, 949
Wikoff 2/. Davis, 2154, 2179, 2180
Wilber v. Wilber, 793, 910
Wilbraham v. Snow, 1969
Wilburs'. Almy, 1731
V, Tobey, 66a, 673
Wilce V. Wilce, 310
Wilcox f. Bates, 2046
v, Danforth, 2235
V. Hawley, 1514, 1515
V. Heywood, 405, 416, 447, 472
V. Morris, 1993, 2001
ZK Randall, 797, 940
V. Smith, 1769
V. Wheeler, 289, 1797
V. Wilbur, 12S0
V. Wilcox, 1957, 1963, 1964
I'. Wood, 1006
Wilcoxen v. Bowles, 2254
Wilcoxon V. Donnelly, 2251
Wild's Case, 324, 325
"Wild?/. Deig, 2327, 2328
V. Milne, igSo
Wild's Lessee v. Sei-pell, 1144, 1160, 1220
Wilder'. Cantillon, 1346, 1347, 1356
V. W'aters, 145
Wilden v. Bodley, 1709
z'. Brooks, 648
V. Ewbank, 1156
z'. Haughey, 1421, 1475, 2144
7'. Houghton, 2066
z\ House, 1357
V. St." Paul, 2245
%•. Whictemore, 2032, 2033
V. Whirttemore, 1666
Wildermuth v. Koenig, 1499
Wildes V. Van Voorhis, 902, 1910
Wildey v. Barney's Lessee, 1976
z<. Bonney, 1928
V. Collier, 2059
Wilding V. Richard, 1793
Wddman v. Taylor, 105S
V. Wildman, 43
Wilds V. Layton, 549, 572, 576
"Will's Case, 2199
Wiles V. Peck, 2364
Wiley's Appeal, 975
Wiley V. Collins, 1794
V. Ewing, 2073, 2135, 2171, 2174
z>. Knight, 1624, 2o6r
v. Penson, 2148, 2150
V. Smith, 415, 1694
V. Wiley, goo
V/ilford z>. Grant, 706
Wilgus V. Commonwealth, 974
V. Lewis, 1316, 1335, 1340
"'. Whiteheart, 2255
Wilhelm?'. Lee, 1998
v. Mertz, 1025, 1047
Wilhelmiz/. Leonard, 810,2096
Wilhite's Admr. v. Boulware, 1957
Wilkerson zk Adams, 22S1
Wilkerson v. Rust, 121 r
Wilkins v. Aarton, 1884, 1907
V. Fry, 1065
V. French, 688, 802, 1921, 1998, 2063, 2084,
2103, 2i6g, 2173
z'. Irvine, 1268
V, Taliafero, 2255
V. Taylor, 76
V. French, 2062
V. Varshbinder, 46, 52
Wilkinson v. Adams, 2281
V. Barry, 1778, 1787
V. Bewick, 120
V. Clauson, mo
V. Deming, 1464
V. Dent, gi8, 944
V. Flowers, 2094, 2140
Z'. Hall, 1327, 1328, i32g, 1338, 1901
V. Jett, 1244
V. Ketler, 2271
V. Leland, 671, 2324, 2328, 2329, 2333
V. Malin, 1731
V. Merrill, 1403, 1404, 1454
V. Nelson, 1840
V. Parrish, 785, 886, 887
V. Pearson, 1034
V. Proud, 93
V. Rogers, 1141
V. Ccatt. 1538, 1700
7'. Wilkinson, 265
Willan V. Willan, 10S9
Willard v. Benton, 1154, 1155
7/. Eastham, 2012
V. Finnegan, 2159, 2170, 2171
V. Harvey,2i3i, 2251
V. Henry, i860, 1869
V. Rcas, 2005
7'. Tillman, 1179,2251, 2258
V. Ware, 1837
V. Worsham, 2072
7'. Winnelly, 1996, 2051
Willet V. Beatty, 804, 813, 814, 817
V. Brown, 694, 786, 824, 825
Willets 7'. Burgess, 2050, 2 16S
Willey V. Haley, 464
Willi z>. Dryden, 1108, 2262
William's Case, 519
William z\ Farwell, 1812
V. Roberts, 2005
William and Mary College zk Powell, 934
Williams' Appeal, 329, 336, 1561, 1604, 1655, 1664,
1707, 1753
Williams Case, 2146
Williams, Ex parte, 1831
Williams' Exrs., 526
Williams v. Ackerman, 1134, 1125, 2260
V. Ackerson, 1322
V. Allen, 294
V. Allison, 1758
V. Angell, 1864
V. Arkle, 1638
7'. Bagnall. go
V, Baker, 638. 639, 924
V. Bartlett. 20S7
V. Beasley, 440, 441
V. Bennett, 873, 1334
V. Brown, 1653
V. Bosanquet, 979, 2262
V. Bi-iggs, 2017, 2018. 2020
V. Burrell, 1063, 1065, 1074, 1080, iigo,
2362
V. Carle, 658, 794
V. Cash, 1212, 1297, 1308
V. Castor, 489, 521
V. Chitty, 953, 955, 957
V. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2089
zi. Claiborne, 645
V. Cleaver, 970
V. Coade, 1638
V. Conrad, 489. 514
7'. Countney, 8q3
V. Cowden, 270, 1858
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CCXXiX
Williams v. Cox, 8i6
V, Dakin, 1868
V. Dawson, 914
V. Deriar, 1255, 1275, 1281, 1301, 1307,
1319. 1324. 1339
V. Dickerson, 321, 322
V. Dorris, 1442, 1444
7). Downing, 1047, 1225
V, Dwinnelle, 1703
z*. Earle, 1076, 2264
V. Engelbrecht, 2060
V. Everett, 1600
V. First Presbyterian Soc, 1596, 1684,
1723, 1796
•u. Garrison, 1159, 1222, 1579
I', r.ibbes, 1665
7'. Gray, 18S3
z'. Groucott, 89
V. Hall, 1419
11. Hensley, 1309
•V. Hichborn, 417
•V. Hilton, 2027, 2o8g, 2090
V. Hodge, 1282, 1292
V. Hoilingsworth, 163 1, 1639, 1641, 1642,
1644, 1700
V. Holmes, 1249, 1820
^. Howard, 984
V. Inabnet, 1033
V. James, 2220
V. "jekyll, 1553
V. Jenkins, igo6
V. Johnson, 671
^. Jones, 351, 1497
V. Kershaw, 1638
V. Lake, 999
V. Lanier, 578
V. Latourette, 648
V. Leech, 1674
•v. McCall, 1724
V. McConico, 300, 1606
V. Milton, 2o8g
V. Morancy, 2105
V. Moore, 2344
V. Morgan, 1367
V. Nelson, 72, 2247
V, Nixon, 1733
V. Nolan, 1233
V. Oliphant, 1246
V. Otey, 1782, 1785
V. Owens, 2044, 2055
V. Parisiene, 769
' V. Perry, 2153
V. Potter, 1139
z;. Roberts, 200S
V. Robinson, 2066
V. Robson, 900,903, gog
V. Roger Williams Ins. Co., 632
V. Rogers, 11 53
V. Sheldon, 1029, 1033
V. Sharman, 1132
V. Starr, 1450, 1473, i475i 1478*2133
V. Steele, 2023
V. Stratton, 2003
V. Sweetland, 1407, i444) 1485
■V. Tatnall, 2126
V, Teachy, 2100, 2101
V. Temer, 1622
7). Terrall, 2151
V. Thomas, 209
V. Thorn, 273
V. Tipton, 2177
V. Townsend, 2086, 2146, 2155
V. Vosanquet, n 1 7
•u. Waters, 299, 1558
V. Wethered, 1425
z/. Whiting, 1456
V. Williams, 347.407. 596, 755, 1627, 1628,
1632, 1633, 1647
V. Winsor, 2018
V. Wood, 2006
V. Woods, 814, S32
V. Woodward, 233, 1114, iii9> ^832
Williams v. Worthington, 1591, 1593
V. Young, 1497, 1501, 1502, 20Qg
Williams, Doe d., v. Cooper, 1309
Williams, Doe d., v. Matthews, 1039
Williams, Jackson ex. d., ?/. Miller, 1108, 1113,
1 148, 1348, 1586, 1638, 164S, i6g6
Williams, Doe d., v. Pasquale, 1309
Williams, Doe d., v. Smith, 1336
Williams' College v, Mallett, igii
Williamson -u. Adams, 2281
V. Ball, i75t
•V. Keekham, 1373
V. Berry, 1516, 1751, 2154
V. Champlin, 20S2
•v. Daniel, 408, 414, 416
V. Farrell, 1838
V, Field, 2147, 2151
V. Field's Exrs., 315, 317
V. Fontain, 1965
V. Crank Trunk R. Co., iig5
V. Mason, 813
V. New Albany R. Co., 2067
V- New Jersey S. R. Co., 61, 77, 98
V. Parisen, 883
7.1. Paxton, 1292, 1318, 13 19, 1326
V. Perry, 2159
V. Richardson, 2250
z/. Steele, 2024
V. Suydam, 1661, 1754
7J. Wickersham, 336, 1709
V. Wilkins, 4gi, 1741
V. Williamson, 936
Williamson, Den ex d., 11. Snowhill, 1319
Williamson's Admx. v. Richardson, 974
Williard v. Williard, 544, 1G90
Williman -v. Holmes, 1561, 1655, 1672, 1673^
Willinik v. Morris Canal Co., 2018
Willing V. Brown, igSi
Willington v. Gale. 2062
Willink V. Morris Canal, 201:9
WillLngs V. Consequa, 2057
Willion V. Berkly, 374, 375, 398, 399, 437, 452
Willis V. Astor, 10S8, io8g
71. Bucher, 340, 415, 417
V. Doe, 838
V. Farley, 2ogg, 2104
V. Freeman, 786, 825
V. Gay, 1778
V. Hiscox, 1858
V. Matthews, 1425, 1426
V. Sherrall, 1843
V. Twombly, 2109
V. Valette, 2104
V. Willis, 1648, 1700
V. Wozencraft, 1276, 1290
Willis, Doe d., v, Martin, issg
Willis, Lessee v. Bucher, 424
Willison V. Watkins, 1144, 1x46, 1T48, 1150,
1160, 1214, 1222, i2g4, 1309,1913, 1914
Willmarth v. Pratt, 2272
Willmerding v, Mitchell, igg6
Wills V. Cowper, 367, 720, 1164, 1835, 2057, 2288
V. Gas Co., 1151
V. Sayers, 137 1
V. Slade, 515
Wills, Jackson ex d., v. Stiles, 1148, 1213, 1218
Willson V. Cleveland, 1159
7). Glossop, 774
V. Phillips, 1138
Wilmarth v. Bancroft, 2186
V. Bridges, 533, 761, 815
V. Cutting, 538
Wilmerding v. Mitchell, 1996
Wilmington Star Min. Co. v. Allen, 1139, 1158
Wilms V. Jess, gi, g2, 93, 94, 1743. 2033, 2237
Wilson, Ex parte i 28
Wilson z/. Abbott, 1331
V, Arentz. 580, 624, 632
V. Bennett, 181B, 2160
V. Boyce, 2024
V. Branch, 853, 858, 884
ccxxx
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Wilson V. Brett, iigi
V, Burton, 2072
w. Chalfant, 2212, 2213
V. Chesshire, 2g8, 1558, 1582
V. Christopherson, 1479, 1480
V. City of Bedford, 2230
V. Cochran, 1384, i397. i400j r4or, 1420,
1427, 1433, 1445, 1507
V. Cox, gi6, 935, 955
■V. Crook, 2333
V. Davisson, 804, 829, 830, 832. 858, 2009
V. Delaplaine, 1120, 2250, 2257
V. Dent, i6gr
V. Douglas, 978
V. Drumrite, 2001, 2037, 216S
V. Duguid, i6z8
V. Edmonds, 506, 563
V. Finch, 1200
V. Fleming, 1883, 1920, 1936
V. Forbes, 69
11. Gaines, 1814
V. Greenwood, 260, 272
V. Gait, 1855, 1867
V. Graham, 2008
V. Hart, 267, 1778
V. Harvey, 2060
V. Halton, 1055, 1056
V, Hayward, 2104, 2147
V. Henry, 2297
V. Herbert, 2012
V, Hill, 596, 2116
V, Hodges, 1258
s». Hooper, 2078
V. Hubbell, 1213, 1219
V. Hunter, 2021
v^. Jones, 1157, 1158
V. Lester, 11 60
V. Lyon, 2004, 2006
V. Madison, 1502
V. Maltby, 2187
V. Mayor, 1627
V. Mayor of New York, 5
V. McCullough, 1764
V. McEvan, 2298, 2301
V. McLenaghan, 733, 931
V. McNeal, 46
V, Merrill, 12S0
V. Moore, 1783
V. Oatman, 822, 841, 842
V. O'Connell, 533
V. Oldham, 1034
V. Page, 2158
V. Pearson, 2303
V, Peelle, 1882
V. Prescott, 1274
V. Reed, 1246
V. Rodeman, 1333
V. Russell, i6g8, 1700
V. Scruggs, 1 189
V. Shoenberger's Exrs., 203g, 2120
V. Smith, S06, 1128, Ji2g, 1144, 1148, 1168,
1335
V. Spring, 2147
V. Stillwell, 2025, 2026
V. Taylor, 1327, i32g, 1343
V. Taylor's Exrs., 730
V. Towie, isgg
V. Troup, 688, 7gg, 800, 1708, 1775, 1806,
1S26, 1830, 1843, 1S44, 2ogg, 2100, 2101,
2104, 2105, 2111, 2160
•V. Unselt, 2151, 2157, 2158
V. Wall, 1763, 1763
V. Wallani, 2266
V. Weatherby, 1160
z*. Wilson, 311, 48g, 1848, 1862, 1872, ig35,
2015
Wilson, Doe d., v. Phillips, 11 50
Wilson, Den ex d., v. Small, 411, 415, 426, 428
Wilt V. Franklin, 1538, 1786, 1789
Wilton V. Tazwell, i8g6
Wiltshear v. Cottrell, 107
Wiltshire &. Sidford, 2235, 2236
Wimberly v. Bailey, 487
Wimfish V. Tarlbois, 433
Winans v. Peebles, 646, 647
z'. Wilkie, 2068, 2og6
Winbish v. Willoughby, 249
Winchell v. Edwards, 2302
Winchelsea v. Wentworth, 1570
Winchester v. Tilghmau, 331
Wind V. Jekyl, 20
Winder v. Little, 841
Windham v. Portland, 718, 739, 797, 819, 834
Windle v. Brandt, 1466
Windsor v. Sirapkins, 1982
Windt z'. German Reformed Church, 41'
Winebrinner v. Weisiger, 646, 895, ig38
Wing V. Burgis, 2357
V. Cooper, ig92, 2048, 2050, 2053,2160
V. Cropper, 1407, 1408, 1443, 1489
V. Gray, 118
V. Hayden, 1450, 1479, 1502
z>. McDowell, 2139
Winkfield v. Brinkman, 1622
Winkler v. Winkler, 5S7, 588, 593, 626, 633, 667,
675. 1372
Winland v. Holcomb, 1436
Wiun u. Dillon, 1643, 1707, 1769
V. Elliott, 781, 820
V. Ingilby, 120, 126, 127
V. Murehead, 2256
V. State, 1049
Winne, Inre, 1377
Winne, Matter of. 274, 585, 587, 588, 590, 592,
617, 620,624, 632,633, 635, 637, 641,
651, 670, 678, 1366
Winne v. Littleton, 2084, 2148
Winningham v. Crouch, 974
Winona & St. Peter R. Co. v. St. Paul & Sioux
City R. Co., 1622
Winship v. Bass, 1684
V. Pitts, 544, 565
Winslow V. Chiffelle, rg6i
V. Clark, 2147, 2151
V. Merchants' Ins. Co., g6, g7, 103, 105,
106, log, 112, 117, 121, 123, 128, 130,
131, 132, 133, 134, 142, 146, 1187
V. Minnesota & P. R. Co., 1746, 1747
V. Rand, 2250
V. Winslow, 2297, 2299
Winstead v. Bingham, 2108
Winstell v. Hehl, 1025
Winsthoff V. Dracourt, 534
Winston v. Jones, 1754
V. Franklin Academy, 1043, 1141, 1213
Winter v. Anson, 832, 2008'
V. Brockwell, 2246
V. Henderson, 2154, 2i7g, 2180
V. Stevens, i2g6, 1352, 1354, 1356
Winterbottom 7/. Ingham, 1276
Wintermute v. Light, 45, 46, 47
Winters v. Cherry, 995
V. McGhee, igor
Winthrop 71. Benson, 210
V. Fairbanks, 2361
V. Farrar, 5
Winton v. Barnum, 647
V. Cornish, 983, 1015, 1176
Wintour v. Clifton, gi8, 944
Wire V. Mitchell, 108
Wirth V. Bransom, 230S, 2310
Wiscot's Case, 433, 446, 1024
Wise V. Faukner, 2257
V. Metcalf, 108, 109, no, 563, 1068
V. Old, 2274
V. Wise, 1786, 1787
Wiseley v. Findlay, gig, 1973, 1975, i97g
W:seman v. Beekman, 893
&. Hutchinson, 1777
V. Lucksinger, 2212, 2213
V. Macy, 890
V. Wiseman, 773, 887, 891
Wiser V. Lockwood, 756
Wislerz/. Hershey, 2217
References are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CCXXXl
Wislon e-. Patrick, 2054
Wisner v. Faruham, 1523
zi. Ocumpaugh, 2272
Wistar v. Mercer, 2263
Wistou V. Mowlin, 2106
Wiswall V. Stewart, 1768
V. WUkins, 1882, 1883, igo6
\\'it V. Mayor, 1042
Witczinski z>. Everman, 2030
^Vitham v. Brooner, 1607
V. Perkins, 589, 591, 624, 628, 659
Withaus V. Schock, 737, 838, 894, 934
Withers' Appeal, 95
Withers w. Allgood, 1693
V. Jenkins, 5S7, 679, 690
z*. Larrabee, 997, 1251, 1269, la'o, 1274,
1273. 12S6, 1293, 1294, 1304, 1328
V. Withers, 1646
V. Yeadou, 1614, 1737
Witherspoon v. Duncan, 2307
,,,■ , . ''■ I^4"1°P' 533, i973» 1977, i979
withington s Appeal, 1806
'\\'itlinell 1). Petzold, 1305, 1327, 1330, 1331
Witman v. Watry, ii6i, 1162
Witiner's Appeal, 13S, 2022
Witt V. Mayor, 1020, 1130, 1134, 1135, 1136,
1300, 1315, I3i7» 1329. 1334, 1338,
1339. »342
\\ itte V. Dawkins, 1035
V. Witte, 1338
^^"itte^ V. Briscoe, 901, 911, 912
V. Dudley, 1777
V. Witter, logo, 1091
Witthaus T'. Shack, 715, 957
Witty V. Matthews, 1054, 1083, iioo, 11S2, 1191,
1 196, 1201
Wixon's Estate, Matter of , 1382
WixoQ V. Bear River ^ Auburn Water & Min-
ing Co., 2239
Woford V. Gaines, 1513, 1517
z'. McKenna, 2357
Woglam V. Cowperthwaite, 2273
Wolcott V. Schenck, 1058, 1139, 1140, 1154
V. Winchester, 2105, 2107, 210S
Wolf f. Banning, 2151
V. Bassett, 823
V. Doser, 998, 1013, 1323
V. Driggs, 2033
V. Fogarty, 2364
z'. Frost, 2244
V. Mitchell, 993
V. Smith, 2134
Wolfe V. Doe ex d. Dowell, 1349
V. Fleischacker, 1426
V. Frost, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2215
Wolffe V. Wolff, 1131, 1132, 1315, 1316, 1317
Wolford V. Baxter, 123, 132
Wollaston v. Hakewill, 1072, 1112
V. Tribe, 1790, 1795, 1801
Wolstenholme, Re, 499
Wolveridge v. Steward, 1063, 1073, logS
Wolverton v. Collins, 2035
Wolz z>. Sanford, 1131, 1316, 1317
Wo mack z'. McQuarry, 1015, 1176, 1178, 1180
V. Whitmore, 19S2
V. Womack, 2278
Wood's Appeal, 2119, 2122
Wood V. Ash, 982
V. Bayard, 461, 465
V. Beach, 2318
V. Brown, 1734
•V. Bumham, i6og, 1694
V. Chambers, 1223, 1480, 1481
V. Chapin, 2318, 2364, 2365
V. Cheshire, 1972
V. Cox, 1590, 1630, 163S
V. Day, 1 148
z'. Dummer, 1671
•V. Fleet, 1976, 1988
•u. Foster, 982
V. Fowler, 6g, 74
V. Gaynor, 740
Wood V. Goddridge, 1805
V. Goodrich, 1043, 1044, 1832
V, Goodwin, 2170
V. Griffin, 553. 16S2
V. Hibbard, 2136
■V. Hill, 306, 333
V. Hubbell, 971, 97S, 993, 997, 1016, 1175,
1180, 1 181
V. Humphrey, 1051, 1052
V. Hyatt, 1355
V. Independent School District of
Mitchell, 1193
V. Jackson, 959
V. Keyes, 857
V. Krebbes, 1778
V. Leadbitter, 2213
V. Lee, 856, 861,916, 935
V. Little, 1988
V. Lord, 1407, 1461, 1462
V. Mather, 300, 1606
V. Mitcham, 2286
V. Morgan, 841
7' Morton, 1308
V. Oakley, 2149
V, Partridge, 1119, 1171,2265
7/. Patterson, 1038
7'. Phillips. 1356, 1914
V. Rabe, 1643
V. Robertson, 1821, 1S22
V. Saunders, 224S
V. Seeley, 924
V. Seward, 1593, 1632
7'. Smith, 2150
V. Sou:hampton, 1S63
7'. Sullens, 2004
•V. Summons, 771
V. I'ate, 1320, 1331
V. Terry, 2158
V. Trask, 688; 1006, 1996, 2000, 2063
V Turner, 1217, 1285
V. Warren, 648
V. Weimer, 2023
V. Wheeler, 1403, 1404
V. Whelen, 132, 133, 2085
zi. White, 1754
V. Wilcox, 1255
V. AVilliams, 2147
V. Wood, 299, 918, 944, 945, 955, 1607,
1680
Wood, Jackson ex d., v. Salmon, 1135, 1307
Wood, Jackson ex d., v. Swart, 1063
Wood's Lessee v. Pindall, 1280
Woodberry v. Materson, 708
Woodburn's Admr. v. Stout, 1180
Woodbury zk Bowman, 1600, 1601
V. Lnddy, 1455
V. Manlove, 2125
V, Parshley, 2212
V. Swan, 2068, 2069
Woodcock V. Bennett, 1697, 2324
V. Estey, 2361
7/. Roberts, 1052
Woodcock, Doe d., v. Barthrop, 1597, 1605
Wooden zf. Shotwell, 2349
Wooden, Doe d., v. Shotwell. 5
Woodford z'. Higby, 1933, 1940
Woodhill V. Great Western R. Co., 1194, 1195
Woodhouslee v. Dalrymple, 2282
WoodhuU y. Rosenthal, 1 107, 1109, 1115, 1121,
IT22
Woodlawn Cemetery v. Everett, 41
Woodliff V. Drury, 1566
Woodman v. Blake, 1870, 1871
V. Coolbroth, 492, 2353
V. Good, 1707
V. Pitman, 69, 70
V. Smith, 2355
Woodmeston v. Walker, 252, 257, 270
Woodrow V. Michael, 1262, 1274, 1281, 1329,
1335. 1340, 1341
Woodruff V. Adams, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233
V. Erie R. Co., 1020
ccxxxu
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
to pages.
Woodruff V, Johnson, 1747, 1748
V. King, 2107
V. North Bloomfield Gravel Minuig Co.,
199
V. Trenton Water Power Co., 2214
V. Woodruff, 1659
Woods V. Bailey, 2004
V. Buie, 1511
•u. Davis, 1403, 1405
V. Doherty, J049
V. Hildebrand, 2063, 2092
V. Hilderbrand, iggg
V. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co., 1054,
1055
V, Spaulding, 2154
V. Wallace, 511,522, 802, S03, 2001, 2037,
2043, 2053
Woodson V. Good, 574
V. Skinner, 11 57
V. Smith, 489, 514
Woodward v. Blanchard, 2295
V. Brown, 1146, 1297, 1309
V. Cone, T154, 1155
V. Cowdery, ii\-\
V. Dowse, 774, 887, 892
V. Lasar, 105, 108, no
7J. Leiby, 1211
V. McReynolds. 211, zi2
•v. Murray, 1398, 1457
V. Pickett, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2044, 2067
•u. Seeley, 2212, 2213
v. Spurr, 646
V. Wilson, 638
V. Wood. 2147
V. Woodward, 2006
Woodworth v. Campbell, 1026
V. Comstock, 1400
V. Guzman, 2001, 2037, 2126
V. Paige, 792, 793, 915, 926, 928
V. Payne, 32
Woolen z*. Hillen, 1701
Wooler 7/. Attorney-General of Victoria, 85
Woolfolkz/. Rickets, 1462
Wooliscroft V. Norton, 1076
Woolley V. Holt, 1993, 2065
V. Magoie, 821
Woolman -v. Garringer, 2238
Woolmore v. Burrows. 1693
Woolcombe v. Ouldridge, 30
Woolridge v. Lucas, 625, 767
V. Planters' Bank, 1785
V. Wilkins, 761, 766, 786, 823,824,'84i, 842
Woolsey v. Seeley, 61
Woolston V. Woolston, 1839
Wooster v. Hunt & Layman Ins. Co., 717
Wooten V. Eillinger, 2065
Worcester v. Clark, 890, 927
V. Eaton, 985, 986,987
V. Great Falls Mfg. Co., 1247, 1248
Worcester National Bank v. Cheeney, 810,
2106, 2108, 2136
Worchester v. Lord, 2296
Word V. Trask, 2078
Work V, Byayton, 976
7'. Harper, 2364
Workan v. Miffin, 1127, 1129, 1167
Workman v. Greening, 216S
V. Guthrie, 2295
V. Mifflin, 2269
Workel v. Munn, 2354
Wormley v. Wormley, 645, 1752, 1765, 1766,
1767, 1769, 1770
Worrall's Appeal, 1721
vVorrell v. Munn, 1042
Worril V. Barnes, 2272
Worsham v. Callison, 782
Worsley z'. Granville, 347, 1632
V. Worsley, 955, 956
Worth V. Hill, 2155, 2181
V. McAden, 1732, 1734
Wortben v. Pearson, 941, 942, 943, 955
Worthing v. Webster, 2335
Worthington v. Cook, 2259, 2261, 2263, 2264
z'. Gimaon, 2211. 2216
z/. Lee, 1008, 1009
V. Middleton, 909
V. Parker, 198
V. Roberts, 88g
V. Staunton, 1906
V. Young, 1025
Worthy v. Johnson, 1723, 1766, 1775, 1776, 17S4,
1785
Wortly V. Bukgad, 2139
Wortman v. Guthrie, 1923
Wotton V. Healy, 1025
V. Shirt, 2268
Wragg V. Comptroller-General, 2005
Wray v. Feddecke, 2125
V. Steele, 1651
Wren v. Bradley, 269
V. Kirton, 1719, 1720
Wriggins v. Holley, 2295
Wright's Appeal, 95
Wright z*. Atkyns, 347. 1627, 1629, 1631,2081
V. Barlow, 183 1
V. Barrett, 54
V. Bates, 2046, 2055
V. Bircher, 2018
V. Briggs, 2068, 2166
V. Brown, 1375, 1376, 1675, 1799
z/. Bundy, 2026,2060, 2148
•V. Burroughes, 1862
V. Cartwright, 970, 1570
V. Dane, 2005
V. Delafield, 1796
V. Denn, 331
V. Ditzler, 1420, 1435
V. Douglass, 21, 1592, 1691
V. Dowley, 285
V. Dunning, 1413, 1416, 1454, 1457, 1458,
T460, 1464, 1465, 1495
V. Eaves, 2095, 2150
V. Evans, 2105
V Gelvin, 725
V. Gordon, 234
V. Hays, 1484, 1485, i486, 1487
V. Henderson, 2000, 2063, 207S
V. Herron, 401,690, 6gi
V. Hicks, 327
V. Holbrook, 1194
%i. Jennings, 705
V. Kelley, 1108
•V. King, 1653
V. Langley, 2089
V. Lattan, 1127, 116S
V. Miller, 1675
z/. Morgan, 2060, 2061
V. Morley, 2172
V. O'Brien, 116
•V. Page, 23
z/. Pierson, 300, 424, i6og, 1693
V. Pratt, 1399
z/. Roberts, 1278
V. Rose, 2063
V. Saddler, 1920, 1940
V. Sadler, 221, 1931, 1951
V. Scott, 417, 420, 427
z/. Searles, 1906
V. Shumway, 2080
•V. Sperry, 2091
z/. Stanard, 1757, 1758
z'. Tallmadge, iSog, 1828, 1829, 1830
V. Thayer, 402
V. Trustees of M. E. Church, 2257. 2259
V. Tuttle, 1850
V. Wakeford, 183 1
z/. West, 918
z/. Wilkins, 1850
V. Williams, 2238, 2252, 2259
V. Wright, 595. 68i, 682, 910, 941, 944,
959» 1363, 1364, 1366, 1369, 1591, 1904,
2002
Wright, Den d., v. Page, 304, 305, 309, 311, 331,
339. 344
Re£erences are
to pages.
TABLE OF CASES.
CCXXXIU
Wrij^lu, Doe d., v. Gordon, 234
Wright, Doe d. Plumpton, Re^ 651, 1366
Wright ex d. Shaw v. Russell, 320, 321, 331
WurL's Kxrs. v. Page, 76
Wusiier V. Fanihnm, 1444
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Fain, 1327, 1329
Wyant v. Deiffeiidafer, 574
Wyatt, Doe d., v. Byron, 1108
V. Harrison, 2230, 2231, 2232, 2233
V. Sadler's Heirs, 331, 334
z>. Simpson, 1368
V. Stewart, 2042, 2125
D. Watkins, 2020
Wyble V. McPheters, 1594
Wych V. East India Co., 1785
Wycherle7 -u. Wycherley, 1697
WyckofE y. Noyes, 213S
IK Gardner, 1024
Wyeth V. Stone, 2283
Wykham v. Wykham, 288, 2gg, 1594, 1606, 1712
Wylde V. Wylde, 1939
Wylie V. McMakin, 2148
Wylly V. Collins, 1562
Wyman v. Babcock, 2046, 2048, 2049
V. Brigden, 278
V. Brown, 237, 1569, 2319
V. Dorr, 982
V. Farrar, 1014, 1015, 1183
V. Fox, 792
V. Wyman, 719
Wymans v, Richardson, 717, 875
Wyncook v. Burger, 2206
z>. Cowing, 2168
Wyndham v. Way, 119
Wyne v. Styan, 2074
Wynehamer v. People, 1517, 2324
Wyukoop V. Burger, 2208
V. Cowing, 2045, 2050, 2055
Wynn v. Story, 414, 415, 416
Wynne v. Fletcher, 265
V. Hawkins, 347, 1627, 1632
V. Newborough, 1036
7'. Styan, 2172
V. Wynne, 327, 1517
Wyse r'. Damdridge, 1763
Wythe 7'. Thurlston. 1828
Wyther v. Casson, 2358
Yale V. Dederer, 896, 1374, 1562
Yancy v. Smith, 935
Yandell v. Pugh. 8S9, 927
Yandes v. Wright, 91, 92, 2233, 2237
Yarborough z*. Newell, 2037, 2175
V. Wood, 2005,
Yard's Appeal, 249, 252, 257
Yard v. Yard. 1034
Yaniall's Appeal, 1656, 1673, 1694
Yaniold v. Moorhouse, 260, 272, 1056, 11 13,
1677
Yates V. Been, 1032, 1034
V. Cromptz/n, 181 1
V. Houston, 752
V. Joyce, 2187
r'. Kinney, 13 15, 13 ^7
V. Mallen, 2259
V. Mullen, 99, loio
V. Paddock, 865
V. Woodruff, 2154
7'. Yates, 1549. »6o3
Yates County National Bank -v. Carpenter,
1427
Yeackel v. Litchfield, 1768
Yeagerz/. Weaver, 1246
Yeaker's Heirs v. Yeiker's Heirs, 216
Yeakle v. Jacob, 55
Yeatman v. Woods, 1905
Yeaton. In re, 1115
Yelland v. Fichs, 1845
Yellow Jacket S. M. Co. v. Stevenson, 127S
Yelverton v. Steele, 2297
Yelverton v. Yelverton, 1541, 1552
Yesler v. Hochslettler, 1948
Yoe V. Dyer, 1285
V. Mercerau, 781
York V. Jones, 1120, 1165
Yost z;. Devault, 1450, 1473, 1476, 1484, 1485,
1487
Youle V. Richards, 2050
Youmans v. Caldwell, 46
V. Wagener, 804, 902
Youn z*. Flinn, 1583, 1640
Young, In re, 399
Young V. Adams, 1S82, 1912
V. Boston, 22
V. Boyd, 945
V. Bradley, 1797
V. Carter, 794
V. Carter, 794
V. Clark, 1758
V. Clippinger, 2321
V. Dake, 971, 997
V. Davis, 59 1
V. De Bruhl, 1909, 1917, 1919
V. Frost, 1986
V. Gammel, 1922
V. Gregory, 772, 920
V, Hargrave, 1081
V. Hughes, 1621
V. Ingle, 1278, 1291
V. Keigliley, 1671
T. Langbein, 6S9
V. Mackall, 1781
V. Marshall, 285
V. Martin, 347, 1632
V. Mclntyre, 703
V. McKee, 201 1
V. McKenzie, 2324
V. Millar, 2103, 2105, 2107, 2108
V. Naylor, 883
V. Northern Illinois Canal & Iron Co.,
2066
V. Peachy, 1616, 1633
V. Polack, 1893
V. Radford, 1024, 1361
V. Ringo, 2349
V. Smith, 1125, 1271, 1310, 1350
•u, Spencer, 564
V. Tarbell, 7S3, 801, S20, 847,861, 863
V. Vough, 2177
V. Waterpark, 1783
7'. Williams, 20^3, 2172
V. Wolcott, 721
z/. Wood, 2008
V. Young, 1274, 1277, 1285, 1296, 1304,
I3»7> 1.319, 1324* 1336, 15S7. IS93.
1594,1662
Youngblood v. Eubank, 128, 130
Younghusband v. Gisbome. 253
Youngman v. Elmira & W. R. Co., 98, 1998,
2077
Youngs V. Carter, 727, 912
V. Trustees Public Schools, 2072
Youngworth v. Jewel, 1936
Yunker v. Nichols, 2241
z.
Zabriskie v. Cleveland, C. & C. R. Co., 1041
7'. Morris, 1576
V. Morris & E. R. Co., 1595, 1596
V. Salter, 2180, 2197
V. Smith, 719, 839
Zabriskie's Exrs. v. Wetmore, 1739
Zacharias z>. Zacharias, 1781
Zaegal 7/. Kuster, 948,2170
Zamboco7'. Cassavetti, 1814
Zane v. Kenedy, 1816, 201 1
Zebach v. Smith, 1663, rSio. 1813, 1841, 1843
Zebach's Lessee v. Smith, 1730, 18^5
Zeiissweiss v. James, 1603, 1604, 16S1
CCXXXIV
TABLE OF CASES.
References are
lo pages.
Zeiter v. Bowman, 1027, 2152
Zell V. Rearae, 1357
Zellers v. Beckman, 1409, 1524
z/..Eckert, 1782
Zeller's Lessee 7'. Eckert, 1150, 1917,2093, 2095
Zentmyer v. Mittewar, 2005
Ziegler v. Grim, igSx
Zimmer v. Paulry, 1500
Zimmerman v. Anders, 312
V. Marchland, 1159
z'. Schoenfeldt, 588, 670
Zinc Co. z*. Franklinite Co., 92, 2233, 2237
Zirkle v. McCue, igSo
Zoller V. Ide, 2013
Zorntlein z/. Bram, 1932
Zottman v. San Francisco, 1029
Zouch Tj. Parsons, 985, 1030, 1827, 2341
V. Woolston, 1806, 1843
Zuchtmann v. Roberts, 2301
Zule V. 2ule. 770, 883, 984, 1116
Zuverz/. LyonSj 1592, 2045
BOOK L
INTRODUCTORY.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY.
Property — Generally.
Same — Classes of property.
Same — Blackstone's definition— Exclusive ownership
Same — Austin's definition — Restricted property.
Early history of propei-ty.
Same — Evolution of private property.
Eights of property and hereditary patrimony.
Same — Recognition of right of private property.
Same — Alienation and devise.
Same — The retrait.
Theories of the origin of private property in land.
Same — 1. The discovery theory.
Same — 2. The occupation theory.
Same — 3. The labor theory.
Same — i. The theory of contract.
Same — 5. The lex theory.
Same — 6. The natural-economic theory.
Same — 7. The natural rights theory.
Same — 8. The government grant theory.
Real and personal property — Distinction and devolution.
Definition of real property.
Same — " Land " and " real estate."
Same — Maryland doctrine.
Same — Tenements.
Same — Hereditaments.
Same — Same — Division of hereditaments.
Section 1. Property— Generally.— Property in the ab-
stract is the right or interest which a person may have
Sec.
1.
Sec.
2.
Sec.
3.
Sec.
4.
Sec.
5.
Sec.
6.
Sec.
7.
Sec.
8.
Sec.
9.
Sec.
10.
Sec.
11.
Sec.
12.
Sec.
13.
Sec.
14.
Sec.
15.
Sec.
16.
Sec.
17.
Sec.
18.
Sec.
19.
Sec.
20.
Sec.
21.
Sec.
32.
Sec.
23.
Sec.
34.
Sec.
25.
Sec.
26.
PROPERTY A GENERIC TERM.
[Book I.
in, to, or over anything to the exclusion of all others,^
and embraces every species of valuable thing ^ that may
be made the subject of exclusive ownership.^ The Vford
property is a term of the largest import, is nomen gcner-
alissimum, and extends to every species of valuable right
and interest, and embraces real * and personal property,
' Rigney v. City of Chicago, 103
111. 77 ;
Jackson ex d. Pearson v. Housel,
17 John. (N. Y.) 281, 283 ;
Morrison v. Semple, 6 Binn. (Pa.)
94, 98 ;
SoTilard v. United States, 29 U.
S. (4 Pet.) 511 ; bk. 7 L. ed.
938;
Doe V. Langlands, 14 East 370 ;
Doe V. Lainckbury, 11 East 290,
518.
'Walker's Am. L. (9th ed.) 306,
§133.
' Stanton v. Lewis, 36 Conn. 444,
449;
Caro V. Metropolitan Railway
Co.,46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 188;
s.c. 19 Am. L. Reg. N. S.
376.
See : Barker v. State, ex rel.
Mills, 109 Ind. 58 ; s.c. 9 N. E.
Rep. 711.
* For cases in which the word
"property" has been adjudged
to include land, see :
Soulard v. United States, 39 U.
S. (4 Pet.) 511 ; bk. 7 L. ed.
938;
Edwards v. Barnes, 3 Bing. N. C.
253 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 534 ;
Doe V. Morgan, 6 Bam. & C.
513 ; S.C. 9 D. & R. 633 ; 13
Eng. 0. L. 335 ;
Doe V. Langlands, 14 East 370 ;
Doe V. Lainckbury, 11 East 890.
For cases in which held to pass a
fee, see :
Grossman v. Field, 119 Mass. 170,
173;
Lincoln v. Lincoln, 107 Mass.
590;
Leland v. Adams, 75 Mass. (9
Gray) 171.
Compare: Wheeler?;. Dunlap, 13
B. Men. (Ky.) 291 ;
Howland v. Rowland, 100 Mass.
332;
Hurdle v. Outlaw, 2 Jones (N. C.)
Eq. 75 ;
Chapman ■!;. Prickett, 6 Bing. 602 ;
s.c. 4 M. & P. 404 ; 19 Eng. C.
L. 273 ;
Bang V. George, L. R. 5 Ch. Div.
627 ; s.c. 36 L. T. N. 8. 759 ; 23
Moak's Eng. Rep. 364 ;
Doe, ex d. Bunny v. Rout, 2
Marsh. 397 ; s.c. 7 Taunt. 79 ;
3 Eng. C. L. 269.
" Property " is equivalent to " estate,"
and operates to pass the interest
as well as the land.
Hunt V. Hunt, 70 Mass. (4 Gray)
190;
Morris v. Henderson, 37 Miss.
492;
Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 163 ;
Pippin V. Ellison, 12 Ired. (N. C.)
L. 61 ; s.c. 55 Am. Deo. 403 ;
Hurdle v. Outlaw, 3 Jones (N. C.)
Eq. 75 ;
Foster v. Stewart, 18 Pa. St. 23 ;
Morrison v. Semple, 6 Binn. (Pa.)
94;
Rosseter v. Simmons, 6 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 452 ;
Den V. Payne, 5 Hayw. (Tenn.)
104;
Mayo ■;;. Carringfcon, 4 Call (Va.)
472;
Doe d. Booley v. Roberts, 11 Ad.
& E. 1000 ; s.c. 3 Per. & D.
578 ; 39 Eng. C. L. 534 ;
Bentley v. Oldfield, 19 Beav.
225;
Footncr v. Cooper, 3 Drew. 7 :
Roe V. Pattisoji, 10 East 331 r
Patton V. Randall, 1 Jac. & W.
189;
Nicholls V. Butcher, 18 Ves.
193.
" Property " as applied to land. — The
Supreme Court of the United
States say in the case of
Soulard v. United States, 39
U. S. (4 Pet.) 511 ; bk. 7 L. ed.
938, that the term " property,"
as applied to lands, compre-
hends every species of title, in-
choate or complete ; that it is
supposed to embrace also all
rights which lie in contract.
Those which are executory as
well as those which are exe-
cuted.
Chap. I. g§ 2, 3.] CLASSES OF PEOPERTY. 3
easements, franchises, and all incorporeal heredita-
ments ^ ; and includes things in possession and things in
exi)ectation.2 When applied to land, it comprehends
every species of title, complete and inchoate, as well
as all those rights which lie in contract, those which are
executory as well as those which are executed.^
Sec. 2. Same— Classes of property.— Property is divided
into two great classes, known as things real and things per-
sonal. The class of things real includes every valuable
thing of a fixed and inunovable nature, as well as every
thing pertaining thereto, and passes under the general de-
scription of "lands, tenements, and hereditaments," or
simply as " realty " or " real estate. " Things personal in-
clude all those things of an unfixed or movable nature,
and pass under the general description of "goods and
chattels," or simply "personalty."* There is a class of
property which has been said to occupy a sort of interme-
diate position between realty and personalty, some of
which are called " chattels real," others " heirlooms," and
others still "fixtures" ;^ but these are thought all to be
properly classed and treated under the head of realty.
Sec. 3. Same — Blackstone's definition— Exclusive owner-
ship.—Property has been defiued by Blackstone ^ as
" that sole and despotic dominion which one claims and ex-
ercises over the external things of the world, in total ex-
clusion of every other individual." This is the definition
of exclusive ownership, or the absolute right of property ;
but no such ownership does, or in the very nature of
things can, exist in a civilized community and under the
' Caro V MetropoUtan Elevated B. (10 Pet.) 326, 329 ; bk. 9 L. ed.
Co., 48 N. Y. Super. Ct. 138 ; 442 ;
s c 19 Am L. EsR. N. S. 376 ; Delassus v. United States, 34 U.
Boston & L. E. CoTtJ. Salem & S. (9 Pet.) 117, 133; bk. 9 L.
L R. Co., 68 Mass. (2 Gray) 1, ed. 71, 77 ;
35 "•• ^"- ' -^ ' Soulard v. United States, 29 U. S.
s Carlti)n v. Carlton, 72 Me. 162 ; (4 Pet.) 512 ; bk 7 L. ed. 398.
Ide V. Harwood, 30 Minn. 195; ^ 2 Bl Com 16, 384 ;
B.C. 14N. W. Eep. 884; Walker Am. L. (9th ed.) 306,
Vniie-ban V. Murfeesboro, 96 N. § 122.
^^J'^of^'l g" 2 S E. Eep. 676 ; wllker's Am. L. (9th ed.) 306,
Walker's' Am. L. (9th ed.) 306, 807, § 122.
y 122.
5 Smith V. United States, 85 U. S.
« 2 Bl. Com. c. 1.
OBLIGATIONS OF LAND-OWNERS.
[Book I.
polity of a civilized government. Under the Roman sys-
tem ^ of laws and the English, alike, there are certain
duties and obligations enjoined upon every land-owner ;
and certain rights and privileges which the public at large
have in his property. All property is acquired and held
under the tacit understanding that it shall not be so used
as to injure the equal rights of others, or so as to destroy
or greatly impair the public rights and interests of the com-
munity.^ The maxim of the common law is "sic utere
tuo, ut alienum non Isedas, " use your own so as not to
injure another's property.^ Private property must ever
be held subject to the exercise of such rights as are for
the common benefit.* No principle is better established
than that the legislature may make what are called police
regulations, declaring from time to time in what manner
property may be used and enjoyed,^ so as to prevent its
' See : Cushing's Domat, pt. I. , bk.
ii., tit. 6.
' Commonwealth v. Tewkesbury,
53 Mass. (11 Met.) 55, 57.
See : Henry v. City of Newbury-
• port, 149 Mass. 583, 585 ; s.c. 32
N. E. Rep. 75 ;
Train v. Boston Disinfecting Co.,
144 Mass. 523, 530 ; s.c. 59
Am. Rep. 113 ; 11 N. E. Rep.
939;
Bancroft v. Cambridge, 136 Mass.
438, 441 ;
Commonwealth v. Intoxicating
Liquors, 115 Mass. 153 ; s.c.
sub nom. Boston Beer Co. v.
Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 35 ; bk.
34 L. ed. 989 ;
Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass.
315, 318 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep.
694;
Boston V. Richardson, 105 Mass.
351, 363 ;
City of Salem v. Eastern R. Co.,
98 Mass. 431, 443 ; s.c. 96 Am.
Dec. 650.
' Commonwealth v. Tewkesbury,
53 Mass. (11 Met.) 55, 57.
See: Kerr's "Adjudicated Woi'ds,
Phrases, and Apphed Max-
ims."
* Commonwealth v. Carter, 133
Mass. 13.
See : Bancroft v. Cambridge, 136
Mass. 438, 441.
'Sawyer v. Davis, 136 Mass. 339,
240; s.c. 49 Am. Rep. 37;
Bancroft v. Cambridge, 136
Mass. 348, 441.
See : Lakeview v. RosehiU Cem-
etery, 70 111. 193 ;
State V. Noyes, 47 Me. 189 ;
Merrifield v. Worcester, 110 Mass.
216;
Hale V. Lawrence, 31 N. J. L.
(1 Zab.) 714; s.c. 33 N. J. L.
(3 Zab.) 590; 57 Am. Dec.
430;
Thorpe v. Rutland, etc., R. Co.,
37 Vt. 140.
Salus populi supremus lex. — " The
maxim of the law, ' Salus pop-
uli suprema lex,' should not
be disregarded. It is the great
principle on which the statutes
for the security of the people
are based. It is the foundation
of criminal law in all govern-
ments of all civilized countries,
and of other laws conducive
to the safety and consequent
happiness of the people. This
power has always been exer-
cised, and its existence cannot
be denied."
State V. Noyes, 47 Me. 189 ;
Taunton v. Taylor, 116 Mass. 354,
360;
Commonwealth v. Blodgett, 53
Mass. (13 Met.) 56, 83;
Taylor v. Inhabitants of Ply-
mouth, 49 Mass. (8 Met.) 463,
465 ;
Marlatt v. Warwick, 19 N. J. Eq.
Chap. I. § 4.] • AUSTIN'S DEFINITION OF PEOPERTY.
use from being injurious to the equal enjojinent by-
others of their property,^ and, in the exercise of this
police power may even destroy private property altogether,
when such a step is necessary for the protection of the
public.^
Sec. 4. Same — Austin's definition — Restricted property. —
Property, as known to us, is always a limited or restrict-
ed interest in some tangible or intangible thing, and
may properly be defined to be the right to use and deal
with a given thing or subject in a manner and to an ex-
tent that is indefinite, though not unlimited. Austin has
defined property ^ to be "a right imparting to the owner
(4 C. E. Gr.) 439, 454 ; s.c. 57
Am. Dec. 434 ;
American Print Works v. Law-
rence, 33 N. J. L. (3 Zab.) 590,
607;
Hale V. Lawrence, 33 N. J. L.
(3 Zab.) 590 ; s.c. 57 Am. Deo.
430;
Doe d. Wooden v. Shot well, 33
N. J. L. (3 Zab.) 465, 474;
Seifert v. City of Brooklyn, 101
N. Y. 136, 144; s.c. 54 Am.
Rep. 664 ; 4 N. E. Rep. 331 ; 3
Cent. Rep. 138 ;
Matter of Cheeseborough,78 N. Y.
332, 237 ;
Richards v. Mayor of New York,
48 N. Y. Super. Ct. (J. & S.)
315 33y*
Kelse'y v. King, 32 Barb. (N. Y.)
410, 418 ; s.c. 11 Abb. (N. Y.)
Pr. 180, 186 ;
Donahue v. Mayor of New York,
3 Daly (N. Y.) 68 ;
Wilson V. Mayor of New York,
1 Den. (N. Y.) 595, 598 ; s.c. 43
Am. Deo. 719;
Doellner v. Tynan, 38 How. (N.
Y.) Pr. 176 ;
Mayor of New York v. Lord, 17
Wend. (N. Y.) 285, 297 ;
Mayor of New York v. Slack, 3
Wheel. Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 237,
254;
State V. Yopp, 97 N. C
3 Am. St. Rep. 305
Rep. 458 ;
Maynard v. Valentine,
3 ; s.c. 3 Pac. Rep. 195, 199 ;
State V. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179 ;
s.c. 10 S. E. Rep. 385 ; 6 L. R.
A. 621 ; 41 Alb. L. J. 51.
United States v. Harmon, 45 Fed.
477; s.c.
; 2 S. E.
3 Wash.
Rep. 414 ; s.c. 13 Crim. L. Mag.
538;
Kerr's " Adjudicated Words and
Phrases, and Applied Maxims,"
The Century, vol. 45, p. 150.
From this principle ai'e derived
those rules which subordinate
private rights as to persons and
property to public good. See :
Pom. Minn. L. (2d ed.) § 913.
" A pond of stagnant water may
endanger the health of the
neighborhood, and the public
may cause it to be drained at
once, and for that purpose may
dig the necessary drains, and
the land may be entered with
and for that purpose, under
the police power, without com-
Eensation." Matter of Cheese-
orough, 78 N. Y. 333, 238.
> Cushman v. Smith, 34 Me. 247, 258;
Grace v. Newton Board of Health,
135 Mass. 490, 493 ;
Bancroft v. Cambridge, 126 Mass.
428;
Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass.
(7 Cush.) 53, 86.
5 Carleton v. Rugg, 149 Mass. 550 ;
s.c. 32 N. E. Rep. 55,
Citing: Bancroft v. Cambridge,
126 Mass. 428 ;
Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass.
315 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 694 ;
Attorney-General v. Tudor Ice
Co., 104 Mass. 339 ; s.c. 6 Am.
Rep. 327 ;
Winthrop v. Farrar, 93 Mass.
(11 AUen) 398 ;
District Attorney v. Lynn & Bos-
ton R. Co., 83 Mass. (16 Gray)
243.
' Jurisprudence, vol. II., § 1103.
6 EARLY HISTORY OF PROPERTY. [Book I.
a power of indefinite user, capable of being transmitted
to universal successors by way of descent, and imparting
to the owner the power of disposition, from himself and
his successors per universitatem, and from all other
persons who have a spes successionis under any existing
concession or disposition, in favor of such person or series
of persons as he may choose, with the like capacities and
powers as he had himself, and under such conditions as
the municipal or particular law allows to be annexed to
the dispositions of private persons."
Sec. 5. Early bistory of property — The early history of
property remains yet to be written. Our present knowl-
edge of property is derived from our own laws regulating
property, founded upon the Eoman law, and the early Eng-
lish law. Both of these systems of law grew up in a period
when every recollection of the early condition of property
and people had perished. When jurists are asked to ac-
count for the origin of property rights, they have recourse
to what they are pleased to term " the state of nature,"
from which they derive directly absolute individual
ownership — a sort of quiritary dominium. This method
of accounting for the origin of individual property in
land is lame and unsatisfactory in this, that it ignores the
well-established principles of evolution, — which apply. as
well to the differentiation of social relations and to the
individualizing of property, as to the development of all
vegetable and animal organism, — disregards the law's
gradual development found throughout all history, politi-
cal and sociological, and contradicts facts now well estab-
lished and well known. It is only after a series of evo-
lutions, and that of a comparatively recent period, that
individual ownership in land has arisen. The historical
researches of all who have looked into the subject coin-
cide in establishing the fact that originally the soil be-
longed in common to tribes, communities, or kinsmen, ^
and that the separate ownership, as it now exists amongst
1 Sir Henry Maine says : " Property but to large estates." Ancient
once belonged not to individ- Law, p. 368.
uals, nor to isolated families,
Chap. I. § 6.] EVOLUTION OF PRIVATE PEOPEETY. 7
most civilized people,^ is of comparatively modern
growth.^
Sec. 6. Same— Evolution of private property While
primitive man subsisted on wild food, — living by the
chase, by fishing, or by gathering wild fruit, — there was
no occasion for, or thought of, appropriating the soil.
Under the pastoral system that followed, the notion of
property in the soil began to spring up, but was always
confined to the lands on which the herds of the nomadic
tribes grazed ; but even then the idea that any individual
could claim a part of the soil as exclusively his own did
not occur to any one. The very conditions of pastoral
life itself were opposed to such a conception. Even when
a portion of the soil was put temporarily under cultiva-
tion, the territory remained the undivided property of the
tribe or clan occupying it ; and when the land was divided
into parcels and distributed by lot among the several
families, only a temporary occupancy was allowed to the
individual, while the soil remained the collective property
of the tribe or clan, to whom it returned, from time to
time, for a new partition and distribution. This is the
system Tacitus describes among the Germanic tribes,^
and which exists to-day in the Eussian m ir.
Another stage in the individualization of private prop-
erty in the soil leaves the parcels in the hands of groups
of large patriarchal families dwelling in the same house
and working together for the benefit of all, as in
I Where private ownership of land is system of property that pre-
not.— There are some ooun- vailed before feudalism over-
tries, which are recognized as ran Europe,
civilized, in portions of which, ' See : Spencer's " Principles of So-
at last, the private ownership ciology," vol. II., c. XV. ; Sir-
oflanddoesnotprevail: at least Henry Maine's "Early Hist,
not in the sense in which we Inst.,"Lect. I.,ef seg. ; Id. '■ Vil-
know it. Such as the Eussian lage Communities," Lect. III. ;.
mir (see : Wallace's "Eussia," Id. " Ancient Law," Lect.
c VIII.; Geddie's "Eussian VIIL ; Freeman's " Hist. Norm_
Empire," c. IX.; Laveleye's Conq.," vol. V. 463 ; Laveleye's
" Primitive Property," c. III.) " Primitive Property," o. I., Dr;.
and the Swiss a/Zmevfd. Lavel- Mayer's " Das Eigenthum nacb
eye's " Primitive Property," c. den verschredenen Weltans-
V Switzerland enjoys the dis- chanungen, Freiburg, I. Bl.
tinction of standing alone in (1871) ; Professor Nasse's Ue-
the world as & land that has ber die mitelalLlerliche Feldge-
maintained both free political meinschaft in England."
institutions and the internal ' Tac. Germ. c. 31.
8 EVOLUTION OF PRIVATE PEOPEETY. [BOOK I.
France and Italy during the Middle Ages, ^ and in Switz-
erland at the present time. Then came William ithe Con-
queror, and the feudal dispensation, ^ and finally indi-
vidual heredity of property appears. Through these long
stages of incipient civilization, the impediments in the way
of securing private property in lands were great and the
incentives small, because, as Herbert Spencer says, while
subsistence on wild food continued, the wandering horde
inhabiting a given area must continue to make joint use of
the area ; both because no claim could be shown by any
member to any portion, and because the marking out of
small divisions, if sharing were agreed upon, would be im-
practicable. Where pastoral life has arisen, ability to drive
herds hither and thither within the occupied region is nec-
essary. In the absence of cultivation, cattle and their
owners could not survive were each owner restricted to one
spot. There was nothing feasible but united possession of
a wide tract. And when there comes a transition to the
agricultural stage, either directly from the hunting stage
or indirectly through the pastoral stage, several causes
conspire to prevent, or to check, the growth of private land-
ownerships. There is first the traditional usage. Joint
ownership continues after circumstances no longer ren-
der it imperative, because departure from the sacred ex-
ample of forefathers is resisted. Sometimes the resist-
ance is insuperable ; as with the Eechabites and the
people of Petra, who by their vow were not allpwed to
possess either vineyards or cornfields or houses, but were
bound to continue the nomadic life. And obviously,
where the transition to a settled state is effected, the sur-
vival of habits and sentiments established during the
nomadic state, must long prevent possession of land by
individuals. Moreover, apart from opposing ideas and
customs, there are physical difficulties in the way. Even
did any member of a pastoral horde, which had become
partially settled, establish a claim to exclusive possession
of one part of the occupied area, little advantage could be
gained before there existed the means of keeping out the
Laveleye's "Primitive Property," -Treated fully «osf, Bk. II., cc.
cc. XV., XVI. II. & III., §§ 153-218.
Chap. I. § 7.] HEREDITARY PROPERTY AND PATRIMONY. 9
animals belonging to others. Common use of the greater
part of the surface must long continue from mere ina-
bility to set up effectual divisions. Only small portions
could at first be fenced off. Yet a further reason why
land-owning by individuals, and land-owning by families,
was established very slowly, was the fact that at first each
particular plot had but a temporary value. The soil is
soon exhausted ; and in the absence of advanced arts of
culture becomes useless. Such tribes as those of the
Indian hills show us that primitive cultivators uniformly
follow the practice of clearing a tract of ground, raising
from it two or three crops, and then abandoning it ; the
implication being that whatever private claim had arisen,
lapses, and the surface, again becoming wild, reverts to
the community.^
Sec. 7. Right of property and hereditary patrimony. —
Primitive nations, in obedience to an instinctive sen-
timent, recognized in every man a natural right to oc-
cupy a portion of the soil from which he might derive
the means of subsistence from his labor. ^ At first they
divided the collective property of the tribe equally among
the heads of families, instead of parceling it out to the in-
dividual members, and giving them a private property
in it. Traditions of this distribution are common among
the Greeks. We meet with it among the inhabitants
of Cyclades,^ of Tenedos, Lesbos and the neighboring
islands.* It is also said to have existed in Sardinia,^ and
was found in the Peloponnese when overrun by the
Dorians.^ This system still obtains in the Eussian mir,''
the Swiss allmend,^ the Javanese sawahs,^ and among the
southern, slaves. ^"
Publicists, economists, and statesmen vie with one
another in repeating that without property there can be
'See: "Principles of Sociology," " Laveleye's " Primitive Property,"
(1st ed..) vol. II. c. XV., § 149.
538. ' Wallace's "Russia," c. VIII. ;
2 Laveleye's " Primitive Property," Stepniack's "Russia under the
333. Tsars," c. I.
3 Diodorus, v. 84 ; ' Laveleye's " Primitive Property,"
* Diodorus, v. 81, 88, c. V.
» Diodorus, v. 15. " Id. c. IV.
■» Id. c. XIIL
10 EIGHT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND. [BOOK I.
no liberty. Property, or the right of regarding as one's
own determinate portions of matter, of enjoying it or
disposing of it at will, without trenching upon the rights
of another, always constitutes an essential foundation
of a true form of society. Some of our modern thinkers,
like Herbert Spencer,^ Henry George,^ Professor de
Laveleye,* M. Huet,* and the German philosopher
Fichte,^ maintain that rightly there can be no private
property in land.^
Sec. 8. Same— Eeeognition of tlie right of private prop-
erty.—With the troubles of the philosophers we have noth-
ing to do. It is a condition and not a theory that confronts
us, a settled system of laws with which we have to deal ;
and, so far as this treatise is concerned, we have no more
interest in their speculative theories than we have in
Bishop Wycliffe's "inheritance of grace," or his difficul-
ties with the Church at Eome. It may be remarked in
passing, however, that in all ages and all degrees of civil-
ization, from the Bedouins of the Arabian desert to the
Arawaks of the North American plains ; "^ from the Bush-
' See :" Social Statistics " (1st ed.), ed that the existing titles to
c. IX. Herbert Spencer's recent such property are legitimate,
thought and investigation has Should any one think so, let him
greatly modified his views on look in the chronicles. Vio-
the question of private property lence, fraud, the prerogative
in land, and caused the erratic of force, the claims of superior-
Henry George to bring out his cunning, — these are the sources
caustic criticisrn entitled "A to which those titles may be
Perplexed Philosopher ; " a traced. The original deeds
work as unlearned, unreliable, were written with the sword,
and misleading as any of that rather than with the pen ; not
author's productions. lawyern, but soldiers, were the
- " Progress and Poverty," 307 ; conveyancers, blows were the
"A Perplexed Philosopher," jjos- current coin given in payment ;
sim. and for seals, blood was used
'"Primitive Property," particu- in preference to vyax. Could
larly pp. xxv. to xliv. valid claims be thus consti-
■• Le Regne social du christianisrae, tuted ? Hardly. And if not,
bk. III., c. V. vrhat becomes of the preten-
' Der geschlossene Handelstaat, B. sions of all subsequent holders
I., K. 1, §§ 399, 402; K. 7, § of estates so obtained? Does
446. sale or bequest generate a right
" In the original edition of his where it did not pj-eviously ex-
" Social Statistics," Herbert ist? Would the original claim-
Spencer said: "Passing from ants be nonsuited at the bar
the consideration of the possi- of reason, because the thing
ble to that of the actual, we stolen from them had changed
find yet further reason to deny hands ? " Chap. IX. , § 8, p. 138.
the rectitude of property in ^ Spencer's "Principles of Sociol-
land. It can never be pretend- ogy," vol. II., c. XV.
Chap. I. § 9.] ALIENATION AND DEVISE OF LANDS.
11
men ^ of Africa to the animals of the prairie,'^ the right
of private property is recognized and enforced, in accord-
ance with the light and civilization of the people, the
intelligence and progress of the animal.^
The evolution of private property in land has been set
forth in great detail by a Belgian, Professor de Laveleye,
in a work full of learning and research, but permeated
with the pernicious influence of modern socialistic ideas.*
Sec. 9. Same — Alienation and devise — Although the
right of private ownership in land has long been recog-
nized, it is only in comparatively recent times that the
right of alienation and devise have been accorded to the
possessor. Thus it was not allowed in ancient Germany *
or Gothland,^ was unknown in ancient India ^ and Scot-
land,^ was formerly forbidden in Sparta,^ and is not rec-
ognized in the early laws of the Visigoths, as promul-
gated by Blume.^" Alienation was prohibited by the Loc-
rian and Leucadian laws," and the ordinances of Phido
of Corinth. 12
1 Lich. vol. II. 194.
5 Kerr's " Black Hills," c. HI.
3 It is a well-known fact that in-
telligent animals display a
sense of proprietorship, not
only of movable property, but
of real estate as well. Thus, the
dog understands the exclusive
possession of property. The
domesticated dog fights in de-
fense of his master's clothes,
and the untamed dog for his
lair or his burrow : the swans
of each reach on the Thames
river resist invading swans
from other reaches, and the
public dogs of Constantinople
attack dogs from other quar-
ters, if they encroach. Spen-
cer's " Principles of Sociology,"
vol. L, § 292; Id. vol. II., §
536; Kerr's "Black Hills," c.
III.
* "Primitive Property," passuJi.
^Canciani, Bar. leg. antiq., vol.
III., pp. 31-36; Laws of the
Thuringians, tit. XIII. ; Walter,
Corpus jus. Germ., vol. I., p.
380 ; Laws of the Saxons, tit.
XV. ; Pretz, Mon. Germ, Leg.
tit. m.,pp. 532 to 568.
' Guta-Lagh (Schildenei's trans-
lation), Greifswald, 1818, p. 59;
Mirror of Saxony, lib. I. , art. 34.
i See Colebrooke, " A Digest of
Hindu Law," IL 161, art.
xxxiii., Orianne, Traite origi-
nal des successions d'aprfes le
droithindou : extrait du Mitac-
shara de Vijuyaeswara (Paris,
1844), pp. -49, 50 ; Pross' onno
Coomar Tagore, "A succinct
Commentary of the Hindoo Law
prevalent in Mithila, from the
original Sanscrit of Vachaspati
Misra (Calcutta, 1863), p. 310 ;
Caract. collect des premiferes
propri^tes immobiUferes," by
VioUet, p. 30.
'Leges Burgorum, c. XXXVIII.;
Honard, Trait^s sur les cou-
tumes Anglo-Normades, tom.
I., pp. 449, 450.
' Plutarch's Lycurgus, agis ;
1 Plut. Lives (Clough's ed.) 83-126;
Aristotle's Politics, II. , p. 10.
'» Blume, Die westgothische Antique
Oder das Gesetzbush Reocared
des Ersten(1847), c. 294, pp. 18,
20
" Aristotle's Politics, II. 4, 4.
1^ Id. II. 3, 7.
12 ORIGIN OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND. [Book I.
Primitive law was as intolerant of testamentary de-
vises as it was of sales, because the transmission of land
was generally regarded as a matter of public interest,
the regulation of which was not left to individual con-
veniences or caprice.^ This was not the case, however,
in Athens ^ or Corinth.^ Such a disposition of property
was unknown in Germany,* ancient Hindoo,^ Eome be-
fore the Twelve Tables," Sparta," or Thebes.^
Sec. 10. Same — The retrait — The retrait, or the right
of claiming land that has been aliened to a stranger,
recognized in the inhabitants of the village communities
of pastoral and early agricultural times, was found
everywhere,* and exists to-day in most Mussulman coun-
tries, in Algeria, India, and Java,^" and was still in force
in Illyria and Italy under the emperors, being abolished
by a constitution concerning these provinces, A. D. 391,^^
and survived in France until within a very recent
period.^
Sec. 11. Theories of the origin of private property in land.
— Full ownership in the individual, as applied to the soil,
is of quite recent creation. Agriculture commenced and
was developed under the system of common ownership and
periodical partition. In the Eoman Empire, which be-
queathed to us the theory of quiritary property in land,
the soil was originally occupied by title of usufruct. ^^ In
the Middle Ages, the free-allod was the exception ; the
'Laveleye's "Primitive Property," 'Laveleye's " Primitive Property,"
155. 156.
° Plato's Lavrs, XI. ; Jewett's Plato, « lb.
vol. IV., p. 434, et seq. ; Flu- 'Laveleye's " Pi-imitive Pi-operty,"
larch's Life of Solon, 1 Plut. 153.
Lives (Clough's ed.), 168-303. '» Sir William Hay Macnaghten,
5 Laveleye's " Primitive Property," "Principles of Hindu and Mo-
156. hammedan Law," c. IV., pp.
■* Nullum testamentum ; Tacitus, 204, 205.
Germ., XX ; " Laveleye's " Primitive Property,"
Sir Henry Maine's "Ancient 152.
Law,-' p. 173. ''^ See : Bourdot de Richebourg, vol.
= See: Sir George Campbell's " Sys- I., pp. 306, 347; Libri foudo-
tem of Land Tenure in Various ruin, lib. V. , tits. XIII. , XIV.
Countries," in Cobden Club ^^li is said by Gaius, II. 7 : "In
vol., p. 172. solo provinciali, dominium pop-
•Fustel de Coulonges, "La cite iiU Romani est vel Csesaris, nos
antiq. " (3ded),p. 89. autem possessionem tantum
et usuf ructum habere videmm-. "
Chap. L § 12.] RIGHT OF DISCOVERY. I3
precarium, and the beneficium, the fief,— that is, a sort
of hereditary usufruct,— was the rule ; and agricultural
labor was executed by " maiumortables," serfs, who, so
far from being owners of the soil they cultivated, were
not eA-en owners of their own movables ; for the right of
succession was denied them.^ Various systems or theo-
ries have been put forward in explanation of the origin
and justice of private property in land, the principal ones
of which merit a moment's consideration. They are :
1. The discovery theory ;
2. The occupation theory ;
3. The labor theory ;
4. The contract theory ;
5. The lex theory ;
6. The natural-economic theory ;
1. The natural rights theory ; and
8. The government grant theory.
Sec. 12. Same— 1. The discovery theory — The theory of
title by discovery is one that our English ancestors main-
tained, in common with the other nations of Europe, in
regard tc the American soil. On the discovery of this
immense continent, the great nations of Europe were
eager to appropriate to themselves so much of it as they
could respectively acquire. Its vast extent offered an
ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all ; and the
character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an
apology for considering them as people over whom the
superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency.
The potentates of the Old World found no difficulty in
convincing themselves that they made ample compensa-
tion to the inhabitants of the l^^ew World, by bestowing
on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for
unlimited independence. But, as they were all in pur-
suit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order
to avoid conflicting settlements, and consequent war with
each other, to establish a principle which all should ac-
knowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition,
which they all asserted, should be regulated as between
' Laveleye's " Primitive Property," 338.
11 TITLE BY REASON OF OCCUPATION. [Book t
themselves. This principle was that ''discovery" gave
title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose
authority, it was made, against all other European gov-
ernments ; which title might be consummated by posses-
sion.^
But this theory, so far at least as it applies to this
country, has no foundation in any known principle of
jurisprudence or Christian policy. It was enforced and
maintained only by the might of the sword and the
scent of carnage. It never had any foundation in prin-
ciple, and is indefensible, except on the theory that
"might makes right," under which, Henry Lichten-
stein ^ tells us, the more powerful among the savages
of South America compel the weaker to resign their
weapons, wives, and even their children.
Sec. 13. Same — 2. The occupation theory — Some mod-
ern jurists, as well as those of ancient Rome, consider
the occupancy of things and lands without an owner as
the principal title conferring individual property. This
theory might be justifiable if any lands could be found
that were not, in theory or in fact, already occupied.
History shows us that since the dispersion at the build-
ing of the Tower of Babel, when the tribes of Israel were
scattered throughout the world, the earth has never been
regarded by men as res nulUvs. The hunting-grounds
of those tribes that lived by the chase, and the pasture-
lands of those that lived from the produce of their flocks,
have always been recognized as the collective domain of
the tribe ; and this collective possession has continued in
many instances, even after agriculture had begun to
fertilize the soil. For this reason what is termed unoc-
cupied land has never been regarded as without an
owner. Everywhere, in former times as well as in our
own, such land was considered as belonging to the com-
munity or the state. Consequently there was no room in
former times, any more than at the present day, for ac-
' Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U. S. =" Travels in South America," voL
(8 Wheat.) 543, 572 ; bk. 5 L. II., p 194.
ed. 681, 688.
Chap. I. § 15.] THE LABOR AND CONTRACT THEORY. 15
quisition by occupancy. ^ Occupancy, being a fact re-
sulting from force or chance, can give no basis for a title
in the court of good conscience, and is inveighed against
by philosophers of the Herbert Spencer type.^ Yet this
is the only theory of the origin of the title of private
property in land that Sir Henry Maine thinks it worth
while to give consideration in his philosophic treatise on
Ancient Law.^
Sec. li. Same — 3. The labor theory — Another class
of philosophers and thinkers would make labor the
basis of the right to the private ownership of land. This
is the theory generally adopted by economists, because,
since Adam Smith,* they have attributed to labor the
production of all wealth. As expounded by John Locke ^
the theory is briefly this : God gave the soil to mankind
at large, but as no one enjoys either the soil or that
which it produces, unless he ba owner, individuals must
be allowed the use, to the exclusion of all others. Every
one has an exclusive right over his own person. The
labor of his body and the work of his hands therefore are
likewise his property. No one can have a greater right
than he to that which he has acquired, especially if there
remain a sufficiency of similar objects for others.
According to this theory, labor establishes between man
and the objects which he has transformed by his labor
relations stronger than mere occupation, whether sym-
bolic or actual, can give.® But this theory has been and
is violently opposed by continental jurists,^ and the civil
code has nothing to say in approval of it.
Sec. 15. Same— 4. The theory of contract — It has been
maintained by the philosopher Hobbes and others, that
' M. Thiers' " De la Propriete,'' See : M. Thiers' De la Propriete,
passim ; P- 38.
M. Renourd " Du Droit industri- "Locke's "Civil Government," c.
el," passim; IV.
♦Spencer's "Social Statistics," c. « Roeder, " Die Gruentziige des Na-
IX. turereohts," § 79.
See : ante, § 7. '' See : M. Warukoenig's " Doctrinia
» Maine's " Ancient Law," p. 338. jurists philosophica," p. 121 ;
*" Wealth of Nations" (Ward & Ahern's " Naturrecht,"i)assim.
Locke's 1 vol. ed.), p. 2, passim. 1
IQ THE LAW THEORY— BENTHAM. [BOOK I.
men abandoned the primitive community of property in
consequence of a convention, or contract, and that there-
by all private property in land began. ^ The great trouble
with this theory is that it requires us to establish the
reality of a convention, which cannot be done, because
this consent or contract is not an historic fact, but simply
a juristic necessity engendered by the theory. To our
way of thinking, this fact is fatal to the theory.
Sec. 16. Same— 5. The lex theory — Many writers, of
various shades of opinion, without having recourse to ab-
stract theories of natural justice, or to the obscurities of
historical origins, have maintained the theory that prop-
erty is the creature of law.'^ Bentham says ^ that property
and law are born and must die together ; that before the
law there was no property ; take away the law, all prop-
erty ceases. He is of the opinion that " law alone has
accomplished what all the natural feelings were not able
to do. Law alone has been able to create a fixed and
durable possession which deserves the name of property.
The law alone could accustom men to submit to the yoke
of foresight, at first painful to be borne, but afterwards
agreeable and mild ; it alone could encourage in them
labor superfluous at present, and which they are not to
enjoy till the future." Montesquieu says * "that as men
have renounced their natural independence to live under
political laws, they have also renounced the natural com-
munity of goods to live under civil laws. The former
laws give them liberty, the latter laws give them prop-
erty." Faucher declares ^ that the primitive community
of goods has never been found in a state of nature ; and
this is true as to personal property, but not as to landed
property ; for this was collective everywhere in primitive
times. *
Sec. 17. Same— 6. The natural-economic theory Ac-
• See Hobbes' "Works, vol. HI., c. " Bentham's "Works, vol. I., pp.
XV. 307-309.
'See: Bossuet, "Polit. tWe del ■'Montesquieu, "Esprit des Lois,"
I'Eorite, lib. I., art. 3, 4 props.; lib. XXVI., c. 15.
Hobbes' "Works, vol. XL, p. 84; "See: Dictionnaire de I'Economie
Id. vol. IV , 164. politique, tit. " Propri^te."
Chap. I. § 18.] NATURAL EIGHTS THEORY. 17
cording to certain economists, such as John Stuart
Mill, Wilhelm Roscher, Adolph Wagoner, and others,
human nature is such as to require property, because,
without it there would he no stimulus to labor. Roscher
says : "Just as human labor can only arrive at complete
productivity when it is free, so capital does not attain to
full productive power except under the system of free
private property. Who would care to save and renounce
immediate enjoyment, if ho could not reckon on future
enjoyment ? " ^
This theory, by basing the right to private property on
general utility, has the advantage of allowing successive
improvements in existing institutions by the elimination
of what is contrary to equity and against the general
interest, and the introduction of modifications required
by the conditions and wants of the community.^
Sec. 18. Same — 7. The natural rights theory — Another
theory of the origin of individual property in land re-
gards it as a natural right. According to this theory the
personal right of man as determined by nature is, to pos-
sess a sphere of action sufficient to supply him with the
means of support. This physical sphere should therefore
be guaranteed to every one, conditionally, however, on
his cultivating it by his own labor. Thus all should
labor, and all should also have wherewith to labor. The
second in order of the four great German philosophers,^
maintains in his " Foundation of Natural Rights "* that;
every man has an inalienable right to live by labor,
and consequently to find the means of employing his.
hands.'"' Hegel says^ that every one ought to be pos-
' Roscher, Syst. I., S§ 77, 82. = Kant, Fiolite, Schilling and Hegel.
^The student curious to pursue * Johann Gottlieb Fichte, "Grund-
further this theory will find it lage des Naturrechts."
well presented in a work enti- * The same author says in his work
tl^d"Lehrbuch derpolitischen on the Fi-ench Revolution:;
CEconomie, I. Gmndlegun," by " The transformation (pildungy
Adolph Wagoner and Erwin of materials by our own efforts:
j^asse ^ *''^® *'''^® juridical basis of
See also two works of M. A. Sam- property, and the only natural
ter one entitled " Die Social- one. He who does not labor-
Lehre " and the other " Gesell- cannot eat, unless I give hiiu
schaf tliches - und - private- Eig- food ; but he has no right to be-
enthum," Leipzic, 1877. fed. He cannot justiy make-
« " Rechtsphilosopliie," § 49.
13 GOVERNMENT GEANT THEORY. [Book I.
sessed of property. The poet Schiller has the idea in two
lines, which have been said to contain the whole philosophy
of history on the subject :
" Etwas muss er sein eigen nennen,
Oder des Mensch wird, modern und brennen." '
Which may be liberally rendered :
" Something a man must have his own to call,
Or on slaughter and burnings at once he'll fall."
Sec. 19. Same — 8. The government grant theory Ac-
cording to Blackstone it is a fundamental principle of
the English law, derived from the maxim of the feudal
tenure, that the king was the original proprietor, or lord
paramount, of all the land in the kingdom, and the
source of all titles.^ This principle has been adopted
in this country and applied to our republican form of
government, and has become a settled fundamental doc-
trine with us. The title to the lands in this country is
derived by direct grant from our local governments, or
from the federal government since the Revolution.
Titles prior to that date were derived from the crown or
the royal chartered governments originally established
here.^ All titles to land in this country are at present
held through government grant, either from the crown,
through the colonial corporations and the colonial or pro-
prietary authorities, or through the governments of the
various states or of thfe United States.*
others work for him. Every ment of the United States, vest
man has over the material a valid title in the purchaser,
world a primordial right of without a patent.
' appropriation,' and a right of Mitchell v. The United States, 34
property over such things only U. S. (9 Pet.) 711, 748, 756,
as have been modified by 757 ; bk. 9 L. ed. 283, 296, 299,
him." 300.
' Wallenstein, pt. I., Scenell. While this doctrine has been
" See : 3 Bl. Com. 51, 53, 59, 86, questioned, the law is consid-
105. ered as well settled that pur-
3 Dearmas v. Mayor, etc., of New chases at India treaties with
Orleans, 5 La. 182 ; the approbation of the govern-
Jackson v. Waters, 12 John. (N. ment agent, carry a valid title
Y ) 365 ; without the necessity of a
Jackson v. Ingraham, 4 John. patent from the United States.
(N. Y.) 163. Coleman v. Doe, 12 Miss. (4 Smed.
Purchase at Indian treaties. — It has & M.) 40.
been said that purchases at ■'Nature of Indian titles. — It is, said
Indian treaties, under the com- by the supreme court of the
petent sanction of the govern- United States in the case of
Chap. I. § 20.] REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY. 19
Sec. 20. Real and personal property— Distinction and dev-
olution— There is now more personal property in this coun-
try than there is real, but to the real property there still
cling many of the ancient rules and laws, which invest
it with an interest and importance not possessed by per-
sonal property. Of these ancient laws none are more
conspicuous than the feudal rule of descent, under
which, in England, as modified by amending acts,^
when the owner dies intestate, his real property goes to
his heir, and his personal property to the next of kin.^
In the United States, where there has been a greater
breaking away from the feudal usages and customs, and
a more thorough uprooting of the antiquated feudal
laws, if the owner dies intestate his real property goes to
his heirs and his personal property goes to his executor
or administrator for distribution. In the United States
the devolution of property by operation of law is
regulated almost entirely by local statutes in the va-
rious States. The majority, if not all, of these statutes
are modeled after the English Statute of Distribution,^
which was borrowed from the civil law,* and are to be
interpreted and applied according to the rules of the
civil law rather than those of the common law.^ The
provision of the English statute are pronounced by James
Schouler,® one of those excellent enactments '^ following
the Restoration, — one in striking contrast with the course
of descent of the common law. Its great advantage
seems to have been absolute equality at the expense of
the fundamental rules of the common law, and it upsets
Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U. S. (6 Cr.) = WilUams on Real Property, 10.
87 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 163, that tlie » 22& 33 Car. II. c. 3, § 10.
nature of the Indian titles to * Just. Nov. 118 ;
lands lying within the terri- 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 423.
torial limits of a state are en- ' Palmer v. AUicock, 3 Mod. 58 ;
titled to be respected by the Carter v. Crawley, 1 T. Raym.
courts imtil legitimately ex- 496 ;
tinguished, and that the title is Edwards v. Freeman, 3 Pr. Wm.
not such as to be absolutely re- 436 ;
pugnant to seisin in fee on the 3 Redf . on Wills, 433, pi. 3 ;
part of the state within whose 1 Woerner's American Laws of
Turisdiotion the lands are sit- Admrs. p. 131, g 64.
iated. " Schouler's Ex. & Admr. § 495.
' 3 & 4 Will. rV. c. 106 ; ' Lord Hard wick says that it was
Amended by 33 & 33 Vict. c. "very incorrectly penned" in
351, 8S 19 & 30. Stanley v. Stanley, 1 Atk. 457.
20
DEFINinON OF EEAL PROPEETY.
[Book I.
the old doctrine of primogeniture, the preference of
males over females, the blood of the first purchaser, the
rule that property never ascends, and the exclusion of
the half-blood. 1
Sec. 21. Definition of real property— Real property, or
real estate, is an estate in fee or for life in land ; ^ that is,
something that may be held by tenure and passes to the
heir of the possessor at his death instead of to his admin-
istrator,^ and embraces lands, tenements and heredita-
ments,* but does not comprehend terms for years, or any-
thing short of a freehold estate.^ By the term land is
ordinarily understood whatever is parcel of the terrestrial
globe, or is permanently afl&xed to such parcel, whether
by ordinary course of nature, — as grass, herbage, trees
and water, or by the hand of man, — as buildings and
fences ; <> and it not only includes the surface of the
earth, but everything under it and over it, cujus est
solum, ejus est usque ad ccelumJ Land is the most
Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. flST.
Y.) 554 ; ^
Goodrich v. Jones, 3 HiU (N. Y )
143 ; ^ '
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 4a, 6a.
' Gonnon v. Hargadon, 93 Mass. (10
Allen) 106, 109 ;
Sargent v. Adams, 69 Mass. (3
Gray) 73, 79 ;
Stookwell V. Hunter, 53 Mass. (11
Met.) 448, 455 ;
Atkins V. Bordman, 43 Mass. (2
Met.) 457, 467; s.c. 37 Am. Deo.
100;
Stevens v. Paterson & N. E. Co.
. 30 N. J. Eq. (5 C. E. Gr.) 136,
136 ; s.c. 34 N. J. L. (5 Vr.)
533, 570 ; 3 Am. Eep. 360 ;
Barnett v. Johnson, 15 N J. Ea
(3 McCart.) 481, 489 ;
Hoffman tj. Armstrong, 48 N. Y
301 ; s.c. 8 Am. Rep. 537 affirm-
ing 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 387, 338 ;
People V. Central R. Co., 43 N.
Y. 283, 396, reversing 48 Barb.
(N. Y.) 478 ; s.c. 83 How. (N. Y.)
Pr. 407 ; ^ '
Lampman v. Milks, 31 N. Y. 505,
oil ;
Auburn & C. P. R. Co. v. Doug-
lass, .9 N. Y. 444 ;
Mott V. Palmer, 1 N. Y, 569 ;
Relyea v. Beaver, 34 Barb. (N Y \
547.551; \ • ^•)
' Davis V. Rowe, 6 Rand. (Va.) 356,
361.
' 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 401.
' See : Mason's Estate, 4 Watts.
(,Pa.) 346 ;
Bijckeridge v. Ingram, 2 Ves. Jr.
652;
Wind V. Jekyl, 1 Pr. Wm. 575.
* 2 Bl. Com. 16 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 4a.
See : Van Rensselaer v. Pouoher,
6 Den. (N. Y.) 35.
" Lands " hi England. — In England,
since the passage of Lord
Brougham's Act, 13 & 14
Vict. c. 21, § 4, the word
"land" includes "messuages,
tenements, hereditaments,
houses and buildings, of any
tenure, unless where there are
words to exclude houses and
buildings, or to restrict the
meaning of tenements to some
particular tenure."
ChalUs' Real Prop. 36, 37.
<> 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 19, 30 ;
3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 343 ; 3 Id.
401.
See : Merry v. Hallet, 2 Cow.
(N. Y.) 497.
« Mott V. Palmer. 1 N. Y. 564, 572 ;
Thayer v. Wright, 4 Den. (N. Y.)
180;
Chap. I § 22.] TERMS OF DESCRIPTION. . 21
firm inheritance, and is therefore said to be solum
quia est solidimn.^ In its more limited sense, the term
land denotes the quality and character of the interest or
estate which the tenant may own in lands ; and when
used to describe an estate, it is understood to denote a
freehold estate at least. ^
Sec. 22. Same—" Iiand " and " real estate." — The terms
"land " and " real estate," as used in the statutes of the
various states of the Union, include every freehold estate
and interest in land ; that is, all estates in fee or for life,*
as well as a remainder in fee,* and should be construed
as co-extensive in meaning with "lands, tenements, and
hereditaments, " ^ and in some states is declared to include
every estate, interest, and right, legal and equitable, in
lands, tenements, and hereditaments, except such as are
determined or extinguished by the death, intestate, of any
one seized or possessed thereof, or in any manner entitled
thereto, and except leases for years and estates for the
life of another person. ® Some statutes, like those of Mis-
souri, extend the term real estate so as to include chat-
tels real
7
Kelsey v. King, 33 How. (N. Y.) * Jenkins v. Fahey, 78 N. Y. 855,
Pr. 39, 48 ; B.C. 1 Transc. App. 863.
(N. Y.) 183, 141 ; "4 N. Y. Rev. Stat. (8th ed.) 2461,
Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N. § 10 ; 1 Rev. Stats. Codes & L.
Y.)554; 839, §88; N. Y. Code Civ.
Ruckler v. HiUer, 4 Campb. 219 ; Proc. § 3.
Baten's Case, 9 Co. 54 ; See : Gen. Stats. Ky. c. 21, § 13 ;
In re Thornton, 4 Exoli. 822 ; Mass. Gen. Stats, c. 3, § 7 ;
2 Bl. Com. 17, 18 ; Ray v. Sweeney, 14 Bush. (Ky.)
Broom's Max. 395 ; 1 ; s.c. 29 Am. Rep. 388, 391 ;
Kerr's " Adjudicated Words and Floyd v. Carow, 88 N. Y. 561,
Phrases and Applied Max- 569 ;
jjug " . Despard v. Churchill, 58 N. Y.
Pom. Mun. L. (2d ed.) § 315 ; 192, 199 ;
Shep. Touch. 90. Bliss v. Greeley, 45 N. Y. 671,
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 4a. 674 ; s.c. 6 Am. Rep. 157 ;
» Johnson v. Richardson, 33 Miss. Wright v. Douglass, 2 N. Y. 873,
462 464. 376 ;
3 Jenkins v. Fahey, 73 N. Y. 355, Carter v. Burr, 39 Barb. (N. Y.)
362.
65.
The term " real estate," as used in Jenkins v. Fahey, 73 N. Y. 355,
the New York Statutes, com- 862. This is but an elaboration
prebends equitable as well as of the common law definition
legal estates; L. 1843, c. 87, of the term
S5 ■ 4N. Y. Rev. Stats. (8th ed.) Merry v. HaUet, 2 Cow. (N. Y.)
.^25 ; 3 Rev. Stats. Codes & L. 497
of N Y 2952 § a. 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 401.
22
MARYLAND DOCTRINE— TENEMENT.
[Book T.
Sec. 23. Same— Maryland doctrine. —In an early Maryland
case it is said that ' ' as between vendor and vendee, mort-
gagor and mortgagee, and as regards the mere question
of the title of the defendant, land, in the legal significa-
tion, comprehends all ground, soil, or earth whatever ;
all minerals are, in this sense, component parts of land ;
and it comprehends tide- water rivers, lakes, and running
streams, as so much land covered with water ; it includes
all houses, fences, and structures upon the ground ;
and it also embraces all vegetable productions, as trees,
herbage, grass, etc., standing upon and growing out of
the soil.^ If either the owner of the fee-simple, a partic-
ular tenant, or even a wrong-doer builds a house, or an-
nexes to a house then standing upon the land any glass
windows, wainscot, benches, doors, vats, furnaces, or the
like, they are thereby immediately blended with the land
itself, become parcel of it, and vest in the owner of the
inheritance.^ All these things are embraced by the
phrase land, in the legal and comprehensive sense of that
term."^
Sec. 24. Same— Tenement — The word ''tenement " is
frequently used in a restricted sense, as signifying a house
or building,* but it is also used in a much more enlarged
sense, as signifying land, or any incorporeal inheritance,
or anything of a permanent nature that may be holden
by a tenure, ^ whether it be of a substantial kind, like
> 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 4a.
' Herlakenden's Case, 4 Co. 62 ;
1 Co. Utt. (19th ed.) 53a.
' Coombs V. Jordan, 3 Bland. Ch.
(Md.) 384; s.c. 33 Am. Dec.
336, 359.
'' See : Sacket v. Wheaton, 34
Mass. (17 Pick.) 103.
' Commonwealth v. Wise, 110 Mass.
181, 183 ;
Sacket v. Wheaton, 34 Mass. (17
Pick.) 103, 105 ;
3 Kent. Com. (13th ed.) 401.
Includes shops of one room. — Un-
der the Massachusetts liquor
laws it has been held that a
shop consisting of one room,
and not forming a part of a
dwelling-house, constitutes a
tenement.
Commonwealth v. Cogan, 107
Mass. 213 ;
Citing : Commonwealth v. God-
ley, 77 Mass. (11 Gray,) 454 ;
Commonwealth v. McCaughey,
75 Mass. (9 Gray) 396.
Inclndes suite of rooms when. —
Under a statute regulating the
supply of water to the " occu-
pant of a tenement," it has
been held that the word " tene-
ment" appUes to a suite of
rooms in a model-tenement
house, having separate water
fixtures, and occupied by a
separate tenant and his family,
and containing the conven-
iences of a common dweUing-
house.
Young V. Boston, 104 Mass. 95.
Chap. I. § 25.] HEREDITAMENTS— WHAT INCLUDES. £3
lands and houses/ or of an unsubstantial and ideal kind,
like commons, lands, offices, and the like.^ Kents says ^
that a tenement comprises everything which may be
holden, so as to create a tenancy in the feudal sense of
the word, and includes things incorporate, though they
did not lie in tenure.*
Sec. 25. Same— Hereditaments — Hereditaments is a
term of still broader extent than either lands or tene-
ments, and includes not only lands and tenements, but
comprehends whatever passes, without testamentary dis-
position, on the death of the owner, to the heirs by hered-
itary succession,^ and embraces heirlooms as well as
lands and tenements.® Land regarded as a hereditament
stands in a peculiar position, because its existence is
wholly independent of the manner in which estates in
land are limited, while other hereditaments can only by
a metaphor be said to have any existence apart from their
limitation for estates of inheritance. The word here-
ditament, when used in relation to land, sometimes de-
notes the land itself as a physical object, and some-
times the estate in the land. The use of a single
name to denote two such disparate ideas is not with-
out inconvenience ; but the practice is now inveter-
ate. Thus, with some degree of confusion, it is com-
monly said that land is both a tenement and an heredita-
ment. Here it is evident that the word tenement is not
used in exactly the same sense as when a legal estate for
life is styled a tenement ; and the word hereditament is
not used in exactly the same sense as when a rent-charge
ia fee-simple is styled a hereditament. In the case of
land, the estate contemplated is the legal fee-simple ; and
since this exhausts the whole possible interest, by way of
' Sacket v. Wheaton, 34 Mass. (17 * See : Doe v. Dyball, 1 Moore & P.
The
Pick ) 103 ' ^^0.
IB word " tenement " in a will 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 19b, 20a ;
has never been construed, in- 1 Prest Est 8. , ,„ ^ ^
dependent of otlier circuni- ^ Canfleld v. Ford, 28 Barb. (N. Y.)
stances, to passing a fee. 336 ;
Wrieht V. Page, 23 U. S. (10 2 Bl. Com. 17 ;
Wheat ) 204; bk. 6 L. ed. 803. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 6a ;
'2B1. Com. 17; ! I?^V4' ^ io -i«
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 6a. 1 Prest. Est- 12, 13.
' 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 401. • See : post, § 6o.
24 CLASSES OF HEEEDITAMENTS. [BOOK 1.
estate, in the land, and since, for most purposes, it matters
little whether we speak of the land itself, or of the ut-
most possible interest in the land, some degree of obscur-
ity is often permitted to exist as to which precisely of
these two things is meant to be the subject of reference.
The word has, to some extent, a double meaning. In
other cases, in which the thing has no real existence
apart from the estate in the thing, the words used have
only a single meaning.^
Sec. 26. Same — Same — Division of hereditaments. —
Hereditaments are commonly divided first into real,
mixed, and personal hereditaments ; and second, into cor-
poreal and incorporeal hereditaments. The phrase heredit-
aments real, or real hereditaments, is commonly used to
denote lands regarded as a physical object, and legal
estates of inheritance in lands, whether in possession,
remainder, or reversion. The phrase hereditaments
mixed, or mixed hereditaments, includes all estates of in-
heritance which savor of the realty. The phrase here-
ditaments personal, or personal hereditaments, includes
certain inheritable rights, either having no connection
with lands, such as a personal annuity granted for an
estate of inheritance,^ or having a connection which im-
plies no participation either in lands or its profits ; also an-
nuities grairt in fee,^ and certain annuities charged upon
public revenues.* Corporeal hereditaments are fixed as
to their definition by the legal maxim, that at common
law they lie in livery, and not in grant. The phrase
therefore includes only lands regarded as a physical
object, and legal estates of inheritance in possession.
The only conveyance in pais — that is, made between
party and party, and not matter of record, as a fine or
recovery, — by which these could at common law be con-
veyed to a stranger, was a feoffment, and the essence of
a feoffment is the livery of the seisin. All other here-
ditaments, to which applies the description, tangi non
possunt nee videri, are included under the term incor-
' Challis on Real Prop. 39. ■* Holdemesse v. Carmarthen, 1 Bro.
2 Turner v. Turner, Ambl. 776. C. C. 377.
' Stafford v. Buohley, 3 Ves. Sr. 171.
Chap. I. § 26.] INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS. 25
poreal hereditaments. These are said at common law to
lie in grant ; because they would pass by the mere
dehvery of a deed purporting to convey them, and the
word grant was the most appropriate, though not the
only, word of conveyance for the purpose.
CHAPTEE II.
WHAT IS REAL PROPERTY.
Sec. 37. Generally.
Sec. 28. Things real become personal by agreement.
Sec. 29. Church-pews — Definition,
Sec. 30. Same — Assignment of pews.
Sec. 31. Same — Eights of pew-holders — English doctrine.
Sec. 33, Same — Same — American doctrine.
Sec. 33. Same — Same — Limitation and qualification of property in pew.
Sec. 34. Same — Same — As to right of occupancy.
Sec. 35. Same — Law regulating.
Sec. 36. Same — Same — Episcopal church.
Sec. 37. Same — Same — Same— Vestry's control.
Sec. 38. Same — Same — Free church — Power of trustees.
Sec. 39. Same — Grant in perpetuity.
Sec. 40. Same — Interest of pew-holder in church edifice and lands.
Sec. 41. Same — Restrictions on use and treatment of pew.
Sec. 42. Same — Abandonment or sale of church edifice.
Sec. 43. Same — Changes and repairs.
Sec. 44. Burial lots.
Sec. 45. Corporate stocks and lands.
Sec. 46. Same — Realty held by corporation in trust when.
Sec. 47. Same — Land is real estate when.
Sec. 48. Same — Nature and object of investment.
Sec. 49. Electric poles and wires realty.
Sec. 50. Emblements — Growing crops.
Skc. 51. Same — When crop severed.
Sec. 52. Fee-farm lease.
Sec. 53. Fructus industriales.
Sec. 54. Same — Products of a mixed nature — Hops. '
Sec. 55. Fructus naturales.
Sec. 56. Same — Growing trees.
Sec. 57. Same — Same — Overhanging trees.
Sec. 68. Same — Same — ''Line trees."
Sec. 59. Same — Cut trees.
Sec. 60. Ground-rent — Definition.
Sec. 61. Same — Nature and methods of creation.
Sec. 63. Same — Disposition of in case of intestacy.
Sec. 63. Heirlooms — Definition.
Sec. 64. Same — Not recognized in America.
Chap. II. § 28.] THINGS WHICH ARE REAL PROPERTY. 27
Sec. 66. Houses and buildings.
Sec. 66. Same— Built by tenant.
Sec. 67. Same — Consent to erection.
Sec. 68. Same — Chamber or floor in building.
Sec. 69. Same— Same— Effect of destruction of building.
Section 27. Generally — Land, -as we shall presently
see/ is generally regarded as real property ; and so also is
anything that is permanently affixed to it, either by the
act of man or the process of nature, as well as many of
the intangible rights which adhere to it and grow out of
its possession. Thus all trees, herbage, buildings, fences,
and other improvements or betterments ^ upon the surface,
and all mines, quarries, metals, minerals, oils, or gases
within the soil belong to and pass with the land.®
Yet the soil may be owned by one man, and the fences
and buildings by another ; and as between such owners,
such structures will be regarded as personal property.
But in their nature, fences and buildings, like every-
thing else attached to the earth, are real estate, and pass
with the soil to the heir or grantee. It is truly said that
rails are not in their nature real property. But a fence,
though constructed of rails, is in its nature real property.
It is just as plainly so as is a house. Both are made of
materials which were once personal property ; but they
become realty when formed into a structure and attached
to the soil. The word land includes not only the soil, tut
everything attached to it, whether attached by the course
of nature, as trees, herbage, and water^ or by the hand
of man, as buildings and fences. This is but common
learning ; and there is no more room for question that a
grant of land, eo nomine, will carry buildings and fences,
than there is that it will carry growing trees and herb-
age upon, or mines and quarries in, the groimd beneath
the surface.*
Sec 28. Things real become personalty by agreement — .
There are many things which belong to and pass with
the soil, and are accounted as real property, which by
special agreement may be made the subject of a distinct
1 See • Post § 79. ' Mott v. Palmer, 1 N. Y. 564, 573.
^ See : Post, " Bettermente." " Mott v. Pabner, 1 N. Y. 564, 572-3.
28 THINGS REAL PROPERTY BY AGREEMENT. [Book I.
ownership, and thereby become personal property ; and
many other things which are commonly regarded as per-
sonal property become a part of the realty on becoming
attached or affixed to it, and pass with it to the heir,
devisee, or grantee as fixtures and the like. And there
are certain interests in and connected with land, known
as chattels real, which do not attach to or pass with it
on its devolution.^ Thus a lease for years, being less
than a freehold estate in the land, is regarded as a chattel
interest. The duration of the term, whether for a few
years or for a great number of years, is immaterial,^ pro-
vided only it be fixed and determined, and there be a
reversion or remainder in fee in some other person ; ^ ex-
cept in those states where long tenures are made inherit-
able by statute.* Thus under the present Massachusetts
statute so long as fifty years of a lease for a hundred
years or more remain unexpired, it is regarded for many
purposes as an estate in fee-simple.^ Under the New
York Code of Civil Procedure,^ five years of an unex-
pired lease is regarded as real property for many pur-
poses.^
Sec. 29. Church-pews-Befinition — A pew is a seat in a
church, separated from all the others, with a convenient
place to stand or kneel therein.* Strictly speaking, a
church-pew is a closed seat in a church," and the word is
so used in England ; but in this country, a pew is gener-
' 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 343. might, perhaps, provide ex-
" Chapman v. Gray, 15 Mass. 439, pressly for them ; but as they
445 ; are extremely rare, they seem
Montague v. Smith, 13 ss. 396. to have been left on the footing
2 See : Hollenbeck v. McDonald, of all other chattels.
113 Mass. 347, 349; 1 1 Wood Conv. XX.
Chapman v. Gray, 15 Mass. 439, See : Post, chapter XX. " Estate
445; for Years."
Gray's Case, 5 Mass. 419 ; « Hollenbeck v. McDonald, 113
3 Bl. Com. 386 ; Mass. 347, 349.
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 46a, 118a ; " N. Y.- Code Civ. Proc. § 1430 ■
3 Kent Com. (13th ed,) 343. 1 Revised Stats. Codes and Laws,
leases for long term of years, — It is 1077.
said by the Supreme Judi- ' See : JEx parte Wilson, 7 Hill (N.
cial Court of Massachusetts in Y.) 150.
the case of Chapman v. Gray, « 3 Bouv. L. Diet. (15th ed.) 413
15 Mass. 439, 445, that if long » Brumfltt v. Roberts, L. E. 5 C. P.
terms for years were more fre- 334, 333.
quent among us, the legislature
Chap. II. § 30.] CHURCH PEWS. 29
ally understood to be a long low bench or slip, capable of
seating several persons
Sec. 30. Same — Assignment of pews — In England, be-
fore the Eeformation, the body of the church was com-
mon to all parishioners ; but after the Eeformation the
practice arose of assigning particular seats or pews to
individuals. This assignment of pews was made by the
ordinary, by a faculty which was a mere license, and was
personal to the licensee, and all disputes concerning it
were determined in the spiritual courts.^ And while
every parishioner has a right to a seat in the parish
church, he cannot claim the right to have a particular
pew assigned to his use.^ A right to a pew can exist
only by a grant of an ordinary or a bishop, called a
"faculty," or by prescription.^ At first the power of
ordering the seats or pews in the church was discretion-
ary and was vested by common law in the ordinary, but
by custom it came to be exercised by the church wardens,
who were the representatives of the ordinary in that
respect, and whose assignment of seats was presumed to
have been made with the approbation and consent of the
ordinary.* As a consequence it has become the settled
law of the English courts that church wardens have a
discretionary power to appropriate the pev/s in the church,
subject only to the control of the ordinary. ^ While it
was formally held in England^ that a right to a pew may
be acquired by prescription, it is thought that in this
1 State V. Trinity Church, 45 N. J. Griffin v. Dighton, 5 Best &. S.
L (16 Vr.) 330 ; s.c. 38 Alb. L. 93 ; s.c. 117 Eng. C. L. 93;
J xii. Morgan i;. Curtis, 3 Man. & R. 389;
See • Presbyterian Church v. An- Jarratt v. Steele, 3 Phill. 167;
druss 31 N. J. L. (1 Zab.) 335, Pettman v. Bridger, 1 Phill. 316;
329 . ' 3 Bl.Com. 438,
Hume's' Eccl. L. tit. " Churches," * 3 Bac. Abr. 343;
c 27 • 1 Burns Eccl. L. 359;
Hook's Church Diet. tit. " Pews." Church Warden, 3 ;
' State V. Trinity Church, 45 N. J. Woods Inst. 88-90.
L (16 Vr ) 330; s.c. 38 Alb. L. ' See: State v. Trinity Church, 45 N.
j'ill; ' J. L. (16 Vr.) 330; s.c. 38 Alb.
Matter of Cathedral Church, 8 L. L. J. Ill; „ ,, ^
rp ggi Reynolds v. Monkton, 3 M. &
'See:' Cri^p v. Martin, L. R. 3 Pro. Rob. 384: ,
Div 15- s.c. 19 Moak's Eng. Matter of Cathedral Church, 8 L.
Rep 553- T. 861.
Brvan v Whistler, 8 Barn. & C. « See: Morgan v. Curtis, 3 Mees. &
388; s.c. 15 Eng. C. L. 147; R. 389.
30 EIGHTS IN PEWS— ENGLISH DOCTRINE. [Book I.
country an individual right to the occupation of a par-
ticular pew will not arise from an occupation of it for
ever so long a time,-^ unless it is annexed to a house, and
it also be shown that the pew was repaired by the claim-
ant, and those under whom he claims for the prescriptive
period.^
Sec. 31. Same — Eights of pew-holders in pews— English
doctrine — In England, the freehold to the church being
in the parson for the time being, the right which the
pew-holder has in his pew is merely an incorporeal in-
terest, and is in the nature of an easement in the lands of
another,^ entitling the party to a right to occupy the pew
during divine services ; * but does not confer the right to
be in the pew at all times, or at any other time than
when the church is open for church purposes.^
Sec. 32. Same — Same — American doctrine In this
country the title to pews in a church generally depend on
the statutes enacted to regulate this kind of property. In
some of the states church-pews are declared by statute to
be an interest in real property,^ while in others they are
declared to be an interest in personal property. In the
absence of statutes regulating such property, the interest
of a party in a ;^ew in a church, although a limited and
qualified interest, is usually considered to be an interest in
' See: Boothby u. Baily, Hob. 69; Pettman v. Bridger 1 Phill. 316.
Stocks V. Booth, 1 T. R. 428 ; s.c. See: Daniel v. "Wood, 18 Mass. (1
1 Rev. Rep. 344; Pick.) 102; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151;
Wood's Inst. 90. Shaw v. Beveridge, 3 Hill (N Y.)
» State V. Ti-inity Church, 45 N. J. 26, s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 616.
L. (16 Yr.) 230; s.c. 28 Alb. L. •» 2 Add. Ecol. 419.
J. 111. " Brumfltt V. Roberts, L. E. 5 C. P.
See: Hook's Diet. tit. "Pews"; 232;
Wood's Inst. 90. Mainwaring v, Giles, 5 Barn. &
' Brmnfitt v. Roberts, L. R. 5 C. Aid. 356; s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. 198;
P. 233; Gully v. Bishop of Exeter, 4 Bing.
Woolocombe 17. Ouldridge, 3 Add. 294; s.c. 13 Eng. C. L. 508;
1; Ridout V. Harris, 17 Up. Can. C.
Mainwaring v. Giles, 5 Bam & P. 88.
Aid. 356; s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. 198; « As in Massachusetts, outside of
GuUyu. Bishop of Exeter, 4 Bing. the city of Boston, Jackson i\
290, 294; s.c. 13 Eng. C. L. 508, Rounesville, 46 Mass. (5 Met.)
510; 137; and in Vermont, O'Hear
Reynolds v, Monkton, 3 M. & v. De Goesbriand, 33 Vt. 593;
Rob. 384; s.c. 80 Am. Dec. 653, 655.
Chap. II. § 32.] RIGHTS IN PEW— AMERICAN DOCTRINE. 31
real property, ^ notwithstanding the ownership is simply
that of an exclusive easement for special purposes, ^ being
merely a right to occupy under certain restrictions. ^
They are regarded and treated as real property in all
cases arising under the statute of frauds,* the statute of
conveyances,^ or of descent and distributions," and a
' See: Succession of Gamble, 33 La.
An. 9;
Sohier v. Trinity Church, 109
Mass. 1;
Jackson v. RounsevUle, 46 Mass.
(5 Met.) 127;
Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.)
103; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151;
Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 435, 438;
s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 159;
Bates V. Sparrell, 10 Mass. 833;
Presbyterian Church v. Andruss,
21 N. J. L. (1 Zab.) 825;
St. Paul's Church v. Ford, 84
Barb. (N. Y.) 16;
Viele U.Osgood, 8 Barb.(N.Y.) 130;
Shaw V. Beveridge, 3 Hill(N. Y.),
26; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 616;
Trustees First Baptist Church of
Ithaca V. Bigelow, 16 Wend.
(N. Y.) 28;
Church V. Wells, 24 Pa. St. 249;
Howe V. Stevens, 47 Vt. 363;
O'Hear v. De Goesbriand, 33 Vt.
593: s.c. 80 Am. Deo. 653, 655;
Barnard v. Whipple, 29 Vt. 401;
s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 422;
True V. Morrill, 28 Vt. 673;
Hodges V. Green, 38 Vt. 358;
KeUog V. Dickinson, 18 Vt. 366.
Eight to nse church for purposes
of worship — Interest inland. — In
the case of Brumfield v. Car-
son, 33Ind. 94; s.c. 5 Am. Rep.
184, it is said that the right to
use a church edifice to worship
in when unoccupied by the
church to which it belongs, is
an interest in real estate, and a
contract therefor, to be valid
under the statute of frauds,
must be in writing, signed
by the party to be charged.
' Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.)
103;
Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 438; s.c.
9 Am. Dec. 159;
Church V. Wells, 24 Pa. St. 249.
' Sohier v. Trinity Church, 109
Mass. 1, 21;
Citing : lie New South Meeting-
house, 95 Mass. (13 AUen) 497
502;
Attorney-General v. Proprietors
Meeting-house in Federal Street,
69 Mass. (3 Gray) 1;
Howard v. First Parish of North
Bridgewater, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.)
138;
V\''entworth v. First Parish of
Canton, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 344;
Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.)
103; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151;
Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 434; s.c.
9 Am. Dec. 159.
•> State V. Tiinity Church, 45 N. J.
L. (16 Vr.) 230; s.c. 28 Alb. L.
J. Ill;
VoorheestJ. Presbyterian Church,
17 Barb. (N. Y.) 103 ; aff'g 8 Id.
135;
Viele V. Osgood, 8 Barb. (N. Y.)
130;
Trustees of the First Baptist
Church of Ithaca v. Bigelow, 16
Wend. (N. Y.) 38;
Barnard v. Whipple, 39 Vt. 401 ;
s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 433.
' Sights in a pew can be transferred
only in the manner provided
for the transfer of real property-.
Barnard v. Whipple, 29 Vt. 401;
S.C. 70 Am. Deo. 433.
See: Viele v. Osgood, 0 Barb. (N.
Y.) 130.
« Bates V. Sparrell, 10 Mass. 838;
First Baptist Church v. Bigelow,
16 Wend. (N. Y.) 38;
O'Hear v. De Goesbriand, 33 Vt.
593; s.c. 80 Am. Dec. 653, 655;
Barnard v. Whipple, 39 Vt. 401;
s.c. 70 Am. Dee. 422.
In the case of Freligh v. Piatt, 5
Cow. (N. Y.)494, the court say:
'' A sale of real estate ex vi ter-
mini means an absolute trans-
fer of the property. But the
sale of pews in a church is not
a sale of real estate within the
New York act i-egulating relig-
ious societies. By the grant of
a pew the grantee acquires a
limited usufructuary right only.
He must use it as a pew in a
house of worship, but has not
an unlimited, absolute right.
33
PEOPERTY IN PEW— LIMITATION.
[Book I.
devise of a testator's real estate carries with it his pew-
rights.^
Sec. 33. Same — Same— Limitation and qualifleation of
property in paw — While the pew-holder has an absolute
and exclusive right to the possession and enjoyment of
his pew for the purposes of public worship as long as ■
the house remains, and may maintain an action against
a trespasser, or any person who disturbs him in the pos-
session or enjoyment thereof, or in any way infringes
upon his rights thereto,^ yet this interest in the pew is
separate from the fee,^ and is limited and qualified both
as to the nature of the estate and the time and manner of
enjoyment.*
Sec. 34. Same — Same — As to right of occupancy. — The
assigning or leasing of a pew does not confer upon the
holder thereof the right to be in it at any other time than
during public worship, or to occupy it for any other pur-
He cannot use it lawfully for
purposes incompatible with its
nature. The right, too, is lim-
ited as to time."
Bates V. Sparrell, 10 Mass. 323;
See: Succession of Gamble, 2D La.
An. 9;
Presbyterian Cliurcli v. Andruss,
21 N. J. L. (l.Zab.) 335;
See: Gorton v. HadSeU, 03 Mass.
(9 Gush.) 508;
Jackson v. EounseviUe, 46 Mass.
(5 Met.) 137;
Sargent v. Pierce, 43 Mass. (3
Met.) 80;
Kimball v. Second Parish of Eow-
ley, 41 Mass. (24 Pick.) 347;
Howard v. First Parish of North
Bridgewater, 34 Mass. (7 Pick.)
188;
Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 435; s.c.
9 Am. Dec. 159;
Fisher v. Glover, 4 N. H. 180;
Woodworth v. Payne, 74 N. Y.
196; s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 298;
Wheaton v. Gates, 18 N. Y. 395;
St. Paul's Church v. Ford, 34
Barb. (N. Y.) 16;
Cooper V. Presbyterian Church,
33 Barb. (N. Y.) 223;
Abernethey v. Society of Puri-
tans, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 1;
Heeney v. St. Peter's Church, 3
Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 608;
Shaw V. Beveridge, 3 Hill (N.
Y.) 36; s.c. 88 Am. Dec. 610;
Baptist Church v. Witherell, 3
Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 396, 303; s.c.
34 Am. Dec. 323,
Price V. Methodist Episcopal
Church, 4 Ohio 515, 541;
Howe V. Stevens, 47 Vt. 262;
O'Hear v. De Goesbriand, 38 Vt.
593; s.c. 80 Am. Dec. 653;
Perrin v. Granger, 33 Vt. 101;
Kellog V. Dickinson, 18 \'t. 260;
Pettman v. Bridger, 1 Phill.
Eccl. 316.
' See Woodworth i\ Payne, 74 N.
Y. 196, 200; s.c. 30 Am. Rep.
398. 301;
Shaw'v. Beveridge, 3 Hill (N. Y.)
26; s.c. 38 Am Dec. 610;
Trustees of the First Baptist
Church of Ithaca v. Bigelow,
16 Wend. (N. Y.) 28;
Justice MiLLBR says in Wood-
worth V. Payne, supra, that
pews may be leased and held
distinct from the fee.
"•See: Kimball v. First Parish of
Eowley, 41 Mass. (24 Pick.)
347;
Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.)
102; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151;
Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 435; s,6.
9 Am. Dec. 159.
Chap. n. § 35.] RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY— LAW REGULATING. 33
poses than those of pubHc worship,^ and matters connected
therewith. ^ Thus where the parish or society lends or liires
the use of the meeting-house in which the pew is situated
for purposes not connected with the public religious wor-
ship of the society or congregation which owns the house,
it is thought that the use of the house extends to the use
of the pews also, to the exclusion of the holders thereof.^
In the case of Shaw v. Beveridge,* the court say that
the owners of pews have an exclusive right to their pos-
session and occupation for the purposes of public worship ;
not as an easement, but by virtue of their individual
right of property therein, derived, perhaps, in theory at
least, from the corporation represented by the trustees
who are seized and possessed of the temporalities of the
church. The owners hold and possess their particular
seats in severalty, in subordination to the more general
right of the trustees in the soil and freehold. These
rights are distinct and separate ; and neither do they,
nor the respective possessions growing out of the enjoy-
ment of them, necessarily conflict with each other. ^
Sec. 35. Same— Law-regulating — At common law unless
the right to a pew was an easement proper, that is, was
appurtenant to some dominant tenement or estate, it was
of purely ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the remedies
pertaining to it were of ecclesiastical cognizance.^ It
is a well settled rule that courts of law will not interfere
' First Baptist, Society v. Grant, 59 his pew in preference to any
Me. 245; one else.
Presbyterian Churcli v. Andruss, See: Wall v. Lee, 34 N. Y. 141,149;
21 N J L (1 Zab.) 335; First Baptist Church of Hartford
Erwin v. Hurd, 13 Abb. (N. Y.) v. Witherell, 3 Paige Ch. (N.
N. C. 91; Y.)296.
Craig V First Presbyterian ^ See: Jackson v. RounseviUo, 46
Church, 88 Pa. St. 43, 51; s.c. Mass. (5 Met.) 137, 102.
32 Am. Rep. 417; " 3 Hill (N. Y.), 26; s.c. 38 Am. Dec.
Jones V. Towne, 47 Vt. 263; 616. , c, ■ . .
Brumfltt V. Roberts, L. R. 5 C. = Second Congregational Society of
p 232- North Bridgewater v. Waring,
See! Pok, % 39. 41 Mass. (34 Pick.) 304.
' Meetings for temporal purposes " Mainwaring v. Giles, 0 tiarn Is.
—such as meetings of the so- Aid. 356; s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. 198;
ciety or congregation, held for Spooner v. Brewster^3 Bmg. 136;
temporal purposes, at which s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 75;
times it is thought the pew- Rogers «. Brooks IT. R.4ol;
holder has a right to occupy Stocks v. Booth, 1 T. R. 438; s.c.
1 Rev. Rep. 244.
Sj. CONTROL OF PEWS. [Book I.
with the rules of a voluntary religious society, adopted
■for the regulation of its own affairs, unless to protect
some civil right which is infringed by their operation.^
It is said in the case of the Baptist Church v. Witherell,^
that over the church, as such, the legal tribunals do not
profess to have any jurisdiction whatever, except to pro-
tect the civil rights of others, and to preserve the peace.
All questions relating to the faith and practice of the
church, and its members, belong to the church judica-
tories to which they have voluntarily subjected them-
selves. It follows that, where property and other sub-
stantial rights are not involved, the decisions of ecclesias-
tical courts are final, as they are the best judges of what
constitutes an offense against the word of God and the
discipline of the church.^
Sec. 36. Same— Same — Episcopal church The English
ecclesiastical law forms the basis of the law regulating
the affairs of the Episcopal church in this country, and
is in force, except as modified by statute and the usages
and canons of the church.*
Sec. 37. Same— Same— Vestry's control — The vestry of
an Episcopal church may control the occupancy of a pew,
and where the right to occupy has been given by them,
it is not alienable or transmissible, and where the pew is
rented annually, the one renting it has at most only a
I Chase v. Cheney, 58 111. 509; s.c. Forbes v. Eden, L E 1 Sc J
11 Am. Eep. 95; 10 Am. Leg. App. 568.
Reg. 295; = 3 p^jge ch. (N. Y.) 296 ; s.c. 24
State V. Trinity Chm-ch, 45. N. J. Am. Deo. 223
L. (16 Vr.) 230; s.c. 28 Alb. L. See : Robertson v. BuUion 9
J- 111; Barb. (N. Y.) 64 ;
S?e: People ex rel. Dilcher v. The DifEendorf v. Reformed Cal
German United Evangelical Church, 20 John (N Y ) 12 •
Church, 53 N. Y. 103; Lawyer v. Cipperly, 7 PaiRe Ch
Petty V. Tooker, 21 N. Y. 267; (N. Y.) 281 ;
Robertson v. BuUion, 9 Barb. » German Reformed Church v Sei-
(N. Y.) 64; bert, 3 Pa. St. 291.
Gable v. -Miller, 10 Paige Ch. (N. See : Shannon v. Frost 3 B
Y.) 627; S.C. 2 Den. (N. Y.) 492; Mon. (Ky.) 250, 258.
Baptist Church of Hartford v. * State v. Trinity Church 45 N J
Witherell, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) L. (16 Vr.) 230 ; s.c. 28 Alb' l'
296 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 223 ; J. Ill ;
Sutter V. First Dutch Reformed Lynd v. ' Menzies 33 N J L ('l
Church, 42 Pa. St. 503 ; Vr.) 162 ; ' ' • • V
German Reformed Church v. Sei- Hoffman's Law of the Church 14
bert, 3 Pa. St. 283 ; 30, 34, 64. '-"uicn, it,
Chap. H. § 39.] GRANTING PEWS IN PERPETUITY. 35
leasehold interest for the term. The civil court will not
review the action of vestrymen in excluding a member
of a church from a particular pew : and this is true al-
though they give no reason for their action, and do not
give the complaining party a hearing.^
Sec 38. Same— Same— Free church — It has been said
that in a free church where no charge is made for the
sittings, the trustees have power to determine where at-
tendants at worship shall sit, and may by force remove
one who persists in sitting in a place other than that as-
signed to him.2 But such trustees have not authority
to distribute the property of the society among the indi-
vidual members or any class of them ; nor can such right
be conferred by the vote of a majority of the members
of the society and the order of a court. ^
Sec. 39. Same— Granting in perpetuity — The grant of a
pew in a church edifice in perpetuity does not give to the
pew-holder an absolute right of property, as in a grant
of land in fee-simple, but a limited usufructuary interest
raerely,* being simply a right to occupy,'' under certain
' State V. Trinity Church, 45 N. J. Fi-eUgh v. Piatt, 5 Cow. (N. Y.)
L. (16 Vr.) 230 ; s.c. 28 Alb. L. 494 ;
J 111. Heeney v. St. Peter's Church, 2
= Sheldon u.Vail, 28 Hun (N. Y.) 354. Edw.' Ch. (N. Y.) 608 ;
" Wheaton v. Gates, 18 N. Y. 395. White v. Trustees Methodist Epis-
See : Madison Avenue Baptist copal Church, 3 Lans. (N. Y.)
Church V. Baptist Church on 477, 481 ;
Oliver St , 4 N. Y. 131, 140. First Baptist Church v. WithereU,
<See: Re New South Meeting- 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 296 ; s.c.
house, 95 Mass. (13 AUen) 497, 24 Am. Deo. 323 ;
I 502; Craig v. First Presbyterian
Attorney-General v. Propria- Church, 88 Pa. St. 42, 51 ; s.c.
tors Meeting-house in Federal 32 Am. Rep. 417 ;
Street, 69 Mass. (3 Grav) 1 ; Kincaid's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 411 ;
Howard v. First Parish in North s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 377.
Bridgewater, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.) * interrogating pastor from pew—
j3g . Interfering with collection. —
Wentworth v. First Parish in Brown, J. , says in the case of
Canton, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 344
Daniel t;. Wood, 18 Mass. (IPick.
102 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151 ;
Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 435, 438
s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 159 ;
WaU V. Lee, 34 N. Y. 149 ;
Wheaton v. Gates, 18 N. Y. 395
WaU V. 'Lee, 34 N. Y. 141, 149,
that the pew-holder cannot us&
his pew as a place from which
to interrogate the clergyman
and fix a quarrel upon him, or
in any way interrupt the serv-
ices ; nor to impede or inter-
Viele V. Osgood, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) fere with charitable or other
J30 . " collections taken up from the
36
PEW-HOLDER'S INTEREST IN EDIFICE. [Book I.
restrictions/ the pew during public worship of the con-
gregation,^ and possibly of sitting therein at meetings
of the society held for temporal purposes.^
Sec. 40. Same — Interest of pew-liolder in church edifice
and lands — Pews are held by very peculiar titles, which
are a qualified and usufructuary right merely.* The
interest in a pew, while in the nature of and treated as
real estate, is incorporeal,^ and carries with it no interest
in the church edifice, or the land upon which the church
stands.® The parish or society is the sole owner of the
fee both of the soil on which the church building stands
and of the building itself.'^ Though limited both as to
extent and manner of enjoyment and as to duration, the
estate a pew-holder has in his pew may be for years, for
congregation assembled foi- re-
ligious worship.
' Cohier v. Trinity Churoli, 109
Mass. 1.
See : Re New Soutli Meeting-
house, 95 Mass. (13 Allen) 497 ;
Attorney-General v. Proprietors
Meeting-house in Federal
Street, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 1 ;
Howard v. First Parish in North
Bridgeport, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.)
138;
Wentworth •;;. First Parish in
Canton, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 344 ;
Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.)
103 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151.
* First Baptist Society v. Grant, 59
Me. 245 ;
Presbyterian Church v. Andruss,
21 N. J. L. (1 Zab.) 325 ;
Jones V. Towne, 58 N. Y. 462 ;
S.C. 43 Am. Rep. 603 ;
Erwin v. Hurd, 13 Abb. (N. Y.)
N. C. 91 ;
Craig V. First Presbyterian
Cliuroh, 88 Pa. St. 43, 51 ; s.c.
33 Am. Rep. 417 ;
Howe V. Stevens, 47 Vt. 362 ;
Brumfitt V. Roberts, L. R. 5 C. P.
232
2 Wall V. Lee, 34 N. Y. 141, 149 ;
First Baptist Church of Hartford
V. Witherell, 3 Paige Ch. (N.
Y.) 296 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 223.
^Sohier v. Trinity Church, 109
Mass. 1, 20 ;
Citing : Re New South Meeting-
house, 95 Mass. (13 Allen) 497,
503;
Attorney-General v. Proprietors
M e e t i n g-house in Federal
Street,69 Mass. (3 Gray) 1 ;
Howard V. First Parish in North
Bridgewater, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.)
138;
Wentworth v. First Parish in
Canton, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 344 ;
Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.)
103 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151 ;
Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 434 ; s.c.
9 Am. Dec. 159.
5 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 403.
" See : Fassett v. First Parish in
Boylston, 36 Mass. (19 Pick.)
361;
Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.)
103 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151 ;
Matter of Reformed Church, 16
Barb. (N. Y.) 337 ;
Froligh V. Piatt, 5 Cow. (N. Y.)
494 ;
Abernethy v. Society of Church
of Puritans, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 1, 4 ;
Heeney v. St. Peter's Church, 2
Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 608.
' Proprietors of Union Meeting-
house V. Rowell, 66 Me. 400 ;
Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 435 ; s.c.
9 Am. Dec. 159.
See : Jackson v. RounsevUle, 46
Mass. (5 Meto.) 127 ;
Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.)
102 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151 ;
Trustees of First Baptist Church
of Ithaca v. Bigelow, 16 Wend.
(N. Y.) 28 ;
Kincaid's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 411 ;
s.c. 5 Am. Eep. 377,
Chap. n. § 41.] RESTEICTION ON USE OF PEW.
37
life, or even in fee ; and may be held in consideration of
a fixed sum, or periodical payment of a stipulated amount,
or assessments either fixed and certain or uncertain. ^
The deed or contract under which a pew is held is the
only criterion of the nature and extent of the estate,^ as
well as of the extent of the power of the society to tax
the holder thereof.^
Sec. 41. Same— Restriction, use, and treatment of pew
Having no title in or to either the soil beneath his pew,*
nor the space above it,'' the pew-owner has no right to dig
a vault under it nor erect anything over it, without the
consent of the owners or trustees of the church ; ® neither
has he the right to decorate such pew according to his
fancy ; '' and should he do so the trustees may efface the
objectionable decoration, fill up the excavation beneath.
I Lease of pew at stipulated rental
— Construction of lease. — In the
case of Gifford v. First Pres-
byterian Societv of Syracuse,
56 Barb. (N. Y.) 114, a lease of
a pew in a chnrcli contained a
condition that the lessee and
his assigns should pay to tlie
trustees of the religious society,
for the time being, all the taxes
or assessments which might be
levied or assessed thereon by
said trustees, for certain speci-
fied purposes. It also contained
the following restrictions: " No
taxes or assessments to be
levied or assessed for the next
ten years for tlie purchase of a
bell or organ ; . . . nor are they
in any one year to exceed ten
per cent, on the original ap-
praised value of said slips."
This language was held to be
general enough to cover the
whole duration of the lease,
and that it was the intention of
thff parties to limit the taxa-
tion to ten per cent, in each
year while the estate should
continue, and that the trustees
were not authorized, at any
time, to tax or assess upon the
pew in question any more than
at the rate of ten per cent, of
the original appraised value
thereof.
* First Methodist Episcopal Society
V. Brayton, 91 Mass. (19 Allen)
349;
Abernethy v. Society of Church
of Puritans, 3 Daly (N. Y.), 1. 4.
' Limitation in deed of pew on
power to assess tax — If the
power of a religious society to
assess a tax upon a pew is de-
rived from and limited by the
deeds of the society to the pew-
owners, a tax assessed in part
for purposes not specifically
named in the deed is void.
Fu-st Methodist Society v. Bray-
ton, 91 Mass. (9 Allen) 248.
See : Musscy v. Bulfinch Metho-
dist Society, 55 Mass. (1 Cush.)
163;
Stetson V. Kempton, 13 Mass. 273 ;
B.C. 7 Am. Dec. 145.
* Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 435 ; s.c.
9 Am. Dec. 159.
^ Kimball i\ Second Parish of Row-
ley, 41 Mass. (24 Pick.) 347 ;
Wentworth v. First Parish in
Canton, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 344 ;
Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 435; s.c.
9 Am. Dec. 159 ;
KeUogg V. Dickinson, 18 Vt. 366,
273.
" Wentworth v. First Parish of Can-
ton, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 345 ;
Daniels v. Wood, 18 Mass. (Pick.)
103 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151.
' Church V. Wells, 34 Pa. St. 249.
38 ABANDONMENT OR SALE OF EDIFICE. [Book L
or remove the obstruction above, which interferes with
the equal enjoyment by others of the pews,^
Sec. 42. Same — Abandomnent, sale, or destruction of
church ediaee — The fee to the land and the building being
in the society, if the building should become useless or
dilapidated, and is abandoned by the congregation as a
place of worship, or is destroyed by fire or otherwise, the
rights of the pew-holder, are gone.^ If the church edi-
fice is sold and removed and a new structure erected, or
the church and ground sold and the site abandoned as a
place of worship, the pew-holder is not entitled to a share
of the proceeds.^ He can neither compel the holding of
divine services in the church, nor prevent the abandon-
ment of it as a place of worship.* A court of equity wiU
not, on the application of a pew-owner, enjoin the pull-
ing down and rebuilding or removal of the church edi-
fice, by the trustees, whenever it shall be deemed expedi-
ent and proper.^ If a congregation abandon its meeting-
house as a place of public worship, although it continue
to be fit for that purpose, and erect a new one on a dif-
ferent site, it does not thereby subject itself to any liability
to the proprietor or lease-holder of a pew in the old meet-
ing-house, in the absence of any showing that the society
acted wantonly or with any intention to injure him.^
1 Kimball v. Second Parish of Row- Dutch Church, 17 N. J. Eq. (3
ley, 41 Mass. (24 Pick.) 347 ; C. E. Gr.) 136, 130 ;
Wentworth v. First Parish in Be Brick Presbyteria,n Church, 3
Canton, 30 Mass. (3 Pick.) 344 ; Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 155.
Kellogg V. Dickinson, 18 Vt. 366, « See : Howard v. First Parish in
273. North Bridgewater, 34 Mass.
» Abernethy v. Society of Church (7 Pick.) 138 ;
of Puritans, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 1. "Wentworth v. First Parish in
Kincaid's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 411 ; Canton, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 344 ;
s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 377. Freligh v. Piatt, 5 Cow. (N. Y.)
' Howe V. Stevens, 47 Vt. 363. 494, 496 ;
See : Wentworth v. First Parish Heeney v. St. Peter's Church, 3
of Canton, 30 Mass. (3 Pick.) Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 613 ;
345, 346 ; Shaw v. Beveridge, 3 Hill (N. Y.)
Church V. Wells, 24 Pa. St. 249. 26 ; s. c. 38 Am. Deo. 616.
'Matter of ReformedDutch Church, "See: Fassett v. First Parish in
16 Barb. (N. Y.) 237 ; Boylston, 36 Mass. (19 Pick.)
Viele V. Osgood, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 361 ;
135 ; Voorhees ■;;. Presbyterian Church,
McNabb v. Bond, 4 Brad. (N. Y.) 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 152 ;
^^"^ ' „ „ . , , -K^ Brick Presbyterian Church, 3
Heeney v. St. Peter's Church, 3 Edw. Ch (N Y ) 155 ■
Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 608, 612 ; Kincaid's Appeal, 66 pk. St. 411,
Van Houten v. First Reformed 422 ; s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 377 ;
Chap. II. § 43.] CHANGES AND REPAIRS— EFFECT ON PEW. 39
Sec. 43. Same— Changes and repairs — All interest in and
right to a pew is held subordinate to the right of the society
or corporation to make necessary changes or desired
repairs,^ alter the internal structure of the house, en-
large the building, remodel the pews, or remodel or re-
build the meeting-house itself, or tear it down and build
a new structure elsewhere.^ The convenience of the in-
dividual must, in such cases, be subject to the general
convenience of the whole congregation, and whoever pur-
chases or leases a pew, does so subject to this right of the
society.^ If the edifice becomes useless by reason of age
and dilapidation, or through injury, and the house has to
be repaired or the building torn down and a new one
erected in the same place, or if from some necessary cause
the location is changed, the old edifice sold and a new one
erected on the new spot selected, the pew -holder's rights
are gone, and he has no claim either in law or equity.*
First Baptist Church of Hart-
ford V. WithereU, 3 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 296; 8.0.^4 Am. Dec.223;
Bronson v. St. Peter's Church, 7
N. Y. Leg. Obs. 3G1.
' Sohier v. Trinity Church, 109
Mass. 1, 21 ;
Van Houten v. First Dutch Re-
formed Church, 17 N. J. Eq.
(3 C. E. Gr.) 126 ;
Erwin V. Hurd, 13 Abb. (N. Y.)
N. C. 91 ;
Abernethy v. Society of Church
of Puritans, 7 Daly (N. Y.) 1, 7 ;
Solomon v. Congregation B'nai
Jeshurun, 49 How. (N. Y.) 263 ;
How V. Stevens, 47 Vt. 263 ;
Greenway v. Hockin, L. R. 5 C.
P 235 ■
Hin'de v'. Chorlton, L. R. 2 C. P.
104.
Jones V. Towne, 58 N. H. 462;
S.C. 42 Am. Rep. 602 ;
Citing : Sohier v. Trinity Church,
109 Mass. 1 ;
Fassett v. First Parish of Boyls-
ton, 63 Mass. (19 Pick.) 361 ;
Kimball v. Second Parish of Row-
ley, 41 Mass. (24 Pick.) 347 ;
Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.)
103 ; B.C. 11 Am. Dec. 151 ;
Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 438 ; s.c.
9 Am. Dec. 159.
See : Wentworth v. First Parish of
Canton, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.)
3-14 ;
Van Houten v. First Reformed
Dutch Church, 17 N. J. Eq. (3
C. E. Gr.) 130 ;
Voorhees v. Presbyterian Church,
8 Barb. (N. Y.) 135 ;
Kincaid's Appeal, G6 Pa. St. 411;
s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 373 ;
Craig V. First Presbyterian
Church, 88 Pa. St. 43 ; s.c. 32
Am. Rep. 417 ;
Kellogg V. Dickinson, 18 Vt. 366.
Pow held in subordination ta so-
ciety's title and rights to repair.
— In Voorhees v. Presbyterian
Church, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 151 ;
s.c. 17 Id. 103 ; 5 How. (N. Y.)
Pr. 74, it is said that the right
that a pew-holder acquires, un-
der a lease thereof, is in subor-
dination to the more general
right of tlie trustees in the soil
and freehold, and to repair and
alter tlie cliurch ; and that he
cannot, tlierefore, by an action
to recover the possession of the
pew from them, practically en-
join such repairs ; that his
remedy, if tlie repairs deprive
him of Ills pew, as by placing
the pulpit on its site, is by an
action for dama!;;es.
3 Jones V. Towne, 58 N. H. 463;
s.c. 43 Am. Rep. 602 :
Fisher v. Glover. 4 N. H. 180.
* Kincaid's Anpeal, 6G Pa. St. 411,
433 ; s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 877, 883.
40 BURIAL LOTS— PROPERTY IN. [BoOK I.
The society, congregation, or parish may take down their
meeting-house at any time in order to rebuild, either as a
matter of necessity or of expediency. In the former case
we have seen, they are not hable to indemnify the pew-
holder for the loss of his pew ; but should the congrega-
tion or parish, from mere motives of convenience or de-
sire for ornament, determine to pull down the old build-
ing and erect a new church edifice, they can do so only
on an indemnity being paid to the pew-holder ; that is,
the society or parish making the sale or lease of the pew
must not wantonly deprive the grantee of the benefit of
the license or privilege without making due compensa-
tion.^
Sec, 44. Burial lots — Rights of sepulture in public
cemeteries and under churches are peculiar, and are not
very dissimilar from rights in church-pews, above set
forth. 2 Cemeteries and places of general sepulture are so
far public that private interests in them are subject to
the control of the public authorities having charge of the
police regulations.^ The purchaser of a lot in a cemetery
Citing : Fassett v. Boylston, 36 ' Sohier v. Trinity Church, 109
Mass. (10 Pick.) 361 ; Mass. 1, 21 ;
Howard v. First Parish in North Gay v. Baker, 17 Mass. 435 ; s.c.
Bridgewater, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.) 9 Am. Dec. 159 ;
138 ; Jones v. Towne, 58 N. H. 462 ;
Wentworth v. First Parish in s.c. 42 Am. Rep. 602 ;
Canton, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 344 ; First Baptist Church of Hartford
Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) v. Witherell, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.)
lOa'; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 151 ; 296 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 223 ;
Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 435 ; s.c. Provisions for indemnity to the
9 Am. Dec. 159 ; pew-holder are made in some
Cooper V. First Presbyterian states by statute, as Mass. Gen.
Church, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 222 ; Stats, o. 30, §§ 35, 36.
Re Reformed Dutch Church of See : Sohier v. Trinity Church.
Sand HiU, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 237 ; 109 Mass. 1, 21.
Voorhees v. Presbyterian Church, = Sohier v. Trinity Church, 109 Mass.
8 Barb. (N. Y.) 135 ; s.c. 17 Id. 1, 21 ;
103 ; 5 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 74 ; Buffalo City Cemetery v. Buffalo,
FreUght;. Platt,5Cow. (N.Y.)494; 46 N. Y. 503 ;
Re Brick Presbyterian Church, 3 People v. St. Patrick's Cathedral,
Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 133 ; 21 Hun (N. Y.) 191.
Baptist Church of Hartford v. ' Sohier v. Trinity Church, 109 Mass.
WithereU, 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 1, 21 ;
296 ; s.c. 24 Am." Dec. 223 ; Coats v. New York City, 7 Cow
Church V. Wells, 24 Pa. St. 249 ; (N. Y.) 585, 604 ;
Perrin v. Grange, 33 Vt. 101 ; Brick Presbyterian Church v
Kellogg V. Dickinson, 18 Vt. 266. New York City, 5 Cow. (N. Y )
See : White v. Trustees of M. E. 538 ;
Church, 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 477 • Kincaid's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 411 ■
6.C. 3 Alb. L. J. 214. s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 377 ;
Chap. n. § 44.J BURIAL LOTS CARRY NO TITLE TO LAND. 41
belonging to a society for "burial purposes," does not
carry with it any title to the land ; ^ and a lot-owner's
certificate does not confer upon him any title or estate in
the soil,^ but simply carries a right, exclusive of any and
every other person, to bury ^ upon the subdivided plot
assigned him as long as the ground is used for burial
purposes.* Such right of burial is not an absolute right
of property, but is a mere privilege or license to be en-
joyed so long as the place continues to be used as a burial
ground,^ subject alike to the right to abandon the use of
the premises for burial purposes,® and municipal control
over it ; and the right granted is revocable whenever
public necessity requires.''
See : Town of Lake View v. Rose
HiU Cemetery Co., 70 111. 191 ;
Woodlawn Cemetery v. Everett,
118 Mass. 354 ;
Upjohn i\ Richland Board of
Health, 46 Mich. 543 ; s.c. 9 N.
W. Rep. 845 ;
Eemoval of dead from cemetery
by municipality. — The legisla-
ture may at any time authorize
a municipal corporation to re-
move the dead from a cemetery
within its limits.
Craig V. First Presbyterian
Church, 88 Pa. St. 42 ; s.c. 33
Am. Rep. 417.
' Sohier?;. Trinity Church, 109 Mass.
i, 31 ;
Kincaid's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 411 ;
s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 377.
Sale of cemetery and removal of
tnxied. — In Windt v. German
Reformed Church, 4 Sandf. Ch.
(N. Y.) 471, it was held that the
sepulture of friends and rela-
tives in a cemetery belonging
to a religious society confers no
right or title upon the surviv-
ors, and they cannot prevent
the sale of such cemetery by the
corporation and the removal
of the interred remains, when
such removal is in all respects
conducted according to law.
'Partridge v. First Independent
Church, 39 Md. 638 ;
Richards v. N. W. Protestant
Dutch Church, 33 Barb. (N. Y.)
43 ; s.o. 30 How. (N. Y.) Pr.
317 ; sub nom. Richards v. N.
W. Dutch Church, 11 Abb. (N.
Y.) Pr. 30 ;
Windfc V. German Reformed
Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N.Y.)471;
Pierce v. Methodist Episcopal
Church, 4 Ohio 515, 539.
3 Kincaid's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 411 ;
s.o. 5 Am. Rep. 377, 380.
" People V. St. Patrick's Cathedral,
21 Hun (N. Y.) 191.
Common property and control —
Vote to divide. — Property of
this kind, acquired by the com-
mon contribution of the mem-
bers of an association, is sub-
ject to their common control.
No separate interest is acquired;
and such property is managed
by the majority. Even a vote
to divide gives to individuals no
right to enforce any separate
interest.
Denton r. Jackson, 3 John. Ch.
(N. Y.) 830, 329 ;
Price V. Methodist Episcopal
Churcli, 4 Ohio 515, 540-1.
* See : Windt v. German Reformed
Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.)
471;
Craig V. First Presbyterian
Church, 88 Pa. St. 42 ; s.c. 33
Am. Rep. 417 ;
Kincaid's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 411 ;
s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 377. 881.
^ Craig V. First Presbyterian
Church, 88 Pa. St. 43 ; s.c. 33
Am. Rep. 417.
' Dwenger v. Geary, 113 Ind. 113 ;
s.c. 14 N. E. Rep. 903 ; 13 West.
Rep. 695 ;
Richards v. N. W. Protestant
Dutch Church, 33 Barb. (N. Y.)
43;
Craig V. First PresbyteriaJi
42
NATURE OF COBPORATE STOCKS.
[Book I.
Sec. 45. Corporate stocks and lands — In England, shares
of stock in corporations whose property consists in a large
measure of lands, have been declared to be real estate ; ^
and some of the earlier American cases manifest a ten-
dency to regard them as in the nature of a right or interest
in lands, and therefore themselves realty.^ But the doc-
trine established by the later decisions is that shares of
stock in railways,^ and other corporations, are incorporeal
personal property,* and are treated as such in all respects.*
Strictly speaking, however, shares of stock in a joint stock
company are not real propsrty, or personal property, or
choses in action even, but simply resemble in their nature
choses in action,^ being simply evidences of property, and
of a right to demand dividends as they accrue.'^ But
Church, 88 Pa. St. 43 ; s.c. 33
Am. Rep. 417.
' Weekley v. Weekley, 3 Young &
C. 381n ;
Davall V. New River Co., 3 De G.
& S. 394 ;
Buckeridge v. Ingrain, 3 Ves.
653;
Drybutter v. Bartholomew, 3 Pr.
Wms. 137.
Compare : Walker v. Milne, 11
Beav. 507 ;
Starling v. Parker, 9 Beav. 450 ;
Ashton V. Langdale, 4 De G. &
S. 403 ; S.C. 30 L. J. R. (N. S.)
Ch. 334 ; 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 80.
'Welles V. Cowles, 3 Conn. 567
s.c. 4 Conn. 182 ; 10 Am. Dec
115;
Copeland v. Copeland, 7 Bush
(Ky.) 349 ;
Price V. Price, 6 Dana (Ky.) 107
Howe'y. Starkweather, 17 Mass,
340;
Meason's Estate, 4 Watts (Pa.)
341.
' Johns V. Johns, 1 Ohio St. 350 ;
Huntzinger v. Philadelphia Coal
Co., 11 Plila. (Pa.) 609.
See : Walker v. Milne, 11 Beav.
507;
Starling v. Parker, 9 Beav. 450 ;
Ashton V. Langdale, 4 De G. & S.
403 ; s.c. 30 L. J. R. (N. S.) Ch.
334 ; 4 Eng. L. & Eq. 80.
■* Southwestern R. Co. v. Thomason,
40 Ga. 408 ;
Allen V. Pegram, 16 Iowa 163,
173;
Griffith V. Watson. 19 Kan. 33 ;
Tippets V. Waller, 4 Mass. 595,
596;
Johns V. Johns, 1 Ohio St. 350 ;
Dyer v. Osborne, 11 R. I. 331, 335 ;
s.c. 33 Am. Rep. 460 ;
Arnold v. Ruggles, 1 R. I. 165 ;
Gilpin V. Howell, 5 Pa. St. 41 ;
s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 730,;
Union Bank v. State, 9 Yerg.
(Tenn.) 490 ;
Isham V. Iron Co., 10 Vt. 330;
Barksdale v. Finney, 14 Gratt.
(Va.) 356 ;
Edwards v. Hall, 6De G. M. & G.
74 ; s.c. 35 Eng. L. & Eq. 433.
^ See : Tippets ■;;. Walker, 4 Mass.
595;
Blake v. Jones, 1 Bail. (S. C.) Eq.
141 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 530 ;
Bradley v. Holdsworth, 3 Mees.
& W. 433 ;
BUgh V. Brent, 2 Young & C. 294.
' A certificate of stock in a land
company, which is different
from other kind of companies
holding land incidentally to
their general purpose, has been
said notto be land, but a mere
chose in action.
See : Blake v. Jones, 1 Bail. (S.
C.) Eq. 141; s.c. 31 AmiDec.530.
' Hutohins v. State Bank, 53 Mass.
(12 Met.) 431, 436.
See : Allen v. Pegram, 16 Iowa
163, 173 ;
Fields. Pierce, 103 Mass. 353, 361 ;
Bank of Waltham v. Waltham,
51 Mass. (10 Met.) 834, 339 ;
Brundage v. Brundage, 60 N. Y,
544;
Chap. II. § 46.] COKPOEATE REALTY HELD IN TRUST
43
after the surplus has been earned and the dividend de-
clared, whether such dividend be in money or stock, it
becomes personal property.^
Sec. 46. Same— Realty held by corporation in trust when.—
A corporation may be seized of a great deal of real as
well as personal property, in which case each individual
share-holder will be entitled to a share, in proportion to
the amount of the stock held by him, out of the net
product of both, when brought into one common fund.^
The reason for this is that the lands, buildings, and the
like, of joint stock companies, used in the prosecution of
the business of the corporation, are the mere instruments
by means of which the joint stock of the company is made
to produce the profit out of which dividends are declared,
and belong exclusively to the corporate body ^ in trust
for the individuals who hold the stock of and compose the
company ; * and the interest of each individual member
in the real estate thus held is ordinarily regarded as per-
sonalty.^
Denton v. Livingston, 9 John. (N.
Y.) 96 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 264, 266 ;
Slaymaker v. Gettysburgh Bank,
10 Pa. St. 373 ;
GUpin V. Howell, 5 Pa. St. 57 ;
s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 720;
Dyer v. Osborne, 11 R. I. 321 ;
S.C. 22 Am. Rep. 460, 464 ;
Arnolds v. Ruggles, 1 R. I. 165 ;
Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Paine,
39 Gratt. (Va.) 503, 506 ;
De Gendre v. Kent, L. R. 4 Eq.
Cas. 283 ;
WUdman v. Wildman, 9 Ves. 177 ;
Kirby v. Potter, 4 Ves. 751 ; s.o.
4 Rev. Rep. 342;
Francis v. Nash, 7 Geo. II.;
Comyn. Dig. tit. " Execution,"
c. 4.
Shares of stock ideal merely —
Bhode Island doctrine. — It is
said by Durfee, C. J., in the
case of Arnold v. Ruggles, 11
R. I. 165, that "a share is a
mere ideal thing. It is no por-
tion of matter, it is no portion
of space, it is not susceptible of
tangible and visible possession,
actual or constructive. It is
not, therefore, a chattel per-
sonal, susceptible of possession
actual or constructive * * * *
If a right be an ideal thing
merely, or something existing
but in law or contract, the pos-
session must be ideal, subsist-
ing from law or contract. "
' See : Hutchins v. State Bank, 53
Mass. (12 Met.) 421;
Tippets V. Walker, 4 Mass. 595 ;
King V. Paterson & H. R. R. Co.,
29 N. J. L. (5 Dutch.) 82, 504 ;
Brundage ■;;. Brundage, 60 N. Y.
544.
Covipare: "Welles v. Cowles, 3
Conn. 567.
2 Bradley v. Holdsworth, 3 M. &
W. 334.
' See : Waltham Bank v. Waltham,
51 Mass. (10 Met.) 334, 339;
Bradley v. Holdsworth, 3 Mees.
& W. 432.
■• Angel & Ames on Corp. § 569 ;
Wordsworth on Joint Stock. Cos.
388.
' See : Toll Bridge v. Osborn, 35
Conn. 7 ;
Mohawk & H. R. R. Co. v. Chite,
4 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 384, 393 ;
Bligh V. Brent, 2 Young & C. 368.
44 NATURE AND OBJECT OF INVESTMENT. [Book I.
Sec. 47. Same— Land is real estate when — Where the
lands held by a corporation are vested in the individual
share-holders, and the management only is vested in the
body corporate, the shares are held to be real estate.^
And where a corporation is created solely for the pur-
pose of holding, making use of, or improving real estate,
the shares therein will be regarded as real estate. ^
Sec. 48. Same — Tfature and object of investment — It may
be laid down as a general principle that shares in the
property of a corporation are real or personal property,
according to the nature, object and manner of invest-
ment. Where the corporate powers are to be exercised
solely in land,^ and the property in the land, though it
be an incorporeal hereditament, is vested inalienably in
the corporators themselves, the shares are deemed real
estate*. Such has been considered by the common law
to be the nature of shares in toll-bridges, canal and turn-
pike corporations ; ^ but this doctrine has been greatly
modified by the more recent cases in this country. ® Where
the property originally entrusted was money, and was
to be made profitable to the contributors by applying
it to certain piirposes, in the course of which it had to bo
invested in lands or personal property, and changed at
jDleasure, the capital fund is vested in the body corpo-
' See : Buckeridge v. Ingram, 2 * See : Townsend v. Ash, 3 Atk.
Ves. Jr. 652 ; 336 ;
Stafford v. Buckley, 2 Ves. Jr. Drybutter v. Bartholomew, 3 Pr.
183 ; Wms. 137 ;
Drybutter v. Bartholomew, 2 Pr. Buckeridge v. Ingram, 3 Ves.
Wms. 137 ; 653.
Weekley v. Weekley, 3 Young & ^ See : Welles v. Cowles, 3 Conn.
C. Exch. 281 ; 567 ;
Bligh V. Brent, 3 Young & C. Price v. Price, 6 Dana (Ky.) 107 ;
268. Binney's Case, 3 Bland Ch. (Md.)
' See : Welles v. Cowles, 2 Conn. 99, 145-146 ;
567 ; Meason's Estate, 4 Watts (Pa.)
Price V. Price, 6 Dana (Ky.) 107 ; 341, 346.
Durkee v. Stringham, 8 Wis. 1. In Massacliusetts, however, from
"As where original authority is an early period, shares in all
given by the charter to remove these corporations have been
obstructions in a river and held to be personal property,
render it navigable, to open the holder having only a per-
new channels, etc., to make a sonal action for his dividends,
canal, erect waterworks, and See : Russell v. Temple, 3 Dane's
the like. ' Abr. 108, 3-6.
e
See : Ante, § 45.
Chap. II. §§ 49, 50.] ELECTRIC POLES AND WIRES. 45
rate, and the shares of stock are deemed personal prop-
erty.^
Sec. 49. Electric poles and wires realty The poles,
wires, lamps, and other attachments erected in the streets
for lighting purposes by an electrical company, have been
held to be real and not personal property.^ By parity of
reasoning the poles of an electrical street railway are real
property. This is in harmony with the reasoning which
makes the foundation and columns of the New York City
Elevated Railroad land and liable to taxation as real prop-
erty.^ But it has been held that the machinery and fix-
tures of an electric light plant, placed in a building for a
mere temporary purpose, are not a part of the realty.*
Whether wires placed within the plastering of a building
for the purpose of lighting it by electricity are a perma-
nent addition to the building, and for that reason become
fixtures, is to be determined from the intention of the
parties and not the fact of physical annexation.^
Sec. 50. Emblements — Growing crops — Growing crops
planted by the owner of the soil are a part of the realty,
and, as a general rule, will pass with it on conveyance,®
even though reserved by parol by the grantor at the time
1 Johns V. Johns, 1 Ohio St. 350, Chapman v. Long, 10 Ind. 465 ;
355 ; TruUiuger v. Webb, 3 Ind. IfiG,
Bradley v. Holdsworth, 3 Mees. 200 ;
& W. 422 ; Porche v. Bodin, 28 La. An. 761 ;
Bligh v. Brent, 2 Young & C. Dennett ■u.Hopkinson, 68 Me. 350;
Exch. 268, 294r-5. Connor v. Coffin, 22 N. H. 588 ;
- Keating Implement & Machine Howell v. Sohenck, 24 N. J. L.
Co. V. Marshall Elec. L. & P. (4 Zab.) 89 ;
Co., 74 Tex. 605 ; s.o. 12 S. W. Sherman v. WiUett,42 N. Y. 146 ;
Rep. 489. Bradner ■;;. Faulkner, 34 N. Y.
3 People e.r rel. The New York Ele- 347 ;
vated Railroad v. Commission- Morris v. Whitcher, 20 N. Y. 41 ;
ers of Taxes, 82 N. Y. 459. Webster v. ZieUy, 52 Barb.
See : Post, § 106. (N. Y.) 482 ;
•• Havens -y West Side Electric Light Wintermute v. Light, 46 Barb.
Co 44 N. Y. S. R. 589 ; s.c. 17 (N. Y.) 278, 283 ;
N Y Supp 580 Foote v. Colvin, 3 John. (N. Y.)
" Harrisburg Electric Light Co. r. 216, 222, 506 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec.
Goodman, 129 Pa. St. 206 ; s.c. 478 ; ^ , _ ^,^ wat v ^
19 Atl. Rep. 844. Thayer v. Rock, 13 Wend. (N. Y.)
« Floyd u Ricks, 14 Ark. 286 ; s.c. 53; ,w v ^
58 Am. Deo. 374 ; Lane v. Kmg, 8 Wend. (N. Y.)
Gibbons v. Dillingham, 10 Ark. 584 ;
9 • s c 50 Am. Dec. 238 ; Brittam v. McKay, 1 Ired. (N. C.)
Buli V. Griswold, 19 111. 631 ; 265 ; oo t. «f «r
Turner v. Cool, 23 Ind. 56 ; s.c. Bittmger v. Baker, 29 Pa. St. 66 ;
85 Am. Dec. 449 ; s.o. 70 Am. Dec. 154.;
46
GROWING CROPS— RULE AS TO.
[Book I.
of sale.^ And this seems to be the case even though the
crops ara at the time standing in the field unharvested,
although ripe, and the season for gathering them is long
past.^ A different rule seems to prevail in Ohio ^ and
Pennsylvania,* where growing crops are said to be per-
sonal property, but pass with the land unless severed by
reservation or exception, which may be by parol.® Such
was the rule of the common law, and is held uniformly
in England not to have been altered by the statute of
frauds and perjuries.® It is the general rule that a crop
growing on land at the time of a sale under execution
passes to the purchaser ; '' and the same is true on a sale
under a mortgage foreclosure.^
Wilson V. McNeal, 10 Watts (Pa.)
433, 427 ;
Burnside v. Weightman, 9 Watts
(Pa.) 47, overruling Smith v.
Johnson, 1 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 471 ;
S.C. 21 Am. Dec. 404 ;
Bank of Pennsylvania v. Wise, 3
Watts (Pa.) 394, 406 ;
Creigh v. Beelin, 1 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 83 ;
Crews V. Pendleton, 1 Leigh (Va.)
397; s.o. 19 Am. Deo. 750;
Brantom v. Griffits, 1 C. P. Div."
849 ; S.C. 17 Moak's Eng. Rep.
301;
Meohelen v. Wallace, 7 Ad. & El.
49 ; s.c. 34 Eng. C. L. 51 ;
Vaughn v. Hancock, 3 C. B. 766 ;
s.c. 54 Eng. C. L. 766 ;
Earl of Falmouth v. Thomas, 1
Cr. & M. 89.
Growing wheat is an interest in
land, it is said in Missouri cases,
and that a contract concerning
it is within the statute of frauds,
and must be in writing.
Mcllvaine v. Harris, 20 Mo. 457 ;
S.C. 64 Am. Deo. 196.
See : Steele v. Faber, 37 Mo. 80 ;
Rattew. Goffman, 27 Mo. 424, 426.
' Wintermute v. lights 4& Baxbi,
(N. y.>.378 ;
Austin V. Sawyei^ ft-Caw. (N. Y.)
39.
' Tripp V. Hasceig, 20 Mich. 254,
261 ; s.c. 4 Am. Rep. 388 ;
Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503,
s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 393.
' Baker v. Jordan, 3 Ohio St. 438,
followed in
Youmans v. Caldwell, 4 Ohio St.
72,78;
Jones V. Timmons, 21 Ohio St.
596, 604.
* Backenstoss v. Staliler's Admr.,
33 Pa. St. 251 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec.
593;
Lauchner v. Rex, 20 Pa. St. 464 ;
Bear v. Bitzer, 16 Pa. St. 175 ; s.c.
55 Am. Dec. 490 ;
Smith V. Jolmston, 1 Penn. & W.
(Pa.) 471 ;
Wilkins v. Varshbinder, 7 Watts
(Pa.) 378.
' See : Cases cited in last two foot-
notes.
' Backenstoss v. Stahler's Admr.,
33 Pa. St. 231 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec.
593.
Evans v. Roberts, 5 Barn.
829 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L.
Citing :
& C.
700;
Dunne
». Ferguson, Hayes (Ir.
Exch.) 540 ;
Sainsbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees.
& W. 343.
' Pitts V. Hendrix, 6 Ga. 453 ;
Porche v. Bodin, 28 La. An. 761 ;
Hershey v. Metzgar, 90 Pa. St.
217 ; s.c. 9 Reporter, 384 ;
Bittenger v. Baker, 29 Pa. St. 66 ;
s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 154 ;
Bear v. Bitzes, 16 Pa. St. 175.
Sale on execution or in partition,
' — In Ohio the crops do not pass
to the purchaser under a sale
on execution or in partition.
See : Albin v. Riegel, 40 Ohio St.
339;
Houts V. Showalter, 10 Ohio St.
125;
Cassily v. Rhodes, 13 Ohio, 88.
' Jones V. Thomas, 8 Blackf . (Ind.)
428; '
Chap. H. § 51.] RULE WHEN CROP SEVERED. 47
Sec. 51. Same — When crop severed. — A different rule
prevails where the crop has been severed.^ Thus in the
case of Dixon v. Niccolls,^ M^here land had been rented
on the shares, and the grain had been severed from the
realty, but remained stacked thereon, and undivided, it
was held not to pass to the purchaser, by a deed to the
land, without reservation or exception'; and it is said, in
a recent case in Pennsylvania,^ that where there has been
a severance of the growing grain, it does not pass to him
who purchases the land subsequent to its severance.*
And growing crops are a part of the realty as between
the successful plaintiff in an action of ejectment and the
evicted defendant,'' where the crops were planted after
the commencement of the action in ejectment.^ But the
rule is otherwise where the grain was sown and har-
vested by one on lands to which he claimed title, and of
which he was in actual possession.'^ Crops planted by a
tenant who holds under the owner of the soil are, as be-
tween the landlord and his tenant, personal property,
and the tenant has the right to remove them ; ^ they be-
Ledyard v. Phillips, 47 Mioli. 305 ; * See : Stambaugh v. Yeats, 3
s.o. 11 N. W. Rep. 170 ; Rawle (Pa.) 161 ;
Rusgles V. First Nat. Bk. of Gen- Myers v. White, 1 Rawle (Pa.)
terville, 43 Mich. 193 ; s.c. 5 N. 353.
W. Rep. 257 ; ° See : Altes v. Hinckler, 36 111. 375 ;
Howell V. Schenck, 24 N. J. L. s.c. 85 Am. Dec. 407;
(4 Zab.) 89 ; Crotty v. CoUins, 13 111. 567 ;
Aldrioh v. Reynolds, 1 Barb. Ch. Strode v. Swim, 1 A. K. Marsh.
(N. Y.) 613 ; (Ky.) 366 ;
Gardener v. Finley, 19 Barb. (N. Brothers v. Hurdle, 10 Ired. (N.
Y.) 317, 320 ; C.) L. 490 ; s.c. 51 Am. Dec.
Jewett V. Keenholts, 16 Barb. 400 ;
(NY) 193 ■ Doe ex d. Upton v. Witherwick,
Gillett V. Balcom, 0 Barb. (N. Y.) 3 Bing. 11 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L.
370 • 1^-
Simers k Saltiiff, 3 Den. (N. Y.) 'McLean v. Bovee, 34 Wis. 29&;
2J4. . s.c. 1 Am. Rep. 185.
Shemrd v. Philbrick, 3 Den. (N. ' Martin v. Thompson, 63 Cal. 618 ;
Y^\l^ • S'C- 45 Am. Rep. 663 ;
Lane v King, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) Page v. Fowler, 39 Cal. 413 ; s.c.
584 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 105 ; 3 Am. Rep. 463 ;
Crews V. Pendleton, 1 Leigh (Va.) Stockwell v. Phelps, 34 N. \.
397 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 750. 363 ; s.c. 90 Am. Dec. 710
See • Wiltsie on Mort. Forec. " Wintermute v. Light, 46 Barb.
706-708 (N. Y.) 378 ;
1 Coombs V. Jordan, 3 Bland. Ch. Pfanner u Stomer, 40 How.
(Md.) 284 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. N. Y.) Pr. 401 ;
kog '' ' Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John.
» 39 m 372 ; S.C. 89 Am. Dec. 313. (N. Y.) 108 113 ;
.Hershey i. Metzgar, 90 Pa. St. Hunt ^- Watkms, 1 Humph.
317 ; S.C. 9 Reporter, 384. (Tenn.) 498.
43 FEE-FARM LEASE. [Book I.
come part of the realty, however, should the tenant vol-
untarily abandon or forfeit possession of the premises.^
Sec. 52. Fee-farm lease — A fee-farm lease is the grant-
ing of lands in fee, reserving rent, and is only letting
lands to farm in fee-simple instead of the usual modes
for life or for years.^ A farm- fee rent is a rent-charge
issuing out of such an estate in fee, and is a perpetual
rent, reserved on a conveyance in fee-simple. Fee-farms
are lands held in fee, to render for them annually the
true value, or more or less, and is called a fee-farm, be-
cause a farm-rent is reserved, upon a grant in fee.^ It
is expressly said in the statute Quia Emptores, that it ex-
tends only to lands held in fee-simple,* but Sir Edward
Coke declares that it extends to lands that are held in
fee-farm.^ A fee-farm lease creates an estate of in-
heritance in the grantee, his heirs and assigns. It is in
fact a fee-simple estate, subject only to the payment of
the rents reserved, and the performance of the lawful
conditions contained in the instrument creating the
estate.^
Sec. 53. Pruetus industriales — A distinction is to be ob-
served, between fructus natui-ales, or the natural growths
of the soil, such as trees, grasses, herbs, fruit on trees,
and the like, which at common law are part of the soil, and
fructus industriales, or fruits or products the result of
the annua] labor of man in sowing and reaping, plant-
ing and gathering," which, though strictly a part of the
Compare : Ladd v. Abel, 18 Conn. Bulwer v. Bulwer, 2 Bam. &
513 ; Aid. 470 ;
Graves v. "Weld, 5 Barn. & Adol. Orlando's Case, 5 Co. lj.6a.
105 ; s.o. 37 Eng. C. L. 53. 2 Dg Peyster v. Michael, 6- N. Y.
' Chandler v. Thurston, 27 Mass. 467 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470 ;
(10 Pick.) 205, 210 ; 2 Bl. Com. 43.
Debow V. Colfax, 10 N. J. L. ^ 3 ingt. 44.
(5 Halst.) 128 ; ^ 1 Evan's Stats. 195.
Pfanner v. Stunner, 40 Hovsr. ' See : De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N
(N. Y.) Pr. 401 ; Y. 467, 497 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec.
Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. 470.
(N. Y.) 108 ; « Brittain v. McKay, 1 Ired. (N. C.)
Whipple V. Foote, 2 John. (N. Y.) L. 265 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 738 ;
418, 421n ; s.o. 3 Am. Dec. 442 ; Flynt v. Conrad, 1 Phil. (N C )
Gee V. Young, lHayw.(N.C.) 17; L. l^O, 193; s.c. 93 Am. Dec.
Hawkins v. Skegg, 10 Humph. 588.
(Tenn.) 81;
Chap. II. § 53.] FEUCTUS INDUSTEIALES.
4:9
realty as much as those products which the soil brings
forth without man's intervention, are treated as per-
sonal property for many purposes.^ Crops, when
planted by the owner of the soil, constitute, in general,
part of the realty, and will pass to the vendee by a conj
veyance of the land ; ^ but the owner of the soil may sell
a crop to be cut without conveying any interest in the
land, and the purchaser will acquire title to it as a chat-
tel, even though not fit for harvesting at the time of the
sale.^ Such crops as are planted by the owner of the
soil, if mature and to be gathered immediately, may not
only be sold by him,* but they may be taken on execu-
tion,^ as personal property, where they can be readily
^ See : Preston v. Eyan, 45 Mich.
147 ; s.c. 7 N. W. Eep. 819 ;
Brittain v. McKay, 1 Ired. (N. C.)
L. 265 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 738.
"See: Ante, %50.
' Harris v. Frink, 49 N. Y. 24, 27 ;
s.c. 10 Am. Eep. 318, 320 ;
See : Craddock v. Eiddlesbarger,
3 Dana (Ky.), 206 ;
Austin V. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.)
39, 42, 43 ;
Newcomb v. Earner, 2 John.
(N. Y.) 421, note a ;
Jones V. FUnt, 10 Ad. & E. 753 ;
s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 396 ;
Evans v. Eoberts, 5 Bam. & C.
829 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ;
Sainsbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees. &
W. 343.
■* McKenzie v. Lampley, 31 Ala.
526;
Crine v. Tifts, 65 Ga. 644 ;
Northern v. State, 1 Ind. 113 ;
Craddock v. Eiddlesbarger, 2
Dana (Ky.) 205 ;
Parham v. Thompson, 3 J.
Marsh. (Ky.) 159 ;
Thompson v. Craigmyle, 4
Mon. (Ky.) 391 ; s.c. 41 Am.
Dec. 240.
Pickens v. Webster, 31 La. An.
870;
Porche v. Bodin, 38 La. An. 761 ;
Coombs V. Jordan, 3 Bland Ch.
(Md.)313 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec. 236 ;
Cheshire Nat. Bk. v. Jewett, 119
Mass. 341, 344 ;
MuUigan v. Newton, 83 Mass.
(16 Gray) 311 ;
Heard v. Fairbanks, 46 Mass.
(5 Met.) Ill ; S.C. 38 Am. Dec.
394;
4
. J.
B.
Penhollow v. Dwight, 7 Mass. 74;
s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 21 ;
Preston v. Eyan, 45 Mich. 174;
s.c. 7 N. W. Eep. 819 ;
Gillitt V. Truax, 37 Minn. 528 ;
s.c. 8 N. W. Eep. 767 ;
Bloom V. Welsh, 37 N. J. L.
(3 Dutch.) 177 ;
Westbrook v. Eager, 16 N. J. L.
(1 Harr.) 81 ;
Shepard v. PhUbrick, 3 Den.
(N. Y.) 174 ;
Hartweir v. Bissell, 17 John.
(N. Y.) 128 ;
Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John.
(N. Y.) 108.
Whipple V. Foot, 3 John. (N. Y.)
418 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 443 ;
Smith V. Ti-itt, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.)
L. 341; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 565 ;
Cassily v. Ehodes, 12 Ohio 88 ;
Peacock v. Purvis, 2 Brod. & B.
362;
Storer v. Hunter, 3 Barn. & C.
368; B.C. 10 Eng. C. L. 172;
Poole's Case, 1 Salk. 368 ;
Scorell V. Boxall, 1 You. & J. 398.
Compare : Norris v. Watson, 22
N. H. 364; s.c. 55 Am. Dec.160.
* Green V. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N. Y.)
550, 556.
See : Austin v. Sawyer, 9 Cow.
(N. Y.I 39 ;
Newcomb v. Eeimer, 3 John.
(N. Y.) 421n. ;
Mumford v. Whitnev, 15 Wend.
(N. Y.) 387 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec.
60;
Jones V. Flint, 10 Ad. & E. 753 ;
s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 397 ;
Graves v. Weld, 5 Barn. & Ad.
105 ; s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 53 :
50
CROPS PRODUCED BY LABOR.
[Book I.
severed, like wheat or corn, or dug like potatoes or tur-
nips, or pulled like beets or onions ; ^ because, at common
law, a growing crop, produced by the expense and labor of
the occupier of the land, was, as the representative of that
labor and expense, considered as an independent chattel, ^
Evans v. Roberts, 5 Barn. & C.
829 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ;
Parker v. Staniland, 11 East 362 ;
s.c. 10 Rev. Rep. 521 ;
Warwick v. Bruce, 2 Maule & S.
205;
Stainsbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees.
& W. 343 ;
Carrington v. Roots, 2 Mees. &
W. 348.
' Dunne v. Ferguson, Hayes (Ir.
Exch.) 543 ;
Warwick v. Bruce, 3 Maule & S.
305.
Saiasbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees. &
W. 343 ;
As to what constitutes a valid levy,
there is a variety of opinion
amongst the decided cases.
InWhipplew. Foot, 3 John. (N. Y.)
418 ; B.C. 3 Am. Dec. 442, it is
said that to make a valid levy
of an execution on growing
crops, it is not necessary tliat a
manual possession . should be
taken ; that it is sufficient
merely to declare that the sub-
jects is levied on under execu-
tion.
In State v. Poor, 4 Dev. & B.
(N. C.) L. 384; s.c. 34 Am.
Dec. 387, it is said that a levy
upon a growing crop is insuf-
ficient, unless the officer take
open and notorious possession
by entering the premises, and
pubUcly announcing the seiz-
ure to answer the writ. To the
same effect is
Trivillo v. Tilford, 6 Watts (Pa.)
468 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 484.
See : Dorrance's Adrar. v. Com-
monwealth, 13 Pa. St. 164 ;
L,oury v. Coiilter, 9 Pa. St. 349,353.
In Beekmanu. Lansing, B Wend.
(N. Y.) 416 ; s c. 30 Am. Dec.
707, it is said that to constitute
a valid levy, the officer must
enter upon the premises where
the crops or goods are and take
actual possession of them, if it
can be done ; they must be
brought within his view and
iiiade subject to his control ;
and this doctrine is approved in
Roth V. WeUs, 39 N. Y. 485 ;
Rodgers v. Bonner, 55 Barb.
(N. Y.) 9, 24 ;
Camp V. Chamberlain, 5 Den.
(N. Y.) 203 ;
Green v. Burke, 23 Wend. (N. Y.)
490, 493 ;
V/estervelt'u. Pinckney, 14 Wend.
(N. Y.) 123 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec.
516.
See : Commonwealth v. Strem-
back, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 341 ; s.c.
24 Am. Dec. 351.
It seems that the officer should
assert his title, by virtue of the
writ, by acts which, were it not
for the ' execution, would make
him a trespasser.
Westervelt v. Pinckney,14 Wend.
(N. Y.) 133,; s.c. 28 Am. Dec.
516.
See : Roth v. Wells, 39 N. Y. 485 ;
Camp V. Chamberlain, 5 Den.
(N. Y.) 198, 203 ;
Green v. Burke, 19 Wend. (N. Y.)
497;
Beekman v. Lansing, 3 Wend.
(N. Y.) 446 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec.
707.
' Graff V. Fitoh, 56 lU. 373 ; s.c. 11
Am. Rep. 85 ;
Matlock V. Fry, 15 Ind. 483 ;
Craddock v. Riddlesbarger, 2
Dana (Ky.) 305 ;
Burner v. Piercy, 40 Md. 212 ; s.c.
17 Am. Rep. 591;
Westbrook v. Eager, 16 N. J.
L. (1 Harr.) 81 ;
Harris v. Frink, 49 N. Y. 34 ; s.c.
10 Am. Rep. 318 ;
Whipple V. Foot, 3 John. (N. Y.)
418 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 443 ;
Austin V. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.)
39;
Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend.
(N. Y.) 387 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec.
60;
Pourrier v. Raymond, 1 Haim.
(N. B.) 530 ;
Jones V. Flint, 10 Ad. & E. 758 ;
s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 396 ;
Evans v. Roberts, 5 Bam. & C.
839 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ;
Poulter V. KiHingbeck, 1 Bos. &
P. 397 ;
Chap. II. § 53.] IMMATtTBE. AND GEOWING CROPS.
51
and the purchaser has a lawful right of entry, egress
and regress, for the purpose of removal.-'
It has been said that the fact that the crop is imma-
ture and growing will not invalidate the sale,^ because
all crops of grain or vegetables, the annual product of
human labor and the cultivation of the soil, are per-
sonal property and subject to be sold as such before
maturity, no matter how long they are to remain in the
soil in order to complete their growth.^ The reason for
Parker v. Stamland, 11 East 362;
B.C. 10 Rev. Rep. 521 ;
Dunne v. Ferguson, Hayes (Ir.
Exch.) 542 ;
"Warwick v. Bruce, 2 Maule & S. ;
205;
Sainsbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees. &
W. 343;
Another lino of English cases deny
that crops are personal prop-
erty, and maintain that they
can be transferred as real estate
only.
See: Earl of Falmouth v. Tliomas,
1 Cromp. & M. 89 ;
Emmerson v. Heelis, 2 Taunt.
88.
• Thompson v. Craigmyle, 4 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 391 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec.
240;
Brittain v. McKay, 1 Ired. (N. C.)
L. 265 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 738.
See : Coombs u Jordan, 3 Bland.
Ch. (Md.) 284 ; s.c. 23 Am. Dec.
236;
Austin V. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.)
39 *
Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John.
(N. y.) 108 ;
Whipple V. Foot, 3 John. (N. Y.)
418 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 442 ;
Cheshire Bank v. Jewett, 119
Mass. 224 ;
PenhaUow v. Dwight, 7 Mass.
34 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 21 ;
Bond V. Coke, 71 N. C. 100 ;
Walton V. Jordan, 65 N. C. 172 ;
Lewis V. McNatt, 65 N. C. 65 ;
Smith V. Tritt, 1 Dev. & B. (N. C.)
L. 241 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec. 565 ;
Robinson v. Gee, 4 Ired. (N. C.)
L. 186, 101 ;
* Craddock v. Riddlesbarger, 3
Dana (Ky.) 200 ;
Austin V. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.)
42 •
Jones V. FUnt, 10 Ad. & E. 753 ;
B.C. 37 Eng. C. L. 396 ;
Carriugtonw. Roots, 3 Mees. & W.
248.
Compare: Emmerson v. Heelis,
3 Taunt. 38.
' DsTis V. McFarlane, 37 Cal. 634 ;
Marshall v. Ferguson, 23 Cal. 65 ;
Bostwick V: Leach, 3 Day (Conn.)
476;
Ticknor v. McClelland, 84 III. 471;
Thompson v. Wilhte, 81 111. 356 ;
Graff V. Fitch, 58 III. 373, 377 ;
s.c. 11 Am. Rep. 85 ;
Bull V. Griswold, 19 111. 631 ;
MUler V. State, 39 Ind. 267 ;
Sherry v. Kcken, 10 Ind. 375 ;
Bowman v. Conn, 8 Ind. 58 ;
Brioker v. Hughes, 4 Ind. 146 ;
Northern v. State, 1 Ind. 113 ;
Moreland v. Myall, 14 Bush (Ky.)
474;
Craddock v. Riddlesbarger, 3
Dana (Ky.) 205 ;
Robbins v. Oldham, 1 Duv. (Ky.)
38;
Bryant v. Crosby, 40 Me. 9, 23 ;
Cutler V. Pope, 13 Me. 377 ;
Saflford v. Annis, 7 Me. 168 ;
Purner v. Piercy, 40 Md. 213 ; s.c.
17 Am. Rep. 591 ;
Smith V. Bryan, 5 Md. 141 ; s.c.
59 Am. Dec. 104 ;
Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass. 546 ;
s.c. 97 Am. Dec. 53;
Ross V. Welch, 77 Mass. (11 Gray)
235;
Brown v. Sanborn, 21 Minn. 402 •
Howe V. Batchelder, 49 N. H. 204;
Pitkin V. Noyes, 48 N. H. 294 ;
s.c. 2 Am. Rep. 218 ;
Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H.
313 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 173 ;
Westbrook v. Eager, 16 N. J. L.
(1 Harr.) 81 ;
Bloom V. Welsh, 27 N. J. L. (3
Dutch.) 177 ;
Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake
Guano Fertilizer Co., 82 N. Y.
476,484;
0-2
CROPS OF A MIXED NATUEE.
[Boos h
this is that growing crops being personal property so fa^
as to be capable of severance and sale by oral contract,
an agreement for their sale is not an agreement for the
sale of an interest in land.^
Sec. 54. Same — Products of a mixed nature — Hops. —
There are some products of the earth which partake
both of the nature of fructus industriales and fructus
naturales. In such a case the true test has been said
to be whether the crop is produced chiefly by the manur-
ance and industry of man. Thus the fact that a crop is
produced from perennial roots is not conclusive evidence
that it is to be ranked as a fructus naturales, and as
such to pass with the soil. Hop-roots are perennial,^
and doubtless as much a part of the soil as the forest
Reeder v. Sayre, 70 N. Y. 180 ;
s.c. 36 Am. Rep. 567, aflfii-mmg
6Hun(N. Y.)563;
Harris v. Frink, 49 N. Y. 34 ; s.c.
10 Am. Rep. 318 ;
Austin V. Sawyer, 9 Cow. (N. Y.)
39;
Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N.
Y.) 550, 554 ;
Hartwell v. Bissell, 17 John.
(N. Y.) 138 ;
Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John.
(N.Y.) 108 ;
Frear v. Hardenberg, 5 John.
(N. Y.) 373 ; s.c. 4 Am. Dec.
356;
Newcomb v. Ramer, 3 John.
(N. Y.)431, note a;
Whipple V. Foot, 3 John. (N. Y.)
418 ; S.C. 3 Am. Dec. 443 ;
Brittain v. McKay, 1 Ired. (N. C.)
L. 265 ;
Hershey v. Metzgar, 90 Pa. St.
317;
Baokenstoss v. Stahler's Admr.,
33 Pa. St. 361, 354 ; s.c. 75 Am.
Deo. 592 ;
Wilkins v. Vashbinder, 7 Watts
(Pa.) 379 :
Bellows V. Wells, 36 Vt. 509 ;
Jones V. Flint, 10 Ad. & El. 753 ;
s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 396 ;
Evans v. Roberts, 5 Bam. & C.
829 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ;
Sainsbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees.
& W. 343 ;
Dunne v. Ferguson, 1 Hayes (T
Exch.) 540.
' See : Marshall /y. Ferguson, 33 Cal.
65, 69 ;
Bostwick V. Leach, 3 Day (Conn.)
476;
Reed v. Johnson, 14 III. 357 ;
Sherry v. Picken, 10 Ind. 375 ;
Craddock v. Riddlesbarger, 2
Dana (Ky.) 304 ;
Parham v. Thompson, 3 J. J.
Marsh. (Ky.) 159 ;
Saflford v. Annis, 7 Me. (7Greenl.)
168;
Pumer v. Piercy, 40 Md. 313 ; s.c.
17 Am. Rep. 591 ;
Smith V. Bryan, 5 Md. 141 ; s.c.
59 Am. Deo. 104 ;
Westbrook v. Eager, 16 N. J. L.
(1 Harr.) 81 ;
Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den.
(N. Y.) 550 ;
Smith V. Tritt, 1 Dev. &B. (N. C.)
L. 241 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 564 ;
Brittain v. McKay, 1 Ired. (N. C.)
L. 365 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 738 ;
Backenstoss v. Stahler's Admr.,
33 Pa. St. 351 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec.
593;
Bear v. Bitzer, 16 Pa. St. 178 ; s.c.
55 Am. Dec. 490 ;
Wilkins v. Vashbinder, 7 Watts
(Pa.) 378 ;
Evans v. Roberts, 5 Bam. & C.
839 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ;
Sainsbury v. Matthews, 4 Mees.
& W. 343 ;
Eaton V. Southby, Willes, 131 ;
Scorell V. Boxall, 1 You. & J. 396.
See: Bishop i;.Bishop, 11 N.Y. 12a
Chap. II. § 55.]
FRUCTUS NATUEALES.
63
trees, but the crop of hops grown from these roots de-
pends entirely upon the manurance and industry of man
for its value, and for that reason is classed as fructus
industridles, and is personal property.^
Sec. 55. Pruetus naturales.— The natural product of
the soil without man's intervention, such as trees before
being felled and converted into timber,^ and fruit before
it is gathered,^ were at common law regarded as much a
part of the soil as the earth from which they sprung.*
Yet they may in a measure be dealt with and treated by'
the owner as chattels, the same as fructus industriales,
and may be sold as such where the intention of the
parties contemplates that they shall be severed and
removed immediately, or within a reasonable time ;
but should the sale contemplate their being left to grow
or obtain additional strength and increase from the
earth, it will be regarded as a sale of an interest in the
realty,^ and for that reason is within the statute of
> Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John.
(N. Y.) 108 ;
Graves v. Weld, 5 Barn. & Ad.
105 ; S.C. 3 Nev. & M. 725 ; 27
Eng. C. L. 53 ;
Evans v. Roberts, 5 Barn. & Ores.
839 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ;
Latham v. Atwood, Cro. Car.
515;
Anonymous Case, Freem. Ch.
210;
Fisher v. Forbes, 9 Vin. Abr.
373, pi. 82 ;
2 Bl. Com. 122 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 55a, 55b.
' See : United States v. Sohuler, 6
McL. C. C. 87.
' Blackberries finictns naturales.— In
Sparrow v. Pond, 49 Minn. 413 ;
s.c. 53 N. W. Rep. 36, in an opin-
ion going over the ancient learn-
ing on the subject, it is held that
blackberries, while growing on
the bushes, are not subject to a
levy under an execution as
personal property. They are
not fructus industriales, like
grain, but are fructus natur-
ales, like natural bushes and
grasses, and are regarded as a
part of the realty.
* See : Adams u Smith, Breese (111.)
321;
Olmstead v. Niles, 7 N. H. 523 ;
Putney v. Day, 6 N. H. 430 ; s.c.
25 Am. Dec. 470 ;
Slocum V. Seymour, 36 N. J. L.
(7 Vr,) 138 ;
Bank of Lansingburgh v. Crary, 1
Barb. (N. Y.) 543 ;
Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N.
Y.) 550, 556 ;
Teal V. Auty, 3 Brod. & B. 99 ;
Crosby v. Wads worth, 6 East
603 ; s.c. 3 Smith, 599 ; 8 Rev.
Rep. 566 ;
Rodwell V. Phillips, 9 Mees. & W.
501.
5 See : White v. Foster, 102 Mass.
375 *
Harreil v. MiUer, 35 Miss. 700 ;
Howe V. Batchelder, 49 N. H.
304;
Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H.
313 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 173 ;
Olmstead v. Niles, 7 N. H. 532 ;
Slocum V. Seymour, 36 N. J. L.
(7 Vr.) 138 ;
Vorebeck v. Rowe, 50 Barb. (N.
Y.) 303 ;
Warren v. Leland, 3 Barb. (N.
Y.) 613 ;
Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N.
Y.) 550 ;
Pattison's Appeal, 61 Pa. St
394 ; s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 637 ;
54
GROWmG TREES— REALTY.
[Book I.
frauds, and should be in writing.^ This rule has been ap-
plied in the sale of shrubs and nursery trees, ^ in the sale of
growing trees, ^ in the sale of grass in the meadow ready
to be cut,* and in the sale of an apple and peach crop/
Sec. 56. Same — Growing trees.— Growing trees are re-
garded as a part of the land from which they spring,®
and as such are real property. '^ Being an interest in
land,^ as long as they are not actually, or in contempla-
tion of law, severed from the soil, they are within the
statute of frauds, and the property in them cannot be
transferred by parol;* but when once they are severed,
Huff V. MoCauley, 53 Pa. St. 306 ;
Buck V. Pickwell, 27 Vt. 157 ;
lillie V. Dunbar, 62 Wis. 198;
s.c. 22 N. W. Rep. 467 ;
Daniels v. Bailey, 48 Wis. 566 ;
Summers v. Cook, 28 Grant (Ont.)
179;
Macdonnell v. McKay, 15 Grant
(Ont.) 391.
» Putney v. Day, 6 If. H. 480 ; s.c.
25 Am. Dec. 470 ;
Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N.
Y ") 550 556 ■
Olmstead v. Niles, 7 N. H. 523 ;
Jones V. Flint, 10 Ad. & E.
753 ; s.c. 87 Eng. O. L. 397 ;
Teal V. Auty, 3 Brod. & B. 99 ;
Crosby v. Wadsworth, 6 East
603'; s.c. 3 Smith, 599 ; 8 Rev.
Rep. 566 ;
Rodwell V. Phillips, 9 Mees. & W.
501.
' See : Whitmarsh v. Walker, 42
Mass. (1 Met.) 313.
' Byassee v. Reese, 4 Met. (Ky.)
872 ; s.c. 88 Am. Dec. 481 ;
Cutler V. Pope, 13 Me. 377 ;
Erskine v. Plummer, 7 Me. (7
Greenl.) 447 ;
Purner v. Piercy, 40 Md. 213 ; s.c.
17 Am. Rep. 591 ;
Nettleton v. Sikes, 49 Mass. (8
Met.) 84 ;
Claflin V. Carpenter, 45 Mass. (4
Met.) 580 ; s.c. 8S Am. Dec.
381 ;
Putney v. Day, 6 N. H. 430 ; s.c.
35 Am. Dec. 470 ;
KOlmore v. Hewlett, 48 N. Y.
569;
Bovce V. Washburn, 4 Hun (N.
Y.) 792 ;
SterUng v. Baldwin, 42 Vt. 306.
* See : Banton ■;;. Shorey, 77 Me. 48.
" Cain V. McGuire, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.)
340;
Brown v. Stanclift, 80 N. Y. 637 ;
s.c. 20 Alb. L. J. 55.
See : Purner v. Pierce, 40 Md. 213 ;
s.c. 17 Am. Rep. 591.
« Baker v. Lewis, 38 Pa. St. 301 ;
s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 698.
' Vorebeck v. Roe, 50 Barb. (N.
Y.) 302 ;
Bank of Lansingburgh v. Crary,
1 Barb. (N. Y.) 543 ;
Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N.
Y.) 550 :
Hutchins v. King, 68 U. S. (1
Wall.) 58 ; bk. 17 L. cd. 544 ;
Jones V. Fhnt, 10 Ad. & B. 753 ;
s.c. 87 Eng. C. L. 397.
8 Brackett v. Goddard, 54 Me. 809 ;
Wright V. Barrett;, ,30 Mass. (13
Pick.) 44 ;
Warren v. Leland, 2 Barb. (N.
Y.) 613.
'McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y.
114;
Warren v. Leland, 3 Barb. (N.
Y.) 613.
Compare : Claflin v. Carpenter,
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 580 ;
Olmstead v. Niles, 7N. H. 532 ;
Smith V. Surman, 9 Barn. & C.
561 ; s.c. 17 Eng. C. L. 253.
A parol contract conveys no interest
in growing timber. — The New
Brunswick Land Company v.
Kirk, 1 Allen (N. B.) 443.
Kennedy v. Robinson, 3 Cr. &
Dix. 118 ;
Kerr v. Connell, Bert. (N. B.)
183 ;
Murray v. Gilbert, 1 Hannay (N.
B.) 553 ; ^
Segee v. Perley, 1 Kerr (N. B.)
439. ^
Chap. n. § 56.] SALE OF TREES— FELLED TREES.
55
either in fact or in contemplation of law, they become
personal property.^ The sale of growing trees, with the
right at a future time — whether that time is fixed or in-
definite— to enter upon the land and cut and remove
them, conveys an interest in the land ; ^ but when the in-
tention is to transfer the title of the trees after they shall
have been felled, or separated from the realty, this is
held to be an executory contract for the sale of personal
property,^ and vests the title to the trees in the vendee
' Claflin V. Carpenter, 45 Mass. (4
Met.) 580 ;
Smith V. Surman, 9 Bam. & C.
561 ; s.c. 17 Eng. C. L. 353 ;
Stukely v. Butler, Hob. 173.
See : Olmstead v. Niles, 7 N. H.
522 •
Marshall v. Green, L. R. 1 C. P.
Div. 35 ; s.c. 15 Moak's Eng.
Rep. 218 ;
Lilford's Case, 11 Co. 50.
« Harrell v. Miller, 35 Miss. 700 ;
s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 154;
Howe V. Batchelder, 49 N. H.
304;
Kingsley v. Holbrook, 45 N. H.
313;
Ockington v. Richey, 41 N. H.
275 ■
Ohnstead v. Niles, 7 N. H. 522 ;
Putney v. Day, 6 N. H. 430 ; s.c.
25 Am. Dec. 470 ;
Hendrickson v. Ivins, 1 N. J. Eq.
(1 Saxt.) 562 ;
Slooum V. Seymour, 36 N. J. L.
(7 Vr.) 138 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep.
433;
McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y.
114;
Vorebeck r. Roe, 50 Barb. (N. Y.)
303;
SUvemail v. Cole, 13 Barb.
(N. Y.) 685 ;
Dubois V. KeUy, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
496;
Pierrepont v. Barnard, 5 Barb.
(N. Y.) 364 ;
Warren v. Leland, 3 Barb. (N.
Y.) 614 ;
Bank of Lansingburgh v. Crary,
1 Barb. (N. Y.) 543 ;
Green v. Armstrong, 1 Den. (N.
Y.) 550 ;
Lawrence v. Smith, 37 How. (N.
Y.) Pr. 337 ;
Boyce v. Washburn, 4 Hun (N.
Y.) 792 ;
Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend.
(N. Y.) 380 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec.
60;
Harrell v. MUler, 35 Miss. 700 ;
Bowers v. Bowers, 95 Pa. St.
477;
Pattison's Appeal, 61 Pa. St.
394 ■
Huff V. McCauley, 53 Pa. St. 306 ;
s.c. 91 Am. Dec. 303 ;
Yeakle v. Jacob, 33 Pa. St. 376 ;
Buck V. Pickwell, 87 Vt. 157 ;
Hutchins v. King, 68 U. S. (1
Wall.) 53 ; bk. 17 L. ed. 544.
' Bostwiok V. Leach, 3 Day (Conn.)
476, 481 ;
Armstrong v. Lawson, 73 Ind.
498;
Owens V. Lewis, 40 Ind. 488 ; s.c.
15 Am. Rep. 295 ;
Byassee i\ Reese, 4 Met. (Ky.)
373 ; s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 481 ;
Cain V. McGuire, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.)
340;
Edwards v. Grand Trunk R. Co. ,
54 Me. 105 ;
Cutler V. Pope, 13 Me. 377 ;
Erskine v. Plummer, 7 Me. (7
Greenl.) 447 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec.
316;
Pumer v. Piercy, 40 Md. 312 ;:
s.c. 17 Am. Rep. 591 ;
Smith V. Bryan, 5 Md. 141 ; s.c.
59 Am. Dec. 104 ;
White V. Foster, 102 Mass. 375 ;:
Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass. 546 ;
s.c. 97 Am. Dec. 52;
Drake v. Wells, 93 Mass. (11 Al-
len) 141 ;
Parsons v. Smith, 87 Mass. (5 A1--
len) 578 ;
Giles t7.Simonds,81 Mass.(15 Gray).'
441 ; s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 373 ;
Douglas V. Shumway, 79 Mass.
(13 Gray) 498 :
Nettleton v. Sikes, 49 Mass.. (8^
Met.) 34 ;
Claflin V. Carpenter, 45 Mass. (4'
Met.) 580; s.c. 38 Am. Deo. 381;
6G
OVERHANGING TREES— PROPERTY IN. [Book I.
absolutely.^ It has been said that the grant by the owner
of land of all the timber standing and growing thereon
to another and his heirs and assigns forever, with per-
mission freely to enter, cut and carry them away at
pleasure, conveys an estate of inheritance in the trees,
with the right in the soil necessary for their support and
growth, while the fee in the soil itself remains in the
grantor.^
Sec. 57. Same — Same — Overhanging trees. — Where the
trunk of a tree is wholly upon the land of one person, it is
a part of his land^ and he is entitled to all its fruit,* not-
withstanding the fact that some of the branches over-
hang and some of the roots penetrate the land of an ad-
jacent owner. ^ And this is thought to be true even after
Whitmarsh v. Walker, 43 Mass.
(1 Meto.) 313 ;
Harrell v. Miller, 35 Miss. 700 ;
s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 154 ;
KiUmore v. Hewlett, 48 N. Y.
569;
Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend.
(N. Y.) 380 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec.
60;
McClintook's Appeal, 71 Pa. St.
865;
Sterling v. Baldwin, 43 Vt. 306 ;
EUison V. Brigham, 38 Vt. 64 ;
Marshall v. Green, L. R. 1 C. P.
Div. 35 ; s.c. 15 Moak's Eng.
Rep. 318.
' Owens V. Lewis, 46 Ind. 488 ; s.c.
15 Am. Rep. 395 ;
Russell V. Richards, 11 Me. (3
Fairf.) 371 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec.
583 ; 10 Me. (1 Fairf.) 429 ; 35
Am. Dec. 254 ;
Drake v. Wells, 93 Mass. (11 Al-
len) 141, 143 ;
Giles V. Simonds, 81 Mass. (15
Gray) 441 ; s.c. 77 Am. Dec.
373;
McNeal v. Emerson, 81 Mass. (15
Gray) 884 ;
Heath v. Randall, 58 Mass. (4
Gush.) 195 ;
Nettleton v. Sikes, 49 Mass. (8
Met.) 34 ;
Pierrepont v. Barnard, 6 N. Y.
379; S.C. 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 364;
3 Am. Lead. Cas. (4th ed.) 739,
740, 746, 753 ;
Smith V. Benson, 1 Hill (N. Y.)
176;
Mumford v. Whitney, 15 Wend.
(N. Y.) 380 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec.
60;
Barnes v. Barnes, 6 Vt. 388.
= See : White v. Foster, 102 Mass.
375 ;
Delaney v. Root, 99 Mass. 546;
s.c. 97 Am. Deo. 53 ;
Clap V. Draper, 4 Mass. 266 ; s.c.
8 Am. Dec. 315 ;
Knotts V. Hydrick, 13 Rich. (S.
C.) L. 814.
' Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 177 ;
s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 738 ;
Hoffman v. Armstrong, 48 N. Y.
301, 303 ; s.c. 8 Am. Rep. 537 ;
Dubois V. Beaver, 35 N. Y. 123 ;
s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 386 ;
Holder v. Coates, 1 Moo. & M.
113 ; s.c. 23 Eng. C. L. 485 ;
Masters v. PoUie, 3 RoUe, 141.
Compare : Waterman v. Soper, 1
Ld. Raym. 787.
* Hoffman v. Armstrong, 48 N. Y.
201 ; s.c. 8 Am. Rep. 537 ;
Skinner v. Wilder, 38 Vt. 115;
s.o. 88 Am. Dec. 645 ;
Master v. PoUie, 2 Rolle, 141.
See : Norrice v. Baker, 3 Bulst.
196;
Mitten v. Faudrye, Poph. 161,
163.
' Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 177 ; s.c.
37 Am. Dec. 738 ;
Hoffman v. Armstrong, 48 N. Y.
301 ; s.c. 8 Am. Rep. 587 ;
affirming 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 337,
Dubois V. Beaver, 35 N. Y. 133 ;
s.c. 88 Am. Dec. 836 ;
ChaPo II. § 58.] LINE TREES— COMMON PROPEETY.
57
the fruit ripens and falls from the branches of the tree
on to the land of such adjoining owner ; and that the
owner of the tree may enter peaceably and take the fallen
fruit away.^ The adjoining owner, however, cannot be
required to submit to this trespass of the tree on his land,
but may cut the penetrating roots and lop oif the over-
hanging branches.^
Sec. 58. same — Same — " Line trees."— When a tree
stands upon the boundary line between two adjacent
properties, so that a part of the trunk of the tree is on
one side and a part on the ©ther side of the line, the tree
and its fruit is then the common property of the owners
of the adjoining estates, and neither can remove or in-
jure either without the consent of the other.^
Skinner tJ. Wilder, 38 Vt. 115 ; s.c.
88 Am. Deo. 645.
Eiglita of adjoining owners in tree
wholly on one's land.— In Dubois
V. Beaver, supra, Allen, J.,
says that diflerent opinions
have been held as to the rights
of the owners of adjoining es-
tates in trees planted, and the
bodies of which are wholly
upon one, while the roots ex-
tend and grow into the other ;
some holding that, in .such
cases, the tree, by reason of
the nourishment derived from
both estates, becomes the joint
property of the owners of such
Griffin v. Bixby, 13 N. H. 454 ;
s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 325 ;
Waterman v. Soper, 1 Ld. Eaym.
737;
2 Bouv. Inst. 158.
While others, with better reason,
it seems to me, hold that the tree
is wholly the property of him
on whose land the trunk stands.
Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 117 ;
s.c. 27 Am. Deo. 728 ;
Holder v. Coates, 1 Moo. & M.
112;
Masters v. PoUie, 3 EoUe, 141 ;
Oabbe on Real Prop. § 96.
1 See : Parsons' Laws of Business
(2d ed.) 817.
■2 Grandona v. Lovdal, 70 Cal. 161 ;
s.c. 11 Pac. Rep. 623 ;
Lyman v. Hale, 11 Conn. 173 ;
8.C. 37 Am. Dec. 738, 731.
Cope V. Marshall, 1 Burr. 368 ;
Welch V. Nash, 8 East 394 ; s.c.
9 Rev. Rep. 478 ;
Waterman v. Soper, 1 Ld. Raym.
737 '
Masters v. PoUie, 3 Rolle, 141,
144;
Rex V. Pappineau, 2 Str. 688 ;
Crowhurst iK Am. Burial Board,
39 L. T. N. S. 355.
Noisauce of overhangingf branches
abated, —In Lyman v. Hale, 11
Conn. 173; s.c. 27 Am. Dec.
728, 731, Btbsbll, J., ^ays :
Now, if these branches were
a nuisance to the defendant's
land, he had clearly a right to
treat them as such, and as such
to remove them. But he as
clearly had no right to convert
either the branches or the fruit
to his own use.
Beardslee v. French, 7 Conn.
125 ; s.c. 18 Am. Deo. 86 ;
Dyson v. CoUick, 5 Barn. & Aid.
600 ; 7 Serg. & Lowb. 205 ; s.c.
7 Eng. C. L. 328 ;
Welch V. Nash, 8 East 294.
' Griffin v. Bixby, 12 N. H. 454 ;
s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 225 ;
Dubois V. Beaver, 35 N. Y. 123 ;
s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 336 ;
Skinner v. Wilder, 38 Vt. 115;
s.c. 88 Am. Deo. 645 ;
Waterman v. Soper, 1 Ld. Raym.
737;
Anonymous Case, 3 Rolle, 355.
See : Odiorna v. Lvford, 9 N. H.
502, 511,; s.c. 32 Am. Dec. 387..
5g CUT TREES— GEOUND-RENT. [BOOK I.
Sec. 59. Same— Cut trees.— Although growing trees are
a part of the soil, and pass with it on conveyance, whether
upright or prostrate,^ as soon as trees are severed from
the root by being cut or blown down they become " tim-
ber" or "lumber," according to the use to which the
fallen trunk can be applied.^ Where such tree-trunks
are allowed to lie upon the ground where they fell, they
will remain fixtures and pass by a deed of the land ; ^
but where the fallen trunks have been worked up into
hewed timbers, posts and round logs, or other materials,
and are lying loosely upon the land, though originally
intended to be put into a building upon the land, they
cease to be fixtures and do not pass by a deed of the
realty, nor under the description of appurtenances.*
Sec. 60. Ground-rent— Definition.-Ground-rent is a rent
reserved by a grantor to himself and his heirs, as a
consideration, or part consideration, of a conveyance of
land in fee-simple.^ We are not aware that ground-rents,
eo nomine, and as a species of real estate, exist in any
state in the Union, aside from Pennsylvania.^ Being in
the nature of a common-law rent, this species of property
is deserving of a brief exposition here. Although ground-
rents are frequently called, by conveyancers and others,
rent charges, and although in drawing the ground-rent
deed they are invariably treated as such, the land being
expressly charged with the right of distress, yet it has
been, settled since the case of IngersoU v. Sergeant,'' that
they are rents service.
Trespass for cutting "line" tree. '^ Bosler t). Kuhn, 8 Watts&S. (Pa.)
— It is said in the case of Eel- 183, 185 ;
yea v. Beaver, 34 Barb. (N. Y.) Kenege v. Elliott, 9 Watts (Pa.)
547, that whether " line trees " 258, 263 ;
are common property or not, Anderson's L. Die. 496;
trespass wiU lie by one owner 1 Bouv. L. Diet. (15th ed.) 723.
against an adjoining owner for " See an interesting and instructive
cutting such a tree. paper on "Ground-rents in
1 Cockrill V. Downey, 4 Kan. 426. Philadelphia," in the Quarterly
See : Ante, § 56. Journal of Economics, vol. II. ,
' See : United States v. Schuler, G pp. 397-314.
McL. C. C. 37. ' 1 Whart. (Pa.) 337.
" Brackett v. Goddard, 54 Me. See : Franciscus v. Reigart 4
309. Watts (Pa.) 98 ;
•> Cook V. Whiting, 16 lU. 480. Kenege v. EUiott, 9 Whart. (Pa )
258, 263. '
Chap. II. §§ 61, 62.] CREATION OF GROUND-RENT. 59
Sec. 61. Same— Nature and method of creation. — Ground-
rent, like rent granted for owelty of partition, or in lieu.
of dower, partakes of the realty, and has no touch of
personal responsibility in its complexion ; and even where
the reservation is attended with a clause of distress, the
land is exclusively the debtor ; ^ that is, the obligation to
pay a ground-rent arises from no mere personal covenant
to pay, but by force of the reservation and acceptance
of the land. The former is by words exclusively of the
grantor himself, but by which the grantee becomes bound
upon acceptance of the estate.^ It must not be under-
stood by this that the grantee is not personally liable
upon any express covenants he may have made to pay
rent, or in an action of debt or assumpsit at common
law ; ^ but simply that the ground-rent is created by the
reservation and not by the covenant to pay. The con-
sideration for the payment of the rent is the enjoyment
of the land ;* there is, therefore, no personal responsibil-
ity independent of such enjoyment, and hence it is that
the land is termed the debtor.^ The covenant is but an
accessory, the rent being the principal.®
Sec. 62. Same — Disposition of in case of intestacy .—The
interest of the owner of the ground-rent is an estate alto-
gether distinct, and of a very different nature from that
which the owner of the land has in the land itself. Each is
considered the owner of a fee-simple estate. The one has
an estate of inheritance in the rent, and the other has an
estate of inheritance in the land out of which the rent
issues. The One is an incorporeal inheritance in fee, and
the other is a corporeal inheritance in fee.^ Ground-
' Bosler v. Kuhn, 8 Watts & S. long as the title he receives from
(Pa ) 183 185. the gi-antor proves sufficient to
« 1 Co. Litt. '(19th ed.) '144a. secure and protect him'in that
3 See : Maule v. Weaver, 7 Pa. St. enjoyment. „ „ „ o^
339 331 See : Nagle v. IngersoU, 7 Pa. St.
* Warner vl Cault, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 185 ;
193 197 . St. Mary's Church v. Mues, 1
IngersoU v. Sergeant, 1 Whart. Whart. (Pa ) 229, 235 ;
(Pa.) 337. Garrison v. Moore (Pa.), 9 Leg.
le enioyment of the land is so Int. 2. . „ 1
completely the consideration « Chief Justice Gibson, m Hosiery.
for the payment of the rent, Kuha, 8 Watts & S (Pa^) 185.
that the grantee of the land is ' Irwin v. Bank of United States,
bound to pay the rent only as 1 Pa. St. 849.
60 HEIRLOOMS— NOT RECOGNIZED HERE. [Book I.
rents, being real estate,' in case of intestacy, go to the
heirs and not to the administrator or executor.-'
Sec. 63. Heirlooms — Definition.— Heirlooms are a class
of goods and chattels whi(3h, contrary to the nature of
chattel property, goes, by special custom in England,
to the heir along with the inheritance, and not to the
executor of the last proprietor,^ and is neither lands nor
tenements, but a mere movable ; yet being inheritable
is comprised under the general term hereditaments.^
Heirlooms are generally implements and articles of fur-
niture * which cannot be taken away without damaging
or dismembering the freehold ; ^ such as a horn long on
the estate,® Journals of the House of Lords, delivered to
a peer,^ family pictures,® doves in a dove-cot,^ rabbits in a
warren,^" fish in a pond,^^ deer in a park,^ jewels in
a crown, 1^ family jewels,^* and charts and evidences
attendant on the inheritance.^''
Sec. 64. Same — Not recognized in America.— It is thought
that the laws of this country do not recognize heir-
looms,^® notwithstanding the fact that Ohio courts are
said to have held that they are exempt from execution, i"
' Cobb V. Biddle, 14 Pa. St. 444. Shep. Touch. 470.
' 2 Bl. Com. 437 ; It seems that it wiU be otherwise
I Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 18b ; where the deer are tamed.
II Vin. Abr. 167. See : Morgan v. Abergavenny,
See : Spooner v. Brewster, 3 Bing. 8 C. B. 768, 788 ; s.c. 65 Eng.
136 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 75 ; C. L. 767, 787.
Byng V. Byng, 10 H. L. Cas. '^ g gj Com. 438 ; 1 Co. Litt. 18.
183 ; " These may be heirlooms inde-
Petre v. Heneage, 13 Mod. 530 ; pendently of the real estate.
s.c. 1 Ld. Raym. 738 ; SheUey v. Shelley, 37 L. J. Ch.
Pusey V. Pusey, 1 Vem. 273. 357 ; s.c. L. R. 6Eq. 540 : 16 W
' 3 Bl. Com. 17 ; R. 1036.
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 388 ; Books are not heirlooms, and if
Shep. Touch. 433. limited to go with the entailed
■* Id. goods or estate, they become
' 4 Bl. Com. 437. the absolute property of the
" Pusey V. Pusey, 1 Vem. 373. first tenant in taU.
' Upton V. Ferrers, 5 Ves. 806. Bridgewater v. Egerton, 3 Ves.
8 Liford's Case, 11 Co. 50 ; Sr. 133.
Savile v. Scarborough, 1 Swan. " Lord v. Wardle, 3 Bing. N. C
537 ; s.c. 1 Wils. Ch. 239. 680 ; s.c. 32 Eng. C. L. 314.
" Ford V. Tynte, 2 Johns. & H. 150. " See: Messeley's Estate, 5 W. N.C
'» Ford V. Tynte, 2 Johns. & H. 103 ;
150. 1 "Woener's Am. L. Admrs. 590.
" Liford's Case, 11 Co. 50 ; " McMicken v. Board of Directors
Shep. Touch. 470. of University, 2 Am. L. Ree,
" Liford's Case, 11 Co. 50 ; N. S. 489.
Chap. II. § 65.] BUILDINGS REAL ESTATE WHEN. 61
awarded exemplary damages for their conversion,^ and
to have declared that the bond given does not take their
place in replevin.^ But the first case simply relates to
family pictures, which are exempt by statute, the second
is merely a reference, by way of illustration, to family
pictures and other relics as objects having ideal values,
and the third is barely a statement made arguendo by
the court that where the thing replevied is of a peculiar
or fictitious value, ' ' such as family portraits, heirlooms,
personal mementos, and the like," the defendant will not
necessarily be compelled to accept the appraisement in
lieu of the article.
Sec. 65. Houses and tatiildings.— A well-known maxim
of the common law, quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit,
whatever is affixed to or planted in the ground, is a
part of the soil,^ is recognized alike in England* and
America.^ Under this rule all houses and buildings are
included in the terms " lands " and " real estate." ^ All
houses heing prima facie a part of the realty,^ if one per-
son erects a house upon the lands of another without any
interest in the land, and without any agreement thereto,
such house becomes a part of the realty and passes
1 Woolsey v. Seeley, "Wright (Ohio) Bellow v. New York Floating
360. Dry Dock Co., 113 N. Y. 263,
'■ Smith V. McGregor, 10 Ohio St. 283 ; s.c. 20 N. Y. S. R. 707 ;
461 473 Beardsly v. Ontario Bank, 31
' Kerr's " Adjudicated Words, Barb. (N. Y.) 619, 630 ;
Phrases and Applied Maxims." Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb.
^ Wake V. Hall, L. R. 8 App. Cas. (N. Y.) 43, 54 ;
195; s.c. 52 L. J. Q. B. 494 ; King i-. Wilcomb, 7 Barb. (N. Y.)
48 L. T. 834 ; 31 W. R. 585 ; 47 263, 366 ;
J P. 548, aff'g L. R. 7 Q. B. D. St. Johnsbury & L. C. R. Co. v.
595 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 545 ; 44 L. T. Willard, 61 Vt. 134 ; s.c. 17
43 ; 45 J. P. 340 ; Atl. Rep. 38 ; 3 L. R. A. 528.
Minsiiall v. Lloyd, 3 Mees. & W. « Coombs v. Jordan, 3 Bland. Ch.
450 ; (Md.) 284 ; s.c. 22 Am. Dec. 233 ;
Deard'en v. Evans, 5 Mees. & W. Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Jones,
li ; 62 Mass. (8 Cush.) 184, 189 ;
BroWn Max. 401 ; 3 Bl. Com. 17 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53a. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 4a.
* Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Jones, ' Ford v. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344 ;
63 Mass. (8 Cush.) 184, 189 ; Mott v. Palmer, 1 N. Y. 564 ;
Price V. Weehawken Perry Co., Reid v. Kirk, 12 Rich. (S. C.) L.
31 N. J. Eq. (4 Stew.) 34 ; 54 ;
Williamson v. New Jersey S. R. Lipsky v. Borgmann, 52 Wis.
Co 29 N. J. Eq. (2 Stew.) 317 ; 256 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 735 ;
North Hudson R. Co. v. Booraem, Huebschmann v. McHenry, 39
28 N. J. Eq. (1 Stew.) 450, 454 ; Wis. 655.
G2 BUILDINGS PASS WITH LAND. [Book I.
with a conveyance of the land.^ And if a man builds
a house on his own land with the materials of another,
the property in the land vests in the building by the
right of accession, and the owner of the land is only
obliged to answer to the owner of the materials
for their value. ^ This is on the principle that the
nature has been changed and that the articles have be-
come a part of the freehold.^ By the law of England, as
well as by the civil law, trespassers who willfully take
the property of another can acquire no right in it on the
principle of accession, but the owner may reclaim it so
long as he can establish its identity,* whatever alter-
ation of form it may have undergone,^ unless it be
changed into a different species and be incapable of res-
titution to its former state ; and by the civil law even
then the trespasser could acquire no right by accession^
unless the materials had been taken away in ignorance of
their being the property of another.^
Sec. 66. Same — Built by tenant.— We will see in a sub-
' Bonney v. Foss, 63 Me. 248 ; not the owners but the builders.
Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Jones, Mol. de Jure Mar. lib. 2, c.l,
62 Mass. (8 Gush.) 184, 189-190 ; § 7.
Cooper V. Adams, 39 Mass. (6 See Peirce v. Goddard, 39 Mass.
Gush.) 87 ; (22 Pick.) 559 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec.
Peirce V. Goddard, 39 Mass. 764.
(22 Pick.) 559 ; s.c. 33 Am. » See Bros. tit. " Property," pi. 33.
Deo. 764 ; * Eiddle v. Driver, 12 Ala. 590 ;
Washburn v. Sproat, 16 Mass. Davis v. Easley, 13 111. 192 ;
449 ; Herad v. James, 49 Miss. 336 ;
Bimteyer v. Morss, 4 Abb. Ct. Silsburyu. McCoon, 3 N. Y. 879;
App. (N. Y.) 55 ; s.c. 5 Abb. s.c. 53 Am. Deo. 307 ;
(N. Y.) Pr. N. S. 44 ; 3 Keyes Hyde v. Cookson, 31 Barb. (N. Y.)
(N. Y.) 349 ; 93 ;
West V. Stewart, 7 Pa. St. 133 ; Curtis v. Groat, 6 John. (N. Y )
Leland v. Gasset, 17 Vt. 403. 168 ;
s Mitchell v. Stetson, 61 Mass. (7 Snyderii. Vaux, 3Eawle(Pa.)433:
Cush.) 4C5, 439 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 466.
Peirce v. Goddard, 39 Mass. ' Mitchell v. Stetson, 61 Mass (7
(33 Pick.) 559 ; s.c. 33 Am. Cush.) 435, 439 ;
Dec. 764 ; Peirce v. Goddard, 39 Mass. (22
3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 360, 361. Pick.) 559, 561 ; s.c. 33 Am.
It is laid down by MoUoy as a Dec. 764 ;
settled principle of law that if Betts v. Lee, 5 John. (N. Y.) 348 •
a man cuts down the trees of s.c. 4 Am. Deo. 368. ' ' '
another, or takes timber or " Peirce v. Goddard, 39 Mass. (33
plank prepared for the erection Pick.) 559 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec
or repairing of a dwelling- 764.
house, nay, thoughsoraeof them See : Betts v. Lee, 5 John (N Y )
are for shipping and building 348; s.c. 4 Am. Deo '368-
a ship, the property follows 2 Kent Comm. (13th ed.) 362
Chap. II. §§ 67, 68.] BUILDING— CONSENT TO ERECTION. 63
sequent chapter ^ that where a tenant erects upon the
lands occupied by him buildings for his own convenience
or comfort in the occupancy or use of the premises, he
has the right, within certain restrictions, to remove such
buildings during the term of his lease, or the period of
his future possessions as such tenant. But if such tenant
intended building for the permanent improvement of the
freehold, or if he have a permanent interest in the land
as remainderman or revisioner,^ is the husband of the
tenant in fee,^ or be in possession under a contract of
purchase,* the structure becomes a part of the realty.^
Sec. 6T. Same ^ Consent to erection.— Where a house or
other building is erected upon the lands of another with
his consent, either express or implied, it will remain the
property of the builder,^ as between the parties, and he
may maintain trover for it as against the owner of
the land.'^ But as between innocent third parties and
bona fide purchasers this rule does not prevail. The right
to erect a building upon the lands of another being an in-
corporeal hereditament and not a tangible right * should
be created only by written instrument.^
Sec. 68. Same— Chamber or floor in building.- As one
may have the title in fee to a house without further in-
terest in the land on which it stands than a right to have
' See -.Post, chapter rv. "Fixtures." Leland v. Garrett, 17 Vt. 403 ;
' Cooper v.Adams,60 Mass. (6 Cush.) Lipsky v. Borgmann, 53 Wis.
87. 256 ; s.o. 9 N. W. Rep. 158.
» Glldden v. Bennet, 43 N. H. 306. ^ Curtis v. Hoyt, 19 Conn. 154 ;
See : Washburn v. Sproat, 16 Hartwell v. Kelly, 117 Mass. 235 ;
Mass. 449. Inhabitants of Sudbury v. Jones,
* Ogden V. Stock. 34 III. 533 s.c. 63 Mass. (8 Cush.) 184 ;
85 Am. Dec. 382 ; Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 429 ;
Hemenway v. Cutler, 51 Me. 407 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 195 ;
Pullen V. Bell, 40 Me. 814 ; . Harris v. Gillingham, 6 N. H. 9 ;
Russell V. Richards, 10 Me. 429 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec. 701.
s c 11 Id. 371 ; 36 Am. Dec. ' Central Branch R. Co. v. Fritz,
533 ; 20 Kan. 430 ; s.c. 37 Am. Rep.
Poor V. Oakman, 104 Mass. 309 ; 175 ;
Eastman v. Foster, 49 Mass. (8 Osgood v. Howard, 6 Me. (6
jlet.) 19. Greenl.) 452 ; s.c. 20 Am. Dec.
See : Hinkley & E. Iron Co. v. 322.
Black, 70 Me. 473. » Bract. II. 18 ;
> Rimteverv. Morss, 3 Keyes (N. Y.) 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 20a, 49a.
349 ; s.c. 4 Abb. Ct. App. (N. " 3 Kent. Com. (13th ed.) 403.
Y 1 55 ■ 5 Abb. (N. Y.) Pr. N. See : Trammall v. Trammall, 11
S/^.' Rich. (S. C.) L. 471.
Christian v. Dripps, 28 Pa.St.279;
04
CHAMBER OR FLOOR IN BUILDING.
[Book I.
it remain there, so one may own the soil and other parties
each own different floors respectively, or a single chamber
even, in the building erected thereon, with right of way
to and from.i Such owners will not be tenants in com-
mon, but adjoining tenants, possessing as an essentially
separate and distinct interest as if they were one by the
side of the other.^ They will not be liable to each other
for repairs to the roof or stories above, or to the founda-
tion or stories below, or for damages caused because of a
want of such repairs.^ This is because of the well-settled
rule that the owner of one part of a building has no
action to recover damages at law for the willful neglect
of the owner of the other part in permitting his part
to become ruinous and fall into decay, whereby the
other part is injured.* In the case of Loring v. Bacon®
' Rhodes v. McCormick, 4 Iowa
368 ; s.o. 68 Am. Deo. 663 ;
Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn.
318 ; S.C. 36 Am. Dec. 396 ;
Lowell M. H. V. Lowell, 43 Mass.
(1 Met.) 538 ;
Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575 ;
Humphries v. Brogden, 13 Q. B.
739, 747, 756 ; s.c. 64 Eng. C.
L. 738 ;
Doe V. Burt, 1 T. R. 701.
Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn.
318; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 396;
McCormick v. Bishop, 38 Iowa
337;
StockweU V. Hunter, 53 Mass. (11
Met.) 448; s.o. 45 Am. Dec.
330, 333 ;
Proprietors of Meeting-house v.
City of Lowell, 43 Mass. (1 Met.)
541;
Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575.
' Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn.
318 ; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 396 ;
Ottumwa Lodge v. Lewis, 34
Iowa 67 ; s.o. 11 Am. Rep. 185 ;
Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575.
See : Adams v. Marshall, 138
Mass. 338, 338-9 ; s.c. 53 Am.
Rep. 371 ; •
Calvert v. Aldrich, 99 Mass. 74
s.c. 96 Am. Dec. 693 ;
Wiggin V. Wiggin, 43 N. H. 561
s.c. 80 Am. Dec. 193.
Pierce v. Dyer, 109 Mass. 374
s.c. 13" Am. Rep. 716.
Eeniedy at comiaon law. — In such
cases, the remedy at common
law is by writ de reparatione
facitnda.
Wiggin V. Wiggin, 43 N. H. 561 ;
s.o. 80 Am. Dec. 193, 195.
Citing : Bowles' Case, 11 Co.
83;
Tenant v. Goldwin, 1 Salk. 360;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 54b, 300b ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 370.
So where one's house is ruinous
and likely to fall on his neigh-
bor's house, the same remedy
is said to exist.
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 56b, and cases
cited.
Same — On action on the case, it is
said it will lie at common law,
for the neglect to r^^air, by
reason of which a neighbor's
house is in.iured.
Wiggin V. Wiggin, supra.
Citing : 1 Co. Litt. (10th ed.) 56b,
note 3, and Fitzh. N. B. 137,
note a.
Same — Remedy in equity. — But
in the case of Cheeseborough
V. Green, 10 Conn. 319 ; s.c. 36
Am. Dec. 396, the plaintiff
owned and occupied the foun-
dation and first and second
stories of a building, and the
defendant the third story and
the roof, which had become
leaky and ruinous, whereby the
plaintiff's goods were injured,
it was held that an action on the
» 4 Mass. 575.
Chap. II. § 68.] PART OWNERSOF BUILDINGS— REPAIRS. 65
the defendant was seized in fee-simple of the lower floor
and the cellar under it, and the plaintiff was seized of a
chamber over it and of the remainder of the house. The
roof became in such a condition that unless repaired no
part of the house could be comfortably occupied. The
defendant refused to join in making the repairs. The
plaintiff then made the necessary repairs, and brought an
action in assumpsit for labor and materials employed and
money expended, and the court said : "Although in the
case the parties consider themselves as severally seized
of different parts of one dwelling, yet in legal contempla-
tion each of the parties has a distinct dwelling-house ad-
joining together, the one being situated over the other.
The lower room and the cellar are the dwelling-house
of the defendant ; the chamber, roof, and other parts of
the edifice are the plaintiff's dwelling-house. And in this
action it appears that having repaired, liis own house, he
calls upon the defendant to contribute to the expenses,
because his house is so situated that the defendant derives
a benefit from his repairs and would have suffered a
damage, if he had not repaired. Upon a very full search
into the principles and maxims of the common law, we
cannot find that any remedy is provided for the plaintiff. " ^
case would not lie, but that the tenement, and that the owner
remedy must be sought in of the upper tenement has no
equity. right to destroy the coverings
See : A^'iggin «. Wiggin,43 N. H. that protect the lower tene-
561 ; S.C. 80 Am. Dec. 192, 186 ; ment, although, at common
Campbell v. Mesier, 4 John. Ch. law, neither is bound to the
(N. Y.) 335 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. other to repair his tenement.
570; The actual decisions on this
4 Kent Com. (l.Sth ed.) 371, 412. subject are meager, except in
' In the latter case of Adams v. the case of mines (see : Post,
Marshall, 138 Mass. 228, 238-9, § 99), where the right of the
the court say that in the case owner of the soil to subjacent
of Pierce v. Dyer. 109 Mass. support is well settled."
374, "it is assumed that the Citing : Cheeseborough u Green,
right of support included that 10 Conn. 318; s.c. 26 Am. Dec.
of shelter, but no decisions to 396 ;
that effect have been shown us. Ottumwa Lodge v. Lewis, 34 Iowa
Some analogy may perhaps be 07; s.c. 11 Am. Eep. 135 ;
derived from the reciprocal McCormick v. Bishop, 28 Iowa
rights and obligations of the 233 ;
owner of an upper to the owner Calvert v. Aldrich, 99 Mass. 74;
of a lower tenement in the s.c. 96 Am. Dec. 693 ;
sam building. It has been Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 574 ;
said that the owner of the lower Stevens v. Thompson, 17 N. H.
tenement has no right to de- 103 ;
stroy the supports of the upper Graves v. Berdan, 26 N. Y. 498 ;
5
66 EFFECT OF DESTRUCTION OF BUILDINa. [Book I.
Sec. 69. Same— Same— EflFect of destruction of building. —
If distributed in the possession of such floors or chamber
the owner may maintain ejectment therefor.^ In such a
case each individual proprietor of floor or chamber has an
interest in the soil so far as necessary for the enjoyment
of the premises, and no further,^ and if the building
should be destroyed by fire, or otherwise, the interest of
the individual owning such floor or chamber in the land
on which the house stood will be lost,^ in the absence of
astipulation in the conveyance for re-building.*
Dalton V. Angus, 6 App. Cas. 740 ; ^ Stockwell v. Hunter, 53 Mass. (11
s.o. 34 Moak's Eng. Rep. 742 ; Met.) 448 ; s.c. 45 Am. Deo. 220.
Caledonian R. Co. v. Sprot, 2 ^ Shawmutt Nat. Bank v. Boston,
Macq. 449 ; 118 Mass. 125 ;
Harris v. Ryding, 5 Mees. & W. Stockwell v. Hunter, 52 Mass. (11
60 ; Met.) 448 ; s. c. 45 Am. Dec. 320.
Humphries v. Rogden, 12 Q. B. * Stockwell v. Hunter, 52 Mass. (11
739 ; s.c. 64 Eng. C. L. 138. Met.) 448 : s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 230.
' Otis V. Smith, 26 Mass. (9 Pick.) See : McMillan v. Solomon, 42
293 ; Ala. 356 ; s.c. 94 Am. Dec. 654 ;
Doe V. Burt, 1 T. R. 701. Ainsworth v. Ritt, 38 Cal. 89 ;
Graves v. Berdan, 26 N. Y. 498.
Sec.
70.
Sec.
71.
Sec.
73.
Sec.
73.
Sec.
74.
Sec.
75.
Sec.
76.
Sec.
77.
Sec.
78.
Sec.
79.
Sec.
80.
Sec.
81.
Sec.
83.
Sec.
83.
Sec.
84.
Sec.
85.
Sec.
86.
Sec.
87.
Sec.
88.
Sec.
89.
Sec.
90.
SEa
91.
Sec.
93.
Sec.
93.
Sec.
94.
Sec.
95.
Sec.
96.
Sec.
97.
Sec.
98.
Sec.
99.
Sec.
100.
Sec.
101.
Sec.
103.
Sec.
103.
Sec.
104.
Sec.
105.
Sec.
106.
CHAPTER m.
WHAT IS REAL PROPERTY — Continued.
Ice a part of the realty.
Same — On navigable streams.
Same — Same — Where title extends to the thread of the stream. .
Same — On non-navigable streams.
Same — On ponds — 1. " Great ponds.''
Same — Same — 3. Mill-ponds,
Same — On canals.
Same — Appropriation of ice.
Incorporeal hereditam.ents — Definition and nature.
Land usually real estate.
Same — Exceptions to the general rule.
Leasehold estate.
Light and air.
Manure — Real estate when.
Same — ^Where made in other than agricultural pursuits.
Same — Made on non-agricultural lands.
Same — Agreement of parties respecting.
Same — New Jersey and North Carolina doctrine.
Same — ^English rule.
Market-stalls.
Mines and minerals.
Same — Common-law doctrine.
Same — Eoyal charters.
Same — New York doctrine.
Sam e — Pennsylvania doctrine.
Same — Georgia doctrine.
Same — California doctrine.
Same — Severance and conveyance.
Same — Reservation of mineral ores.
Same — Surface support.
Same— Same— Rights of grantee.
Same — Same — When owner retains surface.
Same— -Same— Where owner grants surface and retains
minerals.
Money real estate when.
Movables realty when.
Railroads— Road-bed, rails, etc.
Same — Foundations, columns, etc., of railroad.
67 '^
68 ICE A PART OF THE REALTY. [Book L
Sec. 107. Same — Rolling stock.
Sec. 108. Sea-weed — Marine increment.
Sec. 109. Same — ^When cast between high and low water-marks.
Sec. 110. Saw-mills, saw-dust, etc., real estate when.
Sec. 111. "Water real estate when.
Section 70. loe a part of the realty.— While it is true
that a riparian owner has simply a usufructuary interest
in the water of a stream flowing through his land, yet
when that water is congealed and the ice attaches to
the soil it becomes a part of the land. ^ Hence the owner of
the soil under the water on which the ice forms is to be re-'
garded as the owner of the ice.^ This is true not only of
ponds wholly or partially forming or being entirely upon
such person's premises, but his riparian ownership of the
bed of the stream will carry with it the right of the ice
forming upon the surface of such streams, as far as
riparian right of the soil extends.^
Sec. 71. Same— On navigable streams.— By the common
law, where rivers are above the ebb and flow of the tide,
but navigable in fact, the title of the riparian owner,
prima facie, extends to the center of the stream ; and
this rule has been held in this country to apply to our
main rivers.* In some of the states, however, such as
' Village of Brooklyn v. Smith, 104 » Bigelow v. Shaw, 65 Mich. 341 ;
111. 429 ; s.c. 44 Am. Rep. s.c. 8 Am. Rep. 903 ; 33 N. Y.
90 ; Rep. 800.
Brookville & M. Hydraulic Co. v. See : Village of Brooklyn v.
Butler, 91 Ind. 134 ; s.c. 46 Am. Smith, 104 111. 439 ; s.c. 44 Am.
Rep. 580, 584 ; Rep. 90 ;
State V. Pottemeyer, 33 Ind. 402 ; Washington Ice Co. v. Shortall,
s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 224. 101 lU. 46; s.c. 40 Am. Rep. 196;
' Washmgton Ice Co. v. Shortall, People's Ice Co. v. The Excelsior,
101 III. 146 ; s.c. 40 Am. Rep. 44 Mich. 229 ; s.c. 38 A. R. 246 ;
196 ; Lorman v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18 ;
State V. Pottemeyer, 33 Ind. 402 ; s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 435.
s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 324 ; " See : Adams v. Pease, 2 Conn. 481 ;
Edgerton v. Huff, 26 Ind. 35 ; Houck v. Yates, 82 111. 179 ;
Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160, Braxon v. Bressler, 64 111. 488 ;
l'i'3 ; City of Chicago v. McGinn, 51 111.
Cummmgs v. Barrett, 64 Mass. 266 ; s.o. 2 Am. Rep. 295 ;
(10 Cush.) 186 ; City of Chicago v. Laflin, 49 lU.
Higgins V. Kusterres, 41 Mich. 172 ;
318 ; s.c. 33 Am. Rep. 160 ; 2 N. Middleton v. Pritchard, 3 Scam.
W. Rep. 13 ; (111.) 510, 516 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec.
Lorman v Benson, 8 Mich. 18 ; 113 ;
82 s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 435 ; Bay City Gaslight Co. v. Indus-
Myer v. Whitaker, 55 How. (N. " trial Works, 28 Mich. 183 ;
Y.) Pr. 376 ; see comment on, . Ryan v. Brown, 18 Mich 196 ■
in 21 Am. L. Rep. 330. s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 154 ; '
Chap. III. § 71.] ICE ON NAVIGABLE STREAMS. 69
lowa,^ Kansas,^ Missouri,^ North Carolina,* Pennsyl-
vania,® and perhaps elsewhere,'' it has been held that the
soil under rivers navigable in fact, though not subjected
to the ebb and flow of the tide, does not belong to the
riparian owner, but to the state. And where there is no
ownership of the subjacent soil, a riparian owner has no
title to the ice forming on the surface of the river.'^ The
title of the soil being in the state, and the stream being a
public highway, the ownership of the ice is held to rest in
the general public, or in the state as the representative of
that public. The riparian proprietor is said to have no
more title to the ice than he has to the fish. "It is
simply this, that his land joins the land of the state.
The fact that it so joins gives him no title to that land or
to anything formed or grown upon it, any more than it
does to anything formed or grown or found upon the
land of any individual neighbor. " ^ In those states where
this view obtains the doctrine is that the ice belongs to the
first appropriator, when such appropriation is effected by
marking, surveying, and staking off of the ice.*
Lorman v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18 ; Tomlin i\ Dubuque & M. R. Co.,
S.C. 77 Am. Dec. 439 ; 33 Iowa 106 ; s.c. 7 Am. Rep.
Schurmeier v. St. Paul & Pac. R. 176 ;
Co., 10 Minn. 83 ; s.c. 83 An. MoManus v. Carmichael, 3 Iowa
Deo. 59; 1.
Magnolia v. Marshall, 39 Miss. ° Wood v. Fowler, 36 Kans. 083 ;
109 ; s.c. 40 Am. Rep. 330.
Morgan v. Reading, 11 Miss. 366 ; ^ Benson v. Morrow, 61 Mo. 345 ;
Garit v. Chambers, 3 Ohio, 496 ; Hickey v. Hazard, 3 Mo. App.
Hart V. Hill, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 134 ; 480.
Arnold v. Elmore, 16 Wis. 509 ; « Wilson v. Forbes, 3 Dev. (N. C.)
Rundle v. Delaware, etc.. Canal L. 30 ;
Co., 1 WaU. Jr. C. C. 375, 294. State v. Glen, 7 Jones (N. C.) L.
" Fresh rivers, of whatsoever 331.
kind, do of common right be- ' Cuson v. Blazer, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 475 ;
long to the owners of the soil Shrunk v. Schuylkill Nav. Co.,
adjacent," is the expressive Ian- 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 71.
guage of the common law, and « See : Barney v. Keokuk, 94 U. S.
is of universal appUoation. 334 ; bk. 24 L. ed. 324 ;
Chief Justice Ruger, in Smith Railroad Co. v. Schurmeier, 74 U.
V. City of Rochester, 92 N. Y. S. (7 Wall.) 372 ; bk. 19 L. ed.
463, 478 ; s.c. 44 Am. Rep. 393. 74.
Citine : Chenango Bridge Co. v. " Wood v. Fowler, 36 Kans. 683 ;
Paiie, 83 N. Y. 178; s.c. 38 s.c. 40 Am. Rep. 330, 335.
Am. Rep. 407 ; ' Id.
Clinton v Myers, 46 N. Y. 511 ; ' Woodman v. Pitman, 79 Me. 456 ;
S.C. 7 Am. Rep. 373. s.c. 1 Am. St. Rep. 343 ; 10 Atl.
> Houghton V. Chicago R. Co., 47 Rep. 321 ; , „ -. ,
Iowa 370 ; Hickey v. Hazard, 8 Mo. App.
Musserv. Hershery, 43 Iowa 356 ; 480.
70 ICE ON NON-NAVIGABLE STREAMS. [Book I.
Sec. 73. Same— Same— Wliere title extends to thread of
stream.- In those states where the title of the riparian
owner extends to the thread of the stream, the common-
law rule of ownership prevails, and the adjoining pro-
prietors own the banks and bed of the streahi, and have
a right to make such use of the land, and of all the bene-
fits of the stream, as will not interfere with the public
easement or servitude ; ^ and the ice formed on the water
over the land of such proprietor is regarded as his exclu-
sive property.^ To this rule, however, there are some
exceptions. In Maine ^ and Massachusetts,* the right of
harvesting ice upon a navigable river is not an abso-
lute right in any person, but is a pubhc right com-
mon to all persons who have a right to go upon the
stream ; and depends very much upon first appropria-
tion,^ as one man's possession may exclude others.
Sec. 73. Same— On non-navigable waters.- The general
rule applicable to and governing as to ice formed- on
fresh navigable waters applies more universally to ice
formed on fresh non-navigable streams fiowing in a nat-
ural channel,® for the reason that most, if not all, those
states which deny to the riparian proprietors the ownership
of or right to the soil of the navigable fresh- water rivers
do not hesitate to accord such right to the riparian pro-
prietors along non-navigable fresh-water streams.
Sec. 74. Same— On ponds— 1. " Great ponds."— It is on
'the theory that the soil beneath the water of certain
bodies of fresh water, known as " Great Ponds," is the
■■ Fletcher v. Thunder Bay Elver Edgerton v. Huff, 36 Ind. 36.
Boom Co., 51 Mich. 277, 284
B.C. 16 K W. Rep. 645 ;
Maxwell v. Bay City Bridge Co.
41 Mich. 453, 466 ; s.c. 2 N. W.
Rep. 639 ;
Ryan v. Brown, 18 Mich. 207
S.C. 100 Am. Dec. 154 ;
Lorman v. Bensin, 8 Mich. 18
3 See : Woodman v. Pitman, 79 Me.
456 ; S.C. 1 Am. St. Rep. 343 ;
10 Atl. Rep. 821.
See : Paiae v. Woods, 108 Mass.
160, 173 ;
Inhabitante of West Roxbury v.
Stoddard, 89 Mass. (7 AUen)
158.
s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 489. ' ggg . p^gf^ g ^7.
' Village of Brooklyn v. Smith, 104 * See : BrookviUe & M. Hydraulic
111. 429 ; S.C. 44 Am. Rep. 90 ; Co. v. Butler, 91 Ind. 184 ; s.c.
Washington Ice Co. v. ShortaU, 46 Am. Rep. 580, 584 ;
101 m. 46 ; s.c.40 Am. Rep.196; Smith v. The City of Rochester,
State V. Pottemeyer, 33 Ind. 432 ; 92 N. Y. 468 ; s.c. 44 Am. Rep
S.C. 5 Am, Rep. 324 ; 393.
Chap. III. § 75.] ICE ON GREAT PONDS. 71
property of the state, that the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts have declared that the ice forming on such
bodies of water belongs to whoever can get access to and
cut it,^ so long as he does not interfere with the reason-
able exercise by others of the like rights in the pond.^
The same rule prevails in Maine.^ But where the ice has
formed on water over the land of a private proprietor, and
not within the natural limits of a " great pond, " — the soil
of the bed of whi6h is held to be public property, — the ice
will be the individual property of the owner of the shores
and bottom of the pond or stream.*
Sec. T5. Same— Same— 2. Mill-ponds.— A riparian owner
whose title runs to the center of a natural or artificial
pond has the right to cut the ice on the water over his
land, notwithstanding the right of another to flood such
land for mill purposes, so long as he does not thereby
actually and perceptibly injure the mill-owner in hia
privilege.^ This right results from and grows out of the
title to the bed of the stream or pond, and such right to
the use of the water as results therefrom.^ The right of a
1 See : Rowell v. Doyle, 131 Mass. See : Washington Ice Co. v.
474 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 255, note ; Shortall, 101 111. 46 ; s.c. 40 Am.
Gage V. Steinkrauss, 131 Mass. Rep. 196 ;
222 ; Jullen v. Woodsmall, 83 Ind. 568 ;
Hittinger v. Eames, 121 Mass. Edgerton v. Huff, 26 Ind. 35 ;
,539 ; State v. Pottemeyer, 33 Ind. 403 ;
Fay V. Salem & D. Aqueduct Co., s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 224 ;
111 Mass, 27 ; Paine i;. Woods, 108 Mass, 160, 173;
Commonwealth v. Vincent, 108 Elliot v. Fitchburg R. Co., 64
Mass. 441, 446 ; Mass. (10 Cush.) 191 ;
Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160, Cummingsu Barrett, 64 Mass. (10
169, 173 ; Cush.) 186 ;
Inhabitants of West Roxbury v. Bigelow v. Shaw, 65 Mich. 341 ;
Stoddard,89 Mass. (7 AUen) 158; r..c. 8 Am. St. Rep. 902 ; 33 N.
Cummings v. Barrett, 64 Mass. (10 W. Rep. 800 ;
Cush.) 186. Brown v. Brown, 30 N. Y. 519;
' Rowell 'v. Doyle, 131 Mass. 474 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 406 ;
s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 335, note ; Marshall v. Peters, 13 How. (N.
Inhabitants of West Roxbury v. Y.) Pr. 218 ;
Stoddard, 89 Mass. (7 Allen) DeBaun i;. Bean, 29 Hun (N. Y.)
158. 336 ;
'See: Brastow t). Rockport Ice Co. , Merritt v. Brmkerhoff, 17 John.
77 Me. 100. (^- Y.) 300 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec.
* See : Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 404.
]^gO 173 « Bigelow v. Shaw, 65 Mich. 341 ;
s BrookVille' & M. Hydraulic Co. v. s.c. 8 Am. St. Rep. 903 ; 33 N.
Butler, 19 Ind. 134; s.c. 46 Am. W. Rep. 800.
jjgrj 580 • Citing : Washington Ice Co. v.
Dodge V. Berry, 36 Hun (N. Y.) Shortall, 101 111,46 ; s.c. 40 Am.
246. Rep. 196 ;
72 ICE ON MILL-PONDS. [Book I.
mill-owner to pond water on the land of another is simply
a license or an easement,^ and does not take from the
owner of the fee the right to make any profitable use he
can of the land thus flooded, whether the right of flow-
age is acquired by agreement under statute, or through
prescription ; for in either case no right is acquired to
the land itself, or to the profits which a use of it will
produce.^ The owner of the servient estate has a right
to all the profits which may arise from the soil, and may
make such use of the soil as is not inconsistent with the
license or easement.^ The owner of the land flooded
must not indeed draw off by canals, aqueducts, or ditches
the water which has been raised by the dam,* but he
may use it for watering his cattle, irrigating his crops
and garden, or any other reasonable purpose which does
not particularly and in a perceptible and substantial
degree impair the right to run the mill ; and he may there-
fore take and carry away the water, when formed into
ice, for use or for sale, so long as he does not thereby
appreciably diminish the head of water at the dam of the
mill-owner.^
Brookville & M. Hydraulic Co. v. Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160 ;
Butler, 91 Ind. 134 ; s.o. 46 Am. Storm v. Manchang Co., 95 Mass.
Eep. 580 ; (13 Allen) 10 ;
Stevens v. Kelley, 78 Me. 445 ; Williams v. Nelson, 40 Mass. (33
S.C. 57 Am. Eep. 813 ; Pick.) 141 ; s.c. 34 Am. Dec. 45 ;
Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160, O'Linda v. Lathrop, 38 Mass. (21
173 ; Pick.) 293 ;
Marshall v. Peters, 13 How. (N. Earl-y. De Hart, 13 N. J En (1
Y. ) Pr. 318 ; Beas. ) 380 ; s. c. 72 Am. Dec. 395 ;
Dodge 17. Berry,36 Hun(N.Y.) 246. Bean v. Coleman, 44 K. H. 539 ;
' Brookville & M. Hydraulic Co. v. Emons v. Turnbull, 2 John (N
Butler, 91 Ind. 134 ; s.c. 46 Am. Y.) 313 ;
Rep. 580, 583 ; Mason v. Hill, 5 Bam. & Ad. 1 ;
Snowden v. Wilas, 19 Ind. 10; s.o. 87 Eng. C. L. 1.
s.c. 81 Am. Dec. 370 ; ^ Julien v. Woodsmal'l, 83 Ind. 568.
Baeri;.Martm, 8Blaokf.(Ind.)317. See : Brookville & M. Hydraulic
' Brookville & M. Hydraulic Go. v. Co. v. Butler, 91 Ind. 184 • s c
Butler, 91 Ind. 134 ; s.c. 46 Am. 46 Am. Rep. 580, 582 ; '
Eep. 580. Mason v. Hill, 5 Barn. & Ad. 1 ;
See : Julien v. Woodsmall, 82 s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 1.
Ind. 568 ; * Paine v. Woods, 108 Mass. 160,
State V. Pottemeyer, 33 Ind. 402 ; 173.
s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 334 ; See,: Brookville & M.Hydraulic
Edgerton v. Huff, 36 Ind. 35 ; Co. v. Butler, 91 Ind. 134 ; so
Snovrden v. Wilas, 19 Ind. 10 ; 46 Am. Rep. 580, 584 ;
Baer -y.Martin, 8 Blackf.(Ind.)317; Storm v. Manchang Co., 95 Mass
Maxwell v. MoAtee, 9 B. Mon. (13 Allen) 10 ;
(Ky.) 30 ; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 409 ; Cook v. Hull, 20 Mass. (S Pick )
Baker v. Frick, 45 Md. 837, 339; 269 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec 208
S.C. 34 Am. Eep. 506 ; ^ pai^g ^_ Woods, 108 Mass. 160, 173;
Chap. III. §§ 76, 77.] ICE ON CANALS. '73
Sec. T6. Same— On canals.— Where the public has con-
demned and taken land for the purpose of constructing
a canal, the owners of the fee of the lands through or
over which the canal passes, like the riparian proprietors
along a river or pond, are entitled to harvest the ice
therefrom, provided the taking does not interfere with
the use of the water for navigation and hydraulic pur-
poses.^ But where the legislature or the constitution of
the state has authorized the seizure of the fee when re-
quired for public purposes, and the fee is taken, the
owner will not have the right to the ice forming on the
water of the canal adjoining and attaching to his
premises. The reason of this is because in such case the
owner must be awarded, as compensation for the taking,
the value of his land ; and the payment of this award
deprives him not only of the land itself, but also of all
the rights and privileges attaching thereto.^
Where the state condemns the fee for the construction
of a canal, and afterwards, for a consideration, lets the
canal and the waters thereof for a specified time, trans-
ferring for that time " all tolls and revenues to be derived,
or which may accrue from " the use of such canal, this
will give to the transferees as much right to the ice
forming on such canal, and to the proceeds thereof, as
to the tolls and water-rents.^
Sec. 17. Same— Appropriation of ice.- In those states in
which the title to the soil of the bed of the navigable
streams and large ponds is in the state, the ice forming
Gumming v. Barrett, 64 Mass. Of the latter case we need only
(10 Cush.) 186. sa3-it is confessedly against the
Mill River Co. v. S m i t h, and weight of authority, is con-
ffiyer v. Whitiber, criticised. — demned by the courts of the
In the case Brookville & M. same state, is the decision of a
Hydraulic Co. v. Butler, 91 Ind. single judge, and is not well
134 ; s.c. 46 Am. Rep. 580, 584, reasoned. The decision in the
Judge Elliot, after reviewing first of these cases is that of a
the authorities and giving his divided court, and the reason-
adherence to the doctrine laid ing upon which it is founded is
down in the text, says : "With unsatisfactory."
the exception of the cases of ' Edgerton v. Huff, 26 Ind. 36.
Mill Eiver, etc., Co. v. Smith, ^ Water Works Co. v. Burkhart, 41
34 Conn. 462, and Myer v. Ind. 364.
Wliitaker, 5 Abbott (N. Y.) N. ' Cromie v. Trustees Wabash & Erie
Cas. 173, we have found none Canal Co., 71 Ind. 208.
asserting a contrary doctrine.
Y4 APPROPRIATION OF ICE. [Book I.
thereon belongs to the public at large, and any one who
can gain access to the same may appropriate and cut it. ^
But to entitle one person to property in any portion of
the ice on such a stream or pond, as against any other
comer, there must be definite acts of appropriation ; such
as staking off and definitely marking, scraping off the
snow, or otherwise preparing the ice for harvesting.^ It
is said by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine in the
recent case of Woodman v. Pitman,^ that ice-fields on
navigable rivers, after being stalced, fenced, and scraped,
are so far the property of the appropriator that an action
will lie against one who willfully disturbs his right. A
different rule, however, seems to be applied in Massa-
chusetts and Maine to what are known as ' ' Great
Ponds."* It is said that the right to cut ice on these
ponds is common to all the public ; but that no person
can, by his own act, appropriate a part of such a pond by
scraping it or setting up stakes, and thereby exclude the
public from it.^
Sec. Y8. Incorporeal hereditaments— Definition and nature.
— Incorporeal hereditaments are certain inheritable rights
which are not, strictly speaking, of a corporeal nature,
or land, but are, by their nature or by use, annexed to
corporeal inheritances, and certain rights issuing out of
them, or concerning them ; ^ such as a freehold right to a
pew in a church,'' or a seat in a board of exchange,^ or a
stall in a public market.^ The incorporeal rights known
to our laws are air, annuities, aquatic rights, commons,
easements, franchises, licenses, light, offices, routes, and
ways, and are all fully treated elsewhere.
Sec. 79. Land usually real estate.— Land is usually re-
garded as real estate, but where by will,i° contract, mar-
' Wood V. Fowler, 36 Kans. 682 ; Rowell v. Doyle, 131 Mass 474
s.c. 40 Am. Eep. 380. <■ 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 408.
« See : Barrett v. Eockport Ice Co., '3 Add. Eccl. 419 ; '
84 Me. 155 ; s.c. 35 Atl. Rep. 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 402.
803 ; 46 Alb. L. J. 295. See : Ante, %% 39-43.
» 79 Me. 456 ; s.c. 1 Am. St. Rep. » Hyde v. Woods, 94 U. S. 523 ■ bk
342 ; 10 Atl. Rep. 321. 24 L. ed. 864.
* See : Ante, § 74. a ggg . p^gf^ g gg^
5 See : People's Ice Co. v. Daven- '» Rinkin v. Itinkln, 36 111. 293 • s c
port, 149 Mass. 322 ; 87 Am. Dec. 205 ; ' ' '
Chap. III. § 79.] LAND USUALLY REAL ESTATE.
riage articles, settlements, or otherwise, land may have
been directed to be sold and converted into money, it will
be regarded as personal property and not real estate,^ and
Jennings v. Smith, 29 111. 133 ;
Baker i\ CopenbargejIftS lU. 103;
s.o. 58 iy^Jjec.iiet)^^
Heslet V. wKKk, 8 111. App. 26 ;
MeUy V. Wooa, 71 Pa. St. 488; s.o.
10 Am. Rep. 719 ;
Neeley v. Grantham, 58 Pa. St.
443;
Smihe v. Biffle, 3 Pa. St. 53 ; s.c.
44 Am. Dec. 156 ;
Simpson v. Kelso, 8 Watts (Pa.)
353;
Burr V. Sim, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 253 ;
S.C. 29 Am. Dec. 48 ;
Kane v. Gott, 24 Wend. (N. Y.)
641 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 641 ;
Proctor i: Ferebee, 1 Ired. (N. C.)
Eq. 143 ; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 34 ;
Tazewell v. Smith, 1 Rand. (Va.)
313 ; s.c. 10 Am. Deo. 533.
A oonTersion of realty into personalty
occurs where a testator devises
realty to his executors in trust
to seU and to apply the proceeds
to certain uses, as to create a
fund out of which to pay debts
and legacies (Proctor v. Fere-
bee, 1 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 143;
s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 34), or is ap-
Slied to the use of one for
fe, and afterwards distributed
among certain parties in re-
mainder.
SmUie v. BifHe, 3 Pa. St. 53 ; s.c.
44 Am. Deo. 156.
In such a case property becomes
personalty immediately upon
the testator's deatli,forall pur-
poses of the disposition, as ef-
fectually as if the testator had
himself sold the land and be-
queathed the proceeds in the
sahae way.
Kane v. Gott, 34 Wend. (N. Y.)
641 ; s.o. 35 Am. Dec. 641.
Where land is directed by will to.be
sold equity will treat it as money
unless some one, having a right
to do so, elect to take the land.
Tazewell v. Smith, 1 Rand. (Va.)
313; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 533.
Thus where proceeds of land
are devised the devisee may
elect to take the land.
Stuck V. Mackey, 4 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 196 ;
Smith V. Starr, 8 Whart. (Pa.)
63, 66 : s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 498 ;
Burr V. Sein, 1 Whilrt. (Pa.) 253 ;
s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 48 ;
Ashby V. Palmer, 1 Meriv. 396.
Election to tike lands regarded as a
new acquisition of the title to
such lands.
Proctor V. Ferebee, 1 Ired. (N. C.)
Eq. 143 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 34 ;
Foster's Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 391,
899 ; s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 553 ;
Simpson v. Kelso, 8 Watts (Pa.)
353;
Hannah v. Swarner, 3 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 233 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec.
754;
Burr V. Sim, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 353 ;
s.c. 39 Am. Deo. 48.
Same — Where there are several dis-
tributees the election to take the
land must be made by all.
NicoU V. Scott, 09 111. 539 ;
Ridgeway v. Underwood, 67 lU.
419, 430 ;
Jennings v. Smith, 29 111. 133 ;
Baker i\ Copenbarger, 15 111. 103;
s.c. 58 Am. Dec. 600 ;
Heslet V. Heslet, 8 111. App. 36.
' See : Neall v. Hill, 16 Cal. 145 ;
Collins V. Chaman's Heir, 15 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 118; s.o. 61 Am.
Dec. 179 ;
Loughborough's Ex. v. Lough-
borough's Devisees, 14 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 549 ;
Bliss V. Matteson, 45 N. Y. 23 ;
Manice v. Manice, 43 N. Y. 303,
373 '
Butts 'v. Wood, 37 N. Y. 817 ;
Flanagan v. Flanagan, 8 Abb.
' (N. Y.) N. Cas. 413, 417 ;
Johnson v. Bennett, 39 Barb.
(N. Y.) 351 ; s.c. 7 N. Y. Leg.
Obs. 209, reversing 3 Sandf . Ch.
(N. Y.) 531 ;
Arnold -u. Gilbert, 5 Barb. (N. Y.)
195, 196 ;
Eells V. Lynch, 8 Bosw. (N. Y.)
465, 483 ;
Grant v. Grant, 3 Redf. (N. Y.)
283, 286 ;
Kane v. Gott, 24 Wend. (N. Y.)
641; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 641;
Proctor V. Ferebee, 1 Ired. (N. C.)
Eq. 143 ; s.o. 36 Am. Deo. 84 ;
Parkinson's Appeal, 33 Pa. St.
458;
Burr V. Sim, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 252 ;
s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 48 ;
T6
DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE CONVERSION. [Book I.
passes by gift or under general or residuary bequest
of personal property,^ and in the absence of a will be-
comes assets in the hands of executors or administrators.^
This doctrine of equitable conversion is founded upon
the familiar rule of equity according to which that which
is agreed to be done, and which should be done, is re-
garded as having been done.^
Tazewell v. Smith, 1 Rand. (Va.)
313 ; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 533 ;
Koehler v. Black River Falls Iron
Co., 67 U. S. (2 Black.) 715 ; bk.
17 L. ed. 339 ;
Dodge V. Woolsey, 59 U. S. (18
How.) 331, 341 ; bk. 15 L. ed.
401 ;
Hayford v. Benlows, Ambl. 583 ;
s.c. Free. Ch. 451; 2 Vern. 718;
Gibb. Exch. Rep. 125 ;
Morret v. Paske, 3 Atk. 51 ;
Fox V. Mackreth, 2 Bro. Ch. 400 ;
S.C. 2 Cox Eq. 320 ; 1 Eq. Lead.
Cas. Ill ;
Gt. Luxembourg R. Co. v.
Magnay, 25 Beav. 586 ;
Gresley v. Mousley, 4 DeG. &
J. 78 ; s.c. 3 DeG. F. & J. 433 ;
Knight V. Bowyer, 2 DeG. & J.
421, 445 ;
Hesse v. Briant, 6 DeG. M. & G.
623;
Holman v. Loynes, 4 DeG. M. &
G. 270 ;
Savery v. King, 5 H. L. Cas. 627;
Knox V. Gye, L. R. 5 H. L. 656,
675; s.c. 4 Moak's Eng. Rep. 44 ;
Wedderburn v. Wedderbum, 4
Myl. & Cr. 41 ;
Docker v. Somes, 2 Myl. & K.
665;
Bent V. Stamford, 1 Salk. 154 ;
Keech v. Sandford, 1 Sel. Cas.
in Ch. temp. King, 61 ; s.c. 1
Eq. Lead. Cas. 48 ;
Powell V. Glover, 3 Pr. Wms. 253.
Compare: Ware v. Murph, 1
Rich. (S. C.) L. 54; s.c. 33 Am.
Dec. 97 ;
Evans v. Kingsberry, 2 Rand.
(Va.) 120 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 779.
' Fisher v. Banta. 66 N. Y. 468 ;
Estate of Dobson, 11 Phila. (Pa).
81;
Chandler v. Pocock, L. K. 16 Ch.
Div. 648 ; s.c. 15 Id. 491 ;
Blake v. Blake, L. R. 15 Ch. Div.
481;
Farrar v. Winterton, 5 Beav. 1;
WaU V. Colshead, 2 DeG. & J. 683;
Stead V. Newdigate, 2 Meriv. 531.
' Loftis V. Glass, 15 Ark. 680 ;
Rawlings' Ex'r v. Landes, 2 Bush
(Ky.) 158 ;
Smithers v. Hooper, 33 Md. 273
Maddox v. Dent, 4 Md. Ch. 543
Carr v. Ireland, 4 Md. Ch. 251
Hurtt V. Fisher, 1 Harr. &G. (Md.)
88, 96 ;
Wurt's Ex'rs v. Page, 19 N. J.
Eq. (4 C. E. Gr.) 365;
Hood V. Hood, 85 N. Y. 561 ;
Fisher v. Banta, 66 N. Y. 468 ;
Van Vechteni;. Keator, 63 N. Y.
52 ■
Moncrief v. Ross, 50 N. Y. 431 ;
Harris v. Slaght, 46 Barb. (N. Y.)
470;
Johnson v. Bennett, 39 Barb. 237 ;
Freeman v. Smith, 60 How.
(N. Y.) Pr. 311 ;
Ex parte McBee, 63 N. C. 332 ;
Croom V. Herring, 4 Hawks.
(N. C.) 393 ;
Brothers v. Cartwright, 3 Jones
(N. C.) Eq. 113 ; s.c. 64 Am.
Dec. 563 ;
Collier v. Collier's Ex'rs, 3 Ohio
St. 369 ;
Ferguson v. Stuart's Ex'rs, 14
Ohio, 140, 146 ;
Jones V. Caldwell, 97 Pa. St. 42 ;
Eby's Appeal, 84 Pa. St. 341 ;
McClure's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 414;
Brolasky v. Gaily "s Ex'rs, 51 Pa.
St. 509 ;
Parkinson's Appeal, 33 Pa.St.455;
Wilkins v. Taylor, 8 Rich. (S. C.)
Eq. 391 ;
Washington's Ex'r v. Abraham,
6 Gratt. (Va.), 66, 77 ;
Siter V. M'Clanachan, 3 Gratt,
(Va.) 280 ;
Commonwealth v. Martin's Ex'rs,
5 Munf. (Va.) J17, 127 ;
Hoddel V. Pugh, 33 Beav. 489 ;
Griffith V. Ricketts, 7 Hare, 399 ;
Ashby V. Palmer, 1 Meriv. 296 ;
Elliott V. Fisher, 13 Sim. 505.
* See : Stokes v. Detrick, 75 Md.
356 ; s.c. 33 Atl. Rep. 846 ;
Chap. III. §§ 80, 81.] LEASE-HOLD ESTATES. 77
Sec. 80. Same — Exceptions to the general rule.— But
where land is to be converted into money for an especial
purpose, it is not to be regarded as personal property to
all intents and purposes. ^ Thus where land is directed
to be sold on a certain condition, it is not thereby con-
verted into personal estate ; ^ but on valid sale of the
estate as directed, the surplus will be considered as per-
sonalty.^ It is the established doctrine in the courts of
equity that where there is an investment of a part or the
whole of the personal estate of a lunatic^ or an infant^
in lands, it is to be taken as personalty on the death of the
one without a recovery of his reason and the demise of
the other without attaining majority, and goes to the
heir at law.^ In England it is said that the reason why
an infant's personal estate turned into real estate is con-
sidered as personalty is on account of the different ages
at which the infant may dispose of personal and real
estates, and not in favor of one representative more than
another.'''
Sec. 81. Lease-hold estate.— At common law leases of
houses or lands for terms of years are not real property
but personal estate,^ even though the rent be nominal and
the term ninety -nine or even one thousand years.® In
this country a disposition has been shown to assimilate
freeholds for a long term of years to real estate. The
Eipley v. Seligman, 88 Mich. 177 ; * OoUins v. Champ's Heirs, 15 B.
s.c. 50 N. W. Rep. 143 ; Mon. (Ky.) 118 ; s.c. 61 Am.
Ashhurst v. Potter, 29 N. J. Eq. Dec. 179, 180.
(3 Stew.) 635, 643 ; Lunatic's land— In England In the
Williamson v. New Jersey S. R. case of a lunatic the land will
Co. , 29 N. J. Eq. (3 Stew.) 311 ; go to the next of kin and not to
s.c. 15 Am. Rev. Rep. 573 ; the heir at law.
Chamberlain v. Taylor, 105 N. Y. Awdley v. Awdley, 3 Vern. 192.
85 ; S.C. 11 N. E. Rep. 625 ; 7 ' Pierson v. Shore, 1 Atk. 480.
Cent. Rep. 293. In England purchase money paid
' Gibbs V. Ougier, 12 Ves. 413 ; s.c. into court for land of which an
8 Rev. Rep. 348. infant is seized in fee, remains
* Evans v. Kingsberry, 3 Rand. real estate under Land Clauses
fVa.) 130 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. Act, 1845, J 69.
779. Kelland v. Fulford, L. R. 6 Ch.
8 Evans v. Kingsberry, 3 Rand. Div. 411 ; s.c. 35 W. R. 506.
(Va ) 130 : s.c. 14 Am. Dec. * Freeman v. Dawson, 110 U. S.
779. 364 ; bk. 38 L. ed. 141.
* Awdley v. Awdley, 2 Vern. 193. See : Bract. 1. 3, f. 37a, par. 1 ;
6 Tullit V. TuUit, Ambl. 370 ; s.c. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 46a.
Dick. 333 ; ° Williams on Real Property, 8.
Pierson v. Shore, 1 Atk. 480.
78 AIR, LIGHT, AND MANUEE. [Book I.
courts have in some instances construed the terms ' ' land "
and "realty "to include them, ^ and some of the states
hare by statute made them real estate.^
Sec. 83. Light and air.— An easement of light and air
is an incorporeal hereditament,^ and like all other ease-
ments upon or in land is an interest in lands, but not real
property.*
Sec. 83. Manure — Real estate when.— The general rule
is that manure made upon a farm in the ordinary course
of husbandry, from consumption of the farm produce,
consisting of the collection from the stables and barnyard,
or of composts formed by an admixture of these with soil
and other substances, by usage, practice, and general un-
derstanding, are so attached to and connected with the
realty as. to be a part of it ; ^ and in the absence of an ex-
press stipulation to the contrary, passes with a con-
veyance of the land as appurtenant.® This doctrine rests
upon the ground that it is for the interest of good hus-
bandry, and the encouraging of agriculture, that manure
produced upon a farm, in the common course of hus-
bandry, should be consumed upon it, and that the farm
should not be impoverished by the removal therefrom of
the material necessary for its enrichment and the growth
1 See : Dawson v. Daniel, 2 Flipp. Sawyer v. Twiss, 36 N. H. 345 •
C. C. 301, 317, 318. Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend.
' See : Cincmnati College v. Yeat- (N. Y.) 169 ;
man, 30 Ohio St. 276 ; Stone v. Proctor, 2 D. Chip. (Vt.)
Alexander v. MiUer, 7 Heisk. 118.
(Tenn.) 65. « Strong v. Doyle, 110 Mass. 92 ;
8 See : Ante, § 78. Fay v. Muzzey, 79 Mass. (13
* Ray u Sweeney, 14 Bush (Ky.)l ; Gray) 53; s.c. 74 Am. Dec.
S.C. 29 Am. Rep. 388, 391. 619.
See : Post, chapters on " Ease- See : Haslem v. Lockwood, 37
ments and Servitudes." Conn. 500 ; s.c. 9 Am Ren
' Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (31 350 ;
Pick.)367;s.c. 32Am. Dec.269. Chase u Wingate, 68 Me. 204-
See : Parson v. Camp, 11 Conn. s.c. 28 Am. Rep. 36 ; -
525 ; HUl v. De Rochemont, 48 N. H
Vehue v. Moser, 76 Me. 469 ; s.c. 88 ;
2 Cent. L. J. 93 ; Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H:
Lassell v. Reed, 6 Me. (6 Greenl.) 503 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 393 ;
232 ; Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend.
Gallagher v. Shipley, 24 Md. 418 ; (N. Y.) 636 ;
s.c. 87 Am. Dec. 611 ; Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N Y.
Plumer v. Plumer, 30 N. H. 558 ; 142.
Conner v. Coffin, 27 N. H. 538 ;
Chap. III. § 84.] MADE IN NON- AGRICULTURAL PURSUITS. 79
of the succeeding crops. ^ This rule holds true no matter
what state and condition the manure may be in ; whether
scattered about the barnyard and cow-lot,^ or piled up in
heaps in the barnyard or in the fields where it is to ba
used as dressing ; ^ or on the land where dropped ; * and
whether consisting of the collection from the stables and
the barnyard, or of composts formed by the admixture
of these with the soil and other substances.^ The rule
applies alike between vendor and vendee,® between
mortgagor and mortgagee,^ and between landlord and
tenant.^
Sec. 84. Same — Where made in other than agricultural
' Haslem v. Lockwood, 37 Conn.
500 ; S.C. 9 Am. Rep. 350 ;
Chase v. Wingate, 68 Me. 304 ;
s.c. 28 Am. Rep. 36 ;
Fay V. Muzzey, 79 Mass. (13 Gray)
53 ; s.c. 74 Am. Dec. 619.
2 Parson v. Camp, 11 Conn. 030.
8 Chase v. Wingate, 68 Me. 204;
s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 36 ;
Lassell v. Reed, 6 Me. 222 ;
Strong V. Doyle, 110 Mass. 93 ;
Fay V. Muzzey, 79 Mass. (13 Gray)
53;
Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (21
Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec.
269;
Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H.
503; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 393,
396;
Goodrich v. Jones, 2 HiU (N.
Y.) 142.
* See : Hill v. De Rochemont, 48
N. H. 87 ;
French v. Freeman, 43 Vt. 93.
s Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (21
Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec.
269.
« Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (21
Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec.
269;
Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H.
503 ; s.c. 14 Ain. Dec. 393 ;
Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.)
142.
' Chase v. Wingate, 68 Me. 204 ;
s.c. 28 Am. Rep. 36.
' Parsons v. Camp, 11 Conn. 530 ;
Chase v. Wingate, 68 Me. 204;
s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 36 ;
Lassell v. Reed, 6 Me. 232 ;
Gallagher v. Shipley, 24 Md. 418 ;
s.c. 87 Am. Dec. 611;
Fay V. Muzzey, 79 Mass. (13 Gi-ay)
55 ; s.c. 74 Am. Dec. 619 ;
Lewis V. Lyman, 39 Mass. (3
Pick.) 437; s.c. 74 Am. Dec.
019;
Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (31
Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec.
269 •
Perry v. Carr, 44 N. H. 118 ;
Yv'adley v. Janvln, 41 N. H. 519 ;
s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 780 ;
Plumer v. Plumer, 30 N. H. 558 ;
Sawyer v. Twiss, 26 N. H. 840 ;
Kitti-edge v. Woods, 3 N. H.
503; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 003;
Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.)
143;
Middlebrook r. Corwin, 15 Wend.
(N. Y.) 169 ;
Lewis r. Jones, 17 Pa. St. 263 ;
s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 550 ;
Browni'. Crump, 3 Swan (Tenn.)
531;
Wetherbee v. Ellison, 19 Vt.
379;
Stone V. Proctor, 2 D. Chip (Vt.)
103;
Onslow V. , 16 Ves. 173 ;
Pulteney v. Shelton, 5 Ves. 147 ;
s.c. 5 Id. 260, 261.
lassell V. Eeed stiU good law. — The
case of Lassell v. Reed, 6 Me.
233, is supposed to be impaired
by the subsequent one of
Staples V. Emery, 7 Me. 201,
but this case does not profess
to call in question the correct-
ness of the decision in the
former one ; on the contrary
the court affirm it, distinguish-
ing the principle.
80 MADE ON NON-AGRICULTURAL LANDS. [Book L
purstiits.— This rule, however, apphes only to manures
made on the premises in the usual course of husbandry.
Hence, where a lease is general in its terms, and says
nothing of the mode in which the tenant is to use the
demised premises, and he constructs thereon a corral for
cattle which he feeds with supplies procured from sources
foreign to the land, the manure produced thereby will be
regarded as his personal property,-' and he or his assignee
may, during his term, remove all such manure that is
not co-mingled with the soil,^ provided reasonable care
and skill are used in removing it from the land, so as to
prevent injury thereto.^ But the fact that a tenant
furnishes to his live-stock some hay and some grain not
raised upon the premises, will not give him any title to
the manure made, especially if he does not specify how
much of either he supplied, and what proportion they bore
to the whole amount of hay, grain, and straw supplied.^
Sec. 85. Same— Made on non-agricultural lands.— The gen-
eral rule does not apply to manure made in a livery
stable,^ or in any manner not connected with agricult-
ure, or not made in the ordinary course of husbandry.^
Where the lands are not agricultural the reason for the
» Gallagher v. Shipley, 24 Md. 418 ; Corey v. Bishop, 48 N. H. 146 ;
s.c. 87 Am. Dec. 611 ; Carroll v. Newton, 17 How. (N.
Corey v. Bishop, 48 N. H. 146. Y.) Pr. 189.
Manure made raising hogs.^-The May remove soil with manure. —
same is true where the manure Some of the cases hold that the
is made in the business of rais- tenant may remove the soil
ing hogs, not fed upon the pro- that becomes mixed with the
ducts of the land ; and the manure in the process of heap-
nature of the manure is not ing it up.
changed from personalty to See : Snow v. Perkins, 68 Me.
realty by being mixed with 493 ; s.c. 49 Am. Rep. 333 ;
loam drawn from other lands. Smith wick v. Ellison, 2 Ired. (N.
Snow V. Perkins, 68 Me. 493; C.) L. 336; s.c. 38 Am. Deo.
s.c. 49 Am. Rep. 333. 697.
= Higgon V. Mortuner, 6 Car. & P. * Lewis v. Jones, 17 Pa. St. S67 ;
616 ; s.c. 25 Eng. C. L. 604. s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 550.
In Norti Carolina, where manure ^ Dowels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (21
is declared to be personal prop- Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec.
erty and not real estate, it is 269.
held that soil mixed with the * Snow v. Perkins, 60 N. H. 498 ;
manure, in the operation of s.c. 49 Am. Rep. 333;
heaping it up, may be removed Plumer v. Plumer, 30 N. H. 558 ;
therewith. Needham v. Allison, 24 N. H.
Smithwick v. Ellison, 2 Ired. (N. 355 ;
C.)L. 326; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 697. Lewis v. Jones, 17 Pa. St. 267;
* Gallagher v. Shipley, 24 Md. 418 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 550.
s.c. 87 Am. Dec. 611 ,■
Chap. III. §§86, 87.] AGREEMENT RESPECTING MANURE. 81
rule ceases, and the rule itself does not apply. Thus
where a teamster owning a small house and stable,
with a small yard, sold them, the Supreme Court of New
Hampshire held that the manure made by the team and
stored in the cellar was personal property and did not
pass with the land.^ Where manure is dropped in the
streets the fee to which is in the corporation, or on other
lands the fee to which is in the public, it will belong to
the first taker. ^
Sec. 86. Same — Agreement of parties respecting. — While
the general rule set out is applied in whatever situation
or condition manure may be found before it is finally ex-
pended upon the soil, it is, until such application to the
soil, an incident of the real estate of such peculiar char-
acter that, while it remains consecutively annexed, it
will be personal property if the parties interested agree
to so treat it.^ Thus, it has been held that a verbal
sale of manure will constitute a severance and passes the
title to it as personal property, and that a subsequent
conveyance of the farm will not carry such manure as
appurtenant to the premises, or divest the' title of the
purchaser to the same.* It seems that where manure
is so made as to be, or by agreement is, the personal
property of an outgoing tenant, it does not necessarily
become real estate by being left upon the premises after
the expiration of the tenancy.^
Sec. 87. Same— New Jersey and North Carolina doctrine.—
The general rule, that manure made upon a farm in the
course of husbandry is a part of the real estate, does
not prevail in New Jersey and North Carolina, where it is
regarded as personal property, and on the sale of the
land does not pass therewith as incident to or part of it.*
■ Proptor V. Gilson, 49 N. H. 63. " Strong v. Doyle, 110 Mass 93 ;
» Haslem v. Lockwood, 87 Conn. French v. Freeman, 43 Vt. 93.
500 • s c. 9 Am. Rep. 350. "■ Fletcher v. Herrmg, 113 Mass.
= Strong V. Doyle, 110 Mass. 93. 383. ^ , ^ oq ivr t
See- Ford «. Cobb, 30 N. Y. « Ruokman v. Cutwater, 38 N. J.
344. L. (4Dutcli.)581.
Noble'-y. Sylvester, 43 Vt. 146.
6
82 MARKET STALLS. [Book L
In the absence of a contract or a custom to the contrary,
such manure may be removed or sold by an outgoing
tenant, where made by him on the premises, because it is
regarded as his personal estate.^ The rule is the same in
New Brunswick.
Sec. 88. Same— English rule.— Under the English rule,
it seems that, by the cusfom of the country, the tenant
is entitled to claim compensation for the manure made
during his occupancy and as yet unappropriated to the
soil.^
Sec. 89. Market stalls.— The stalls in a public market,
like the pews in a church, do not carry with them abso-
lute property, but a qualified right only. The right
acquired is in the nature of an easement in, not a title
to, a freehold in the land ; and such right or easement is
limited in duration to the existence of the market, and is
to be understood as acquired subject to such changes and
modifications in the market during its existence as the
public needs may require. The purchase of such stalls
confers an exclusive right ta occupy them, with their
appendages, for the purposes of the market, and none
other. If the owner be disturbed in the possession of
the stalls, at common law, he may maintain case or
trespass, according to the nature and circumstance of the
injury, against the wrong-doer. But he cannot convert
them to any other use than that for which they were
sold ; and in the use of them he is required to conform
to the regulations of the market, as prescribed by the
ordinances of the city. This is by analogy to the prin-
ciples applied in respect to the rights of pew-holders,^
and it is thought that the analogy between those rights
and the right acquired in market stalls is sufficiently
exact to make the principlo applicable in the one case
' Smithwick v. Ellison, 2 Ired. (N. See: Sanders v. EllinKton, 77 N.
C.) L. 336 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. C. 255. "
697. ' See : Eoberts v. Baker, 1 Crompt.
Citing : Eoberts v. Baker, 1 & M. 808.
Crompt. & M. 808 ; ^ See: Ante, 88 40, 41.
Beaty v. Gibbons, 16 East 116.
Chap. III. § 90.] MINES AND MINERALS.
83
equally applicable in the other. ^ And market stalls,
like church pews, in the absence of statutes controlling,
partake of the nature of realty, although the ownership
is that of an exclusive easement for special purposes
only.^
Sec. 90. Mines and minerals.— It is a general maxim of
the common law that he who owns the soil owns all
above and beneath the surface, cujus est solum, ejus est
usque ad coelum, et al infra. ^ He owns not only what
is growing upon or affixed to the soil, as trees, and the
like, but also all mines and minerals beneath the sur-
face in a direct line to the center of the earth, includ-
ing all mines or veins of metal,* or minerals,^ coal,
' Jackson v. Roonesville, 46 Mass.
(5 Met.) 137;
Howard v. First Parish in North
Bridgewater, 34 Mass. (7 Pick.)
138;
Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.)
103; s.o. 11 Am. Dec. 151;
Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 435; s.c.
9 Am. Dec. 159;
Shaw V. Beveridge, 3 HiU (N. Y.)
36;
Hinde v. Chorlton, L. R. 3 C. P.
104.
« Trustees of the First Baptist
Church of Ithaca v. Bigelow, 16
Wend. (N. Y.) 28.
See: Daniel v. Wood, 18 Mass. (1
Pick.) 102 ;
Gay V. Baker, 17 Mass. 439; s.c.
9 Am. Dec. 159;
Church V. Wells, 24 Pa. St. 249.
' Kerr's " Achudicated Words,
Phrases, and Applied Maxims."
See: Canfield v. Ford, 28 Barb.
(N. Y.) 336, 338;
Rowan «. Kelsey, 18 Barb. (N. Y.)
484, 489;
Dows V. Congdon, 16 How. (N.
Y.)Pr. 571,573;
Mahone v. Brown, 13 Wend. (N.
Y.) 361, 263; s.o. 38 Am. Dec.
461;
Patterson v. Philadelphia & R.
R. Co. (Pa.), 36 W. N. C. 337.
' A gold mine is real estite and can
be transferred only by an in-
strument in writing.
Melton V. Lambard, 51 Cal. 358.
6 An elaborate inquiry into the va-
rious senses in which the word
' ' mineral " may be used was
made by Vice-Chancellor Kin-
dersly in DarviQ v. Roper, 3
Drew, 394.
Tlie word " metals " used tefore
" minerals " indicates that the
latter word is to be given its
full meaning.
The word " minerals," though more
frequently applied to sub-
stances containing metal, in its
E roper sense includes all fossil
odies or matter dug out of
mines.
Rosse V. Waimman, 14 Mees. &
W. 859.
Gas, oil, and water are to be clas-
sified as minerals.
Westmoreland & Cambria Nat-
ural Gas Co. V. DeWitt, 130 Pa.
St. 235; s.c. 18 Atl. R. 734; 5
L. R. A. 731.
See: 1 Ball. Ann. L. of R. P.,
§317.
Gold and sand are not included.
Attorney-General v. Mylchrest,
40 L. T. N. S. 767.
See: 9 Cent. L. J. 321.
Compare: Moore v. Smaw, 17
Cal. 199; s.c. 79 Am. Deo. 133.
Petroleum is a species of mineral.
Keir v. Peterson, 41 Pa. St. 363.
Stones dug from a quarry are also.
Michlethwait v. Winter, 6 Ex.
644; B.C. 30 L. J. Ex. 313.
84
OWNER ENTITLED TO MINERALS.
[Book I.
china clay or kaolin,^ freestone,^ gas,^ gold/ iron,^ oil,*
paint-stone/ quarry-stone,^ silver,^ and water, ^^ and
all fossil and water formations. ^^ The owner of the
freehold is, prima facie, entitled to all the minerals and
strata of coal, clay, ore, lime, marble, and the like, not as
a separate estate, but as a part of the fee and inheritance,
and they will all pass by descent, or by conveyance,
without special designation,^ in the absence of a sever-
ance of the mine, and a distinct estate and interest
created in them by grant or reservation.^^ But a grant
or reservation of "mines and minerals " does not embrace
everything in the mineral kingdom, as distinguished
' Hext V. Gill, L. R. 7 Ch. App.
699; s.c. 36 L/ T. N. S. 503; 3
Moak's Eng. Rep. 574; 7 Alb.
L. J. 60.
'BeUu Wilson, L.R. 1 Oh. App.
,303; s.c. 14 L. T. N. S. 115.
' Gas is a mineral, and while in situ
is part of the land. But while
a mineral, gas has peculiar
attributes, and may be classed
with water and oil— if the an-
alogy be not too fantiiful — as
fercB naturae. Their furtive
and wandering existence with-
in the Umits of a particular
tract is uncertain. They belong
to the owner of the land, and
are a part of it, so long as they
are on or in it, and are under
his control ; but when they
. escape and go on other land, or
come imder another's control,
' the title of the f prmer owner is
gone.
See: Westmorelgfnd & Cambria
Natural Gas Co. v. DeWitt, 130
Pa. St. 335; /s.c. 18 Atl. Rep.
724; 5 L. R. A. 731; 1 Ball.
Ann. L. of R. P. 1893, § 317.
Brown v. Vaiidergrift, 80 Pa. St.
147, 148.
* Mocre v. Smaw, 17 Gal. 199; s.c. 79
Am. Dec. 133.
Compare : Attorney-General v.
.-Mylchrest, 4 L. T. N. S. 767;
S.C. 9 Cent. L. J. 331.
' Lee V. Baumgardener, 86 Va. 315;
s.,c. 10 S. E. Rep. 3; 1 Ball. Ann.
L.of R. P. 1893, 415, §314.
« Ki^u. Peterson, 41Pa. St. 347,363.
Oil, like .water,, islnot,. the subject
of property except while in
actual occupancy.
Dark v. Johnson, 55 Pa. St. 164;
s.c. 93 Am. Deo. 733.
Same — Part of land. — But is a part
of the land while in situ.
Westmoreland & Canabria Nat-
ural Gas Co. V. DeWitt, 130 Pa.
St. 235; s.c. 18 Atl. Rep. 734;
5 L. R. A. 731;
Brown v. Vandergrift, 80 Pa. St.
147, 148.
■" Paint-stone. — Tlie term " mines
and minerals " in a grant will
pass paint-stone obtained by
the ordinary means of mining,
and found below the surface of
the soil in strata distinct from
the ordinary earth.
Hartwell v. Camman, 10 N. J.
Eq. (2 Stockt.) 138; s.c. 64 Am.
Dec. 448.
» Michlethwait v. Winter, 6 Ex.
Ch. 313; s.c. 30 L. J. Ex. 313.
' Moore V. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199; s.c.
73 Am. Dec. 123.
'" Water is to be classified as a min-
ei-al.
Westmoreland & Cambria Nat-
ural Gas Co. V. DeWitt, 130 Pa.
St. 335; S.C. 18 Atl. Rep. 734; 5
L. R. A. 731; 1 Ball. Ann. L. of
R. P. 1892, § 317.
" Bourne v. Taylor, 10 East 189,
305; s.c. 10 Rev. Rep. 367, 279;
Townley v. Gibson, 3 T. R. 705;
s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 600;
Grey v. Northumberland, 17 Ves.
382.
See: Eardley v. GranviUe, 3 Ch.
Div. 836; s.c. 4 L. J. Ch. 669;
34 L. T. 609.
" Adams v. The Briggs Iron Co., 61
. .Mass..(7Pusli.JM,.§Q.6.. ^ :
'* Riddle v. Brown, 30 Ala. 413; s.c.
56 Am. Dec. 203.
Chap. in. §§ 91, 92.] COMMON LAW DOCTRINE. §5
from all other things that belong to the vegetable and
animal kingdom, nor is confined to any of the divisions
into which chemists separate the minerals. ^ All mines
and minerals pass with the land unless expressly reserved
in the grant. ^
Sec. 91. Same— Common-law doctrine.— In the laws of
England it has always been regarded as a fundamental
principle that the king, by his prerogative, is entitled to
all mines of gold and silver within the realm, whether
they be in the lands of the king or of the subjects, and
he has a right to dig and carry away these ores, with
such incidents thereto as are necessary for the getting of
the ore.^ This doctrine had its origin in the king's duty
to defend the realm, and to coin and furnish the currency
required for this purpose, and for the use of trade and
commerce. To be enabled to do this the right to the
mines of gold and silver was indispensably necessary.*
But a mine royal, either of base metal, containing gold
and silver, or of pure gold and silver only, may be severed
from the crown by grant of the king, and conveyed to
another by apt and precise words. '^ Such right will not
pass under a grant of land from the crown, however,
unless there was an intention that it should pass, and this
intention is expressed by apt and precise words. ^
Sec. 93. Same— Boyal charters.- By most of the royal
charters under which this country was settled, the grant
of the soil expressly includes "all mines," as well as
every other thing included in or borne in or upon it ; re-
serving as rent only, in the reddendum, one-fifth part of
all the gold and silver ore, to be delivered at the pit's
mouth, free of charge. Such were the charters of Con-
» Hartwell v. Camman, 10 N. J. 2 Co. Inst. 577, 578;
Eq. (2 Stockt.) 128; s.c. 64 Am. 3 Kent. Com. (IStli ed.) 378, note.
Dec 448 * Queen v. Northumberland, 1
« See: Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199; Plowd. 310, 315-316;
s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 123. 1 Bl. Com. 294.
» See: Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199; = Queen v. Northumberland, 1
S.C. 79 Am. Dec. 123, 132-138; Plowd. 310.
Lyddall v. Weston, 3 Atk. 19; « Woolley v. Attorney-General of
Queen v. Northumberland, 1 Victoria, 36 L. T. Eep. (N. S.)
Plowd. 310; 121.
2 Bl. Com. 294, 395;
86 NEW YORK DOCTRINE. [Book J.
necticTit, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Penn-
sylvania, and Virginia. In the charter of North Carolina
one-fourth was thus reserved ; and in that of Massa-
chusetts one-fifth of the precious stones was also included.
By the charter of Charles II. to the Duke of York,
March 12, 1663, granting the territory extending from
Nova Scotia to Delaware Bay, all the mines were ex-
pressly granted without any reservation ; and for this
reason a reservation is expressly found in the statutes of
New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. It being con-
ceded and declared ^ that a mine royal may by the king's
grant be severed from the crown and granted to a private
party, it follows that upon the separation of these states
from Great Britain, the former did not succeed to the
prerogative right to gold and silver mines in these states
where the mines were included in the terms of the char-
ters. Whether the states could dem.and the fifth or
fourth parts reserved as rent as the assignees of the
crown at law, or by force of the treaty of peace ; and
whether the federal government of the United States
may claim the same proportion as the assignee of the
states, under the constitution, or the whole people by
their own prerogative, on the original grounds as above
set forth, are questions that have been raised,^ but avail
naught to discuss here.
Sec. 93. Same— New York doctrine.— The doctrine of
royal mines is adopted in New York. The state's right
as sovereign, to the gold and silver mines in the common-
wealth was asserted at an early date,^ and re-asserted by
legislative act as late as 1828 ;* and all letters patent
issued by the state have contained an exception and res-
ervation to the people of the state of all gold and silver
mines on the land conveyed.^ But by statute the dis-
coverers of such mines, as a reward for their discoveries,
' Case of Mines, 1 Plowd. 336. ^ See : N. Y. Rev. Stat., pt. I., c. 9,
' See : State of Georgia v. Canatoo, tit. 11 ; 1 N. Y. Rev. Stat. (Sth
National Intelligencer, Goto- ed.) |817 ; 3 Rev. Stat. Codes &
ber34, 1843; L., p. 1983.
3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 378, note. » See : 1 N. Y. Rev. Stat. (Sth ed.)
» Stat. Feb. 6, 1789 ; Sess. L. 13, o. 1618, § 5 ; 2 Rev. Stat. Codes &
18. L. p. 1781, § 5.
Chap. III. §§ 94, 95, 96.] , CALIFORNIA DOCTRINE. 87
are permitted to enjoy their produce free from any com-
pensation to the state for the period of twenty-one years. ^
Sec. 94. Same— Pennsylvania doctrine.— The royal char-
ter granted to William Penn reserved as rent one-fifth
of the precious metals found in the land granted, and the
patents granted by Penn reserved two-fifths. It is only
since the statute of 1843 that the patents granted by the
state of Pennsylvania pass the entire estate of the
commonwealth.^
Sec. 95. Same— Georgia doctrine.— In an early Georgia
case it was held that the right and title to land includes
the right to all the minerals therein, unless they were
separated from the land by positive grant or exception ;
and that if the state made a grant of public lands to an
individual without excepting the mines and minerals,
such mines and minerals pass to the grantee as part and
parcel of the land granted.^
Sec. 96. Same— California doctrine.-In Calif ornia it was
formerly held that the state, by virtue of its sovereignty,
was the sole owner of the gold and silver mines found
in the public lands within its limits, and declared that
similar mines found in the lands of private citizens also
belonged to the state government by the same right, as-
suming that the several states of the Union, in virtue
of their respective sovereignties, were entitled to the
jura regalia which, pertained to the king at common law.*
But this doctrine has been overruled, Chief Justice
Field remarking in Moore v. Smaw^ that it is in the
assumption as to the jura regalia that the error of the
doctrine consists. After much discussion it seems to
have been finally settled in California that the owner-
ship of precious metals, found in private or public
lands in that state, is incident to the ownership of the
' ' 1 N. Y. Rev. Stat. (8th ed.), p. 1818. See : 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 878,
84:2 Rev. Stat. Codes & L., p. note b.
1983, g 4. " Hicks v. Bell, 3 Cal. 219.
'See- 2'Bouv. L. Die. (15th ed.) See: Stoakes v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 36.
336. 5 17 Cal. 119 ; s.c. 79 Am. Deo. 128,
' State V. Canatoo, National Intel- 133.
ligencer, October 24, 1843.
CONVEYANCE OF MINERALS.
[Book I.
soil, and that the metals do not belong to the govern-
ment as an incident of its sovereignty.^
Sec. 91. Same — Severance and conveyance. — Metals and
minerals in place are land,^ and may be conveyed by deed
distinct from the right to the surface.^ They are incor-
poreal hereditaments distinct from the surface/ and pass
by apt words in a deed, although not susceptible of
livery of seisin, delivery and registry of the deed being
substituted therefor,^ Thus one person may own the
surface, and another may be entitled, by conveyance, to
the iron, another to the limestone, and another still to a
stratum of coal.® Where so severed mines and minerals
are still regarded as real estate,' and are governed by
' Ah Hee v. Crippen, 19 Cal. 491.
See: Ah Lew v. Choate, 34 Cal.
562;
Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199; s.c.
79 Am. Dec. 123, 193;
Merced. Mining Co. v. Boggs, 14
Cal. 279; s.c. 70 U. S. (3 Wall.)
304; bk. 18 L. ed. 245;
United States v. CastiEero, 67 U.
S. (2 Black.) 1; bk. 17 L. ed.
360;
Fremont v. The United States, 58
U. S. (17 How.) 442; bk. 15 L.
ed. 241;
United States v. Parrott, 1 McA.
C. C. 271.
" Knight V. Indiana Coal & Iron
Co., 47 Ind. 105; s.c. 17 Am.
Rep. 692, 696 ;
Caldwell v. Fulton, 31 Pa. St.
475 ; s.c. 72 Am. Dec. 760.
' Stewart v. Chadwick, 8 Iowa
(8 Clarke) 463 ;
Green v. Putnam, 62 Mass. (8
Cush.) 21 ;
Adams v. Briggs Iron Co., 61
Mass. (7 Cush.) 361 ;
Canfieldu. Ford, 28 Barb. (N. Y.)
336;
Caldwell v. Fulton, 31 Pa. St.
475 ; B.C. 73 Am. Deo. 760 ;
Harris v. Ryding, 5 Mees. & W.
60;
Stoughton V. Leigli, 1 Taunt.
402.
See : Pennsylvania Salt Co. v.
Neel, 54 Pa. St. 9;
Armstrong •;;. CaldweU, 53 Pa. St.
284;
Brown V. Corey, 43 Pa. St. 495 •
Kier v. Peterson, 41 Pa. St. 357 ;
Caldwell v. Copeland, 37 Pa. St.
427 ; s.c. 78 Am. Deo. 406 ;
Harlan ■;;. Lehigh Coal Co., 35
Pa. St. 387.
■* Lee V. Baumgardener, 86 Va. 315 ;
s.c. 1 Ball. Ann. L. of R. P.
415.
See : KJnight v. Indiana Coal &
Iron Co., 47 Ind. 105; s.c. 17
Am. Rep. 692, 696 ;
Whitaker v. Brown, 46 Pa. St.
197;
Harlan v. Lehigh Coal Co., 35
Pa. St. 287 ;
Caldwell v. Fulton, 31 Pa. St.
475; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 760;
Barnes v. Mawson, 1 M. & S.
77.
^ CaldweU v. Fulton, 31 Pa. St.
475 ; s.c. 72 Am. Deo. 760.
See : Knight v. Indiana Coal &
Iron Co., 47 Ind. 110; s.c. 17
Am. Rgp. 693 ;
Ilartwell v. Camman, 10 N. J.
Eq. (2 Stockt.)138 ; s.c. 64 Am.
Dec. 448 ;
Johnstown Iron Co. v. Cambria
Iron Co., 32 Pa. St. 241, 246 ;
Rutland Marble Co. v. Ripley, 77
U. S. (10 WaU.) 339, 366 ; bk.
19 L. ed. 955;
French v. Brewer, 3 Wall. , Jr. , C.
C. 346 ;
' Knight V. Indiana Coal & Iron
Co., 47 Ind. 175; s.c. 17 Am.
Rep. 692, 696.
' Adams v. Briggs Iron Co., 61
Mass. (7 Cush.) 361, 367.
Chap. HI. § 98.] RESERVATION ON CONVEYANCE.
89
the same laws that are applied to surface real estate.^
Thus they are capable of being held, conveyed by deed,
transferred by will or inheritance, ^ and are subjected
to dower interest ^ and partition ; * and all other rules
regulating title to real estate, so far as they are
applicable, will apply thereto.^ Where the mines
and minerals have been separated from the surface
by conveyance of such surface to one person and of
the minerals to another, incident to the ownership
of such mines and minerals is the double duty of fur-
nishing support to the surface® and of keeping the
entrance to the mine so guarded or protected as not to
imperil the safety of the animals lawfully upon the
surface.'^
Sec. 98. Same — Reservation of mineral ores. — The owner
of the fee may grant the land, excepting and reserving
the mines and minerals to himself and his heirs, ^ and they
may pass by his deed to a third person,^ but they will not
pass as appurtenant to other land.-'" Such a transfer
of the surface and of all profit that can be obtained from
cultivating it, or building on it, or otherwise using it,^^
with a reservation in the same conveyance to the grantor
of the minerals, an important part of the general estate,
' See : Riddle v. Driver, 12 Ala.590 ; ' See : Adams v. Briggs Iron Co.,
Trustees of HawesviUe v. Hawes, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 361, 367.
6 Bush (Ky.) 232 ; « See : Post, § 99.
Neel V. Neel, 19 Pa. St. 328. ' WiUiams v. Groucott, 4 Best & S.
2 See : Merritt v. Judd, 14 Cal. 59 ; 149 ; s.c. IIG Eng. C. L. 149.
Adams v. Briggs Iron Co., 61 'Adams v. Briggs Iron Co., 61
Mass. (7 Cush.) 361, 367 ; Mass. (7 Cush.) 301 ;
Caldwell V. Fulton, 31 Pa. St. Benson v. Miners' Bank, 20 P;..
475 ; s.c. 72 Am. Dec. 760. St. 370.
' Moore v. Rollins, 45 Me. 493 ; " Lee v. Baumgardener, 86 Va. 315 ;
Adams v. Briggs Iron Co., 61 s.c. K b. E. Rep. "; 1 Ball.
Mass. (7 Cush.) 361, 367 ; Ann. L. of F. P. 1892, 415.
Billings V. Taylor, 27 Mass. (10 >» Lebtnard -y. White, 7 Mass. 6 ; s.c.
Pick.) 460 ; s.c. 20 Am. Deo. 5 Am. Dec. 19 ;
533 ; Jackson v, Hathaway, 15 John.
Coates V. Cheever, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) (N. Y.] 447 • s.c. 8 Am. Dec.
460 ; . 263 ;
Stoughton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. Harris v. Llliot, 35 U. S. (10 Pet.)
402. 25 ; bk. 9 L. ed. 333 ;
See : Post, Chapters on " Dower." 1 Co. Litfc. (19th ed.) 131, 126.
• Dall V. Confidence Silver Mining " Hext v. Gill, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 700 ;
Co., 3 Nev. 531 ; s.c. 93 Am. s.c. 3 Moak'sEng. Rep. 574.
Dec. 419.
90
EIGHTS ON RESERVATION.
[Book I.
if the reserve is effectual and still operative, there is
imposed upon the estate conveyed a serious servitude ;
though it, in its turn, becomes to a certain extent dominant
over the estate reserved.^ Such a reservation, in a deed
of land, of the minerals therein, involves the right to
penetrate the surface for the minerals, and to use such
means in mining and removing the same as are neces-
sary ; ^ hut the means used must be necessary as distin-
guished from convenient or reasonable, and the surface
owner is entitled to subjacent support for the soil in its
natural state. ^ Some of the cases go so far as to hold
that the defendant's right rising from such a reservation
covers the whole portion conveyed, and that he cannot
be restrained from removing, within the boundaries
described, such material, even though it be required for
necessary surface support ; * but this is not the prevailing
doctrine.
Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining
Co., 55 N. Y. 538 ; s.o. 14 Am.
Rep. 323, 337 ;
See : Caledonian Ey. Co. v.
Sprot, 3 Macq. Soot. App.
Cas. 449.
Construction of reservation in grant
of mines and minerals. — It is
said, in the case of Marvin
V. Brewster Iron Co., supra,
that a reserve of minerals and
mining ri;;:;hts is construed as in
an actual grant thereof. It
differs not, whether the right
to mine is by an exception
from a deed of the surface, or
by a grant of the mine by the
owner of the whole estate,
therein reserving to himself
the surface.
Dand v. Kingscote, 6 M. & W.
174;
Williams v. BagnaU, 15 W. R.
373;
Sliep. Touch. 100.
See : "V/ickham v. Hawker, 7 M.
& W. 78 ; and comment there-
on in Proud v. Bates, 37 L. J.
Ch. 406; s.c. 5 Am. Law Reg.
N. S. 171-174.
A reservation of mineral and min-
ing rights from a grant of
the estate, followed by a grant
to another of all that which was
first reserved, vests in the sec-
ond grantee an estate as broad
as if the entire estate had been
granted to him, with a reserva-
tion of the surface.
Arnold v. Stevens, 41 Mass. (34
Pick.) 106; s.c. 35 Am. Dec.
. 305.
" Marvin v. Brewster Iron Co. , 55
N. Y. 538 ; s.c. 14 Am. Rep.
333 ■
Hext 'v. Gill, L. E. 7 Ch. App.
700 ; s.c. 3 Moak's Eng. Rep.
574;
Goold V. Great Western Coal Co.,
3 DeG. J. & S. 600 ; s.c. 13 L.
T. 843 ; 13 L. T. 109 ;
Cardington v. Armitage, 2 Barn.
& C. 179 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L.
93.
See : Hodgson v. Held, 7 East
613 ; s.c. 3 Smith, 538 ; 8 Rev.
Rep. 701.
* Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining
Co.,55N. Y. 538; s.c. 14 Am.
Rep. 338.
See : Post, § 99.
^ Byokman v. Gills, 57 N. Y. 68 ;
s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 464.
See : Buccleuch v. Wakefield, L.
R. 4 H. L. 377 ;
Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L.
Cas. 348 ;
Eadon v. Jeffcock, 43 L. J. Rep.
(N. S.) Ex. Ch. 39.
Chap. HI. § 99.] RIGHT TO SURFACE SUPPORT.
91
Sec. 99. Same — Stirftice support.— It is the general rule
that where the owner of the whole fee severs the sur-
face by selling the same and retaining the minerals, or
by selling the minerals and retaining the surface, without
restraint or restriction in the conveyance or contract, the
owner of the surface is, ex jure nature,'^ entitled to sup-
port, and the subterranean or mining property is subser-
vient to the surface to the extent of sufficient support to
sustain the latter. ^ The upper and under ground estates
' General presumption. — Vice-Chan-
ceUor Mauns, in the cane of
Wakefield v. The Duke of Buc-
cleuch, 36 L. J. Rep. (N. S.)
Ch. 763, clearly held that the
general presumption existed.
He says, at page 775 : " Upon
principle, and apart from au-
thority, I should say that the
surface, having at aU times
been enjoyed by man, must be
protected at the expense of the
mines, which have never been
so enjoyed ; that is, that the
mines, in my opinion, must be
regarded as a tenement sub-
servient to the surface." But
this view was certainly not ac-
quiesced in by the Lord Chan-
ceEor, or Lord Chelmsford,
who gave judgment in the same
case on appeal to the House of
Lords.
See : 39 Law J.Rep.(N.S.)Ch.441.
Same — Lord Hartley's comments. —
After referring to the Vice-
Chancellor's opinion, the Lord
Chancellor (Lord Hatheelt)
says (37 L. J. Rep. p. 401) :
"That certainly is a general
proposition which, I confess,
does not help one much to a
solution of the case. The rights
of the parties, I apprehend,
must be determined according
to what we find in the instru-
ments creating those rights, or
inthecustoms, if there be any,
which may be proved in sup-
port of those rights. I appre-
hend that those rights cannot
be rested upon any such ab-
stract proposition as that."
Same — Lord Chelmsford's comments.
— Lord Chelmsford says, at
page 454: "It is difficult to
imagine a case in which this
principle can be thus abstract-
ly applied. The surface of the
land and all beneath it must
originally have been the prop-
erty of one and the same per-
son. He was, of course, at
hberty to grant the surface, re-
serving the minerals ; or grant
the minerals only, reserving
the surface. In eitlier case the
grant might be made upon con-
ditions which would be proved
by the grant itself, or estab-
lished by evidence of the in-
variable exercise of the respect-
ive rights of the parties. If no
proof could be given of the
mode in which each party was
to enjoy his property, the
owner of the surface might
prevent the owner of the mines
from working so as to take
away the suppoi't from the sur-
face, and the owner of the
mines would be entitled to all
the minerals which he could
obtain by ordinary and proper
working without obstruction
by the owner of the surface.
The only principle which could
be applied in the case last sup-
posed is contained in the maxim
sic iiiere tuo ut alienwm non
Icedan."
2 Carlin v. Chappel, 101 Pa. St. 348 ;
s.c. 47 Am. Rep. 722.
See : Wilms v. Jess, 94 111. 464 ;
s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 243 ;
Yandes v. Wright, 6G Ind. 319 ;
s.c. 32 Am. Rep. 109 ;
Jones V. Wagner, 66 Pa. St. 429 ;
s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 385, 387 ;
Horner v. Watson, 79 Pa. St.
243 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 55 ;
Rehm v. Chadwick (Pa.), 6 Pitts.
L. J. N. S. 98 ;
Smart v. Morton, 5 El. & Bl. 30 ;
s.c. 36 L. J. (N. S.) Q. B. 260;
85 Eng. C. L. 30 ;
92
BIGHTS OF GRANTEE OF MINERALS.
[Book I.
being several, they are governed by the same maxim
which limits the use of property otherwise situated, sic
utere tuo ut alienum non Isedas.^
Sec. 100. Same — Same — Rights of grantee.— It is held in
a number of well-considered cases that the grantee of
the minerals will be entitled only to such of the minerals
granted as he can remove without injury to the surface.^
In such a case the owner of the mineral strata must so
occupy and use his property as not to interfere with the
superincumbent soil in its natural state, ^ or with such
buildings as are upon it at the time of the purchase ; but
the owner of the surface will not be permitted to impose
upon it additional burdens to be supported by the mine-
owner.*
Pinnlngton v. Galland, 9 Ex.
Oh. 1 ;
Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L.
Gas. 348 ; s.o. 30 L. J. Rep. (N.
S.)Q. B.49;
Glasgow (Eaii) v. Hnrlet Aim.
Co., 3 H. L. Cas. 25 ; s.o. 8
Eng. L & Eq. 13 ;
The Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Sprot,
2 Macq. 449 ;
Harris v, Ryding, 5 Mees. & W.
60 ; B.C. 8 L. J. Rep. (N. S.)Ex.
18;
Humphries v. Brogden, 12 Q. B.
743 ; S.C. 1 Eng. L. & Eq. 351 ;
Smith V. Darby, L. R. 72 B. 716 ;
s.o. 42 L. J. Q. B. 140 ; 26 L. T.
763 ; 20 W. R. 982 ; 3 Moak's
Eng. Rep. 381 ;
Milton V. Granville, 13 L. J. Rep.
(N. S.) Q. B. 193 ; s.o. 5 Q. B.
701.
' Jones V. Wagner, 66 Pa. St. 439 ;
B.C. 5 Am. Rep. 385, 388.
See : Kerr's" Adjudicated Words,
Phrases and Applied Max-
ims."
' Yandes v. Wright, 66 Ind. 319 ;
S.C. 32 Am. Rep. 109 ;
Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining
Co.. 55 N. Y. 538 ; s.c. 14 Am.
Rep. 323 ;
Coleman v. Chadwick, 80 Pa. St.
81, 93 ;
Horner v. Watson, 79 Pa. St.
343 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 55 ;
Jones V. Wagner, 66 Pa. St. 429 ;
s.o. 5 Am. Rep. 385 ;
Wakefield v. Buccleuch, L. R. 4
Eq. Cas. 613 ;
Dugdale v. Robertson, 3 Kay &
J. 695 ;
Harris v. Ryding, 5 Mees & W.
60.
Crrantee not liable for loss of springs,
— But the grantee of min-
erals beneath the surface is
not liable to the owner of the
surface for the loss of springs
occasioned by the ordinary
working of the mine.
Coleman v. Chadwick, 80 Pa. St.
81 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 93.
' Wilms V. Jess, 94 111. 464 ; s.c. 34
Am. Rep. 343, 244 ;
Zinc Co. V. Franklinite Co., 13 N.
J. Eq. (3 Beas.)332, 343;
Ryckman v. Gillis, 57 N. Y. 68 ;
s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 464 ;
Coleman v. Chadwick, 80 Pa. St.
81;
Horner v. Watson, 79 Pa. St. 243,
251 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 55 ;
Jones V. Wagner, 66 Pa. St. 429 ;
s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 385 ;
Smart v Morton, 5 El. & Bl. 30 ;
s.c. 36 L. J. (N. S.)Q. B. 260 ; 85
Eng. C. L. 30 ;
Harris v. Ryding, 5 Mees. & W=
60;
Humphries v. Brofden, 12 Q. B.
743; s.c. 1 Eng. L. & Eq.
241.
^ Zinc Co. V. Franklinite Co., 13 N.
J. Eq. (3 Beas.) 322 ;
Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining
Co.,55N. Y. 538; s. c. 14 Am.
Rep. 323,-334 ;
Lasala v. Holbrook, 4 Paige' Ch.
(N. Y-.)T69;
Chap. in. §§ 101, 102.] EESERVATION OF MINERALS.
93
Sec. 101. Same — Same — Where owner retains surface, —
Where the owner of the fee grants the surface and retains
the minerals the construction is the same as where he
grants the minerals and retains the surface/ except that
the instrument by which the conveyance is made will be
more strictly construed against the grantor than against
the grantee.^
Sec. 103. Same — Same — Where owner grants surface and
retains minerals.— While it is true that when the grantor
of the surface reserves the mines beneath it, he by im-
plication reserves everything that is necessary for work-
ing them,^ and has an easement to do such acts as are
reasonably necessary to get out the minerals and remove
them from the mine ; * yet a mere reservation of the
miineral as such, or a reservation with the right of min-
ing, must always respect surface right of support, and
will not, standing alone, permit the surface to be
Grubb V. Bayard, 2 WaU Jr. C.
C. 81;
Humphries v. Brogden, 13 Ad. &
E. (N. S.) 739 ; s.o. 64 Eng. C.
L. 738 ;
Wilkinson v. Proud, 11 Mees. &
W. 83.
Compare ; Wilms v. Jess, 95 111.
464; s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 343.
> Dand v. Kingscote, 6 Mees. & W.
174;
Shep. Touch. 100.
See : Wickhani v. Hawker, 7
Mees. & W. 78 ;
Proud V. Bates, 37 L. J. Ch. 406 ;
s.o. 13 L. T. 61 ; 5 Am. Law
Reg. N. S. 171.
' Marvin i: Brewster Iron Mining
Co., 55 N. Y. 538 ; s.c. 14 Am.
Rep. 323, 828.
Construction — There will te retained
in the grantor all that which
was the clear' meaning and
intention of the parties to re-
serve from the conveyance.
Marvin v. Brewster Iron Mining
Co;, 55 N.Y. 538 ; s.c. 14 Am.
Rep. 333, 328;
H!arris v. Ryding, 5 Mees. & W.
;-60,. 70. .
' Catdiean V. Armitage, 3 Bam. &
'h t^ is-c. ft Eng. C. L. 93. .
' See :■ 'GiJold , «r C<$re&i ^, Western
Deep Coal Co., 13 L. T. Rep. N.
S. 843;
Proud V. Bates, 87 L. Ch. 416 ; s.c.
13 L. T. 61 ; 5 Am. L. Reg. N.
S. 171.
* Erickson v. Michigan Land & Iron
Co., 50 Mich. 604; s.c. 16 N.
W. Rep. 161.
See : Cardigan v. Armitage, 3
Barn. & C. 197 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C.
L. 93;
Smart v. Marton, 5 El. & Bl. 30,
46 ; s.c. 26 L. J. (N. S.) Q. B.
360 ; 85 Eng. C. L. 30 ;
Rowbotham v. Wilson, 8 H. L.
Cas. 348 ; s.c. 30 L. J. Q. B. 49 ;
6 Jur. N. S. 965 ; 36 Eng. L. &
Eq. 336 ;
Rogers v. Taylor, 1 Hurl. & N.
838 ; s.c. 30 L. J. Ex. 303 ; 38
Eng. L. & Eq. 574 ;
Harris v. Ryding, 5 Mees. & W.
60;
Aspden v. Seddon, L. R. 10 Ch.
App. Cas. 394 ; s.c. 13 Moak's
Eng. Rep. 773 ;
Smith V. Darby, L. R. 7 Q. B. 716 ;
S.C. 43 L. J. Q. B. 140 ; 36 L. T.
763 ; 30 W. R. 982 ; 3 Moak's
Eng. Rep. 381 ;
Eadon v. Jeffcock, L. R. 7 Ex.
379 ; s.c. 43 L. J. (N. S.) Ex.
Ch. 39 ; 3 Moak's Eng. Rep.
438. , , . =
94 WHEN MONEY REAL ESTATE. [Book I.
destroyed without some additional statutory or contract
authority, and such statute or contract authority will be
c§,refully construed to prevent the destruction of surface
rights.^ If the grantor intends to get the minerals in
such a way as will destroy the surface, he must so frame
the reservation as to show clearly that he intended to
have that power. ^
Sec. 103. Money real estate when.— On the principle
heretofore stated,^ money which, according to will or
agreement, is to be invested in land, is regarded in equity
as real estate.* This doctrine also rests on the assump-
tion that property takes the form into which it is turned
by its owner, provided he be at the time an adult of
sound and disposing mind.^ Under some circumstances
the money arising from the sale of land is invested with
all the incidents and attributes of real estate. Thus,
where land has been mortgaged and is sold under the
mortgage after the mortgagor's death, the surplus aris-
ing from such sale will be regarded and treated as real
estate.® And where by order of court land of a decedent,'
' Eriokson v. Michigan Land & Iron ■• Anstice v. Brown, 6 Paige Ch. (N.
Co., 50 Mich. 604; s.c. 16 N. Y.) 448 ;
W. Rep. 161. Seymour v. Freer, 75 U. S. (18
Citing : Roberts v. Haines, 6 El. Wall.) 202, 214 ; bk. 19 L. ed.
&B1. 643; S.C. 88Eng. C. L.641; 306, 310.
Smart v. Morton, 5 El. & Bl. 80, See : Rankin v. Rankin, 36 111.
46 ; s.c. 26 L. J. (N. S.) Q. B. 293 ; s.c. 87 Am. Dec. 205 ;
260 ; 85 Eng. C. L. 30, 45 ; Foreman v. Foreman, 7 Barb. (N.
Harrisu RydLng,5Mees.&W.60; Y.) 215 ;
Humphries v. Brogden, 12 Q. B. Peter v. Beverly, 35 U. S. (10 Pet.)
739 ; s.c. 64 Eng. C. L. 738 ; 532, 536 ; bk. 9 L. ed. 522 ;
Jeffries V. Williams, 20 L. J. (N. Trelawney v. Booth, 2 Atk. 307 ;
S.) Exch. 14 ; s.c. 1 Eng. L. & Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Bro. C.
Eq. 423 ; O. 497 ;
Hilton V. Granville, 5 Q. B. 701 ; Biddulph «.Biddulph,12 Ves.161.
s.c. 48 Eng. C. L. 699 ; » See : Horton v. McCoy, 47 N. Y.
Smith V. Darby, L. R. 7 Q. B. 716 ; 21 ;
s.c. 42 L. J. Q. B. 140 ; 26 L. T. Denham v. Cornell, 67 N. Y. 556,
762 ; 20 W. R. 982 ; 3 Moak's affirming 7 Hun (N. Y.) 662.
Eng. Rep. 281 ; « Dunning v. The Ocean National
Hext V. Gill, L. R. 7 Ch. App. Bank, 61 N. Y. 497 ; s.c. 19 Am.
Cas. 699 ; s.c. 3 Moak's Eng. Rep. 293 ; 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 296.
Rep. 574 ; See : Denham v. Cornell, 7 Hun
BeU V. Wilson, L. R. 1 Ch. App. (N. Y.) 664 ;
Cas. 303. Bogert v. Furman, 10 Paige Ch.
» See : Wilms v. Jess, 94 111. 464 ; (N. Y.) 496 ;
S.C. 34 Am. Rep. 242, 244 ; McCarthy's Estate, 11 Phila. (Pa.)
Hext V. Gill, L. R. 7 Ch. App. 85.
699; s.c. 3 Moak's Eng.Rep.574. ' Oberly v. Lerch, 18 N. J. Ea (3
» See : Ante, § 79. C. E. Gr.) 346, 354.
Chap. HI. § 103.] WHEN MONEY REAL ESTATE.
95
a lunatic,^ or aninfant,^ is sold for the payment of debts,
or other particular purposes, the surplus after paying
such debts retains the character of real estate. Where
real estate which is owned by tenants in common, of
whom one is an infant,^ or a lunatic,* is sold under and
in pursuance of a judgment in a partition suit, instituted
by others of the tenants in common, the portion of the
proceeds belonging to the infant or lunatic, remains im-
pressed with the character of real estate.^ The money
arising from the sale of timber cut on lands of which an
infant® or a lunatic^ has the fee, is regarded as real
estate ; and so also is the money arising from the con-
demnation of such lands under the power of eminent
domain.*
An heir's interest in the land of
his father is interest in realty,
even after an order of sale has
been made by the probate court,
until the sale has actually taken
place.
Withers' Appeal, 14 Serg. & E.
(Pa.) 185 ; s.c. 16 Am. Dec. 488.
> Lloyd V. Hart, 3 Pa. St. 473 ; s.c.
45 Am. Dec. 613.
See : Wright's Appeal, 8 Pa. St.
57 *
Hart's Appeal, 8 Pa. St. 33, 36 ;
Anandale v. Anandale, 3 Ves.
Sr. 381 ;
Ex parte Bromfield, 1 Ves. Jr.
455.
In PenneU's Appeal 20 Pa. St. 515,
518, the court say that the case
of Lloyd V. Hart, supra, was
decided "upon pecuUar provi-
sions of the statute relating to
the estates of lunatics, and upon
the idiosyncrasy of the state and
condition of the unfortunate
objects of that statute."
* Collins V. Champ's Heirs, 4 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 118 ; s.c. 61 Am.
Deo. 179.
See : Ware v. Polhill, 11 Ves. 378 ;
s.c. 8 Rev. Rep. 144.
8 Horton v. McCoy, 47 N. Y. 21.
« Re Barker, L. R. 17 Ch. Div. 241 ;
s.c. 50 L. J. Ch. 384 ; 44 L. T.
N. S. 83 ; 39 W. R. 873.
See : Re Smith, L. R. 10 Ch. 79 ;
s.c. 23 W. R. 297.
' Horton v. McCoy, 47 N. Y. 21.
In Steed v. Preece, L. R. 18 Eq.
193 ; s.c. 33 W. R. 433 ; 43 L.
J. Ch. 687, land was conveyed
to trustees upon trust for two
infants, as tenants in common
in tail, with cross-remainders
between them. A suit was in-
stituted by the trustees against
the cestuis que trustent for the
administration of the trust, and
a decree was made after one of
the infants had attained twenty-
one by which a sale was or-
dered. A sale was made under
the decree and the purchase
money paid in the court ; and
upon further conditions tlie
adult's share was paid to him,
and the infant's share carried
to a separate account. The in-
fant afterwards died without
having attained twenty-one.
The court held that the money
was not to be treated as realty.
« TuUit V. TuUit, Ambl. 370 ; s.c.
1 Dick. 333.
' Exparte Bromfield, 1 Ves. Jr. 455.
8 See : Kelland v. Fulford. L. R. 6
Ch. Div. 491 ; s.c. 25 W. R.50G ;
Midland Counties E. Co. v. Oswin,
1 Colly. 74; s.c. 3 Rail. Cas.
497 ; 18 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 200 ; 8
Jur. 138.
Where lunatic not in care of law. —
It seems, however, that where
the land taken is that of a
person in a state of mental
imbeoUity, who is not the sub-
ject of a commission of lunacy,
or otherwise cared for by the
law, the money will be regard-
ed as personalty.
96
MOVABLES— EAILEO ADS.
[Book I.
Sec. 104. Movables realty when.— Although things in
themselves movable, and having the character of personal
property, standing alone, are to be regarded as person-
alty,^ yet they may take on the characteristics of and be
treated as realty, by being fitted and applied to use as a
part of the realty,^ although at the time temporarily dis-
annexed therefrom,^ such as the doors of a house/ a key
to the lock upon the doors of a building,*^ or blinds to the
windows of a dwelling-house,^ hop-poles,* fence-rails,*
and the like.^ Where a house or other building has been
blown down by a wind-storm, the fragments of such
house are to be regarded as realty.^"
Sec. 105. Eailroads — Road-bed, rails, etc.- There can be
no doubt that the road-bed and buildings erected at the
station or elsewhere on railroads, such as depot-houses,
station-houses, water- tanks, and the like, are real estate, ^^
and so also are ties and rails, ^^ where laid upon the road-
bed and fastened thereto so that engines and cars can pass
See : iJe East Lincolnshire R. Co.,
1 Sim. N. S. 260.
' See: Penniman v. French, 34
Mass. (17 Pick.) 404; s.c. 38 Am'.
Dec. 309.
^ See: Post, chapters on " Fixtures."
^ Eichardson v. Copeland, 73 Mass.
(6 Gray.) 536; s.c. 66 Am. Dec.
424;
Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co.,
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306; s.c. 38
Am. Dec. 368;
Sweetzert). Jones, 35 Vt. 317; s.c.
83 Am. Dec. 039;
Harris v. Haynes, 34 Vt. 230;
Malmsby v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. 8.
115; s.c. 97 Eng. C. L. 114.
Criterion for determining class to
■wMch belong. — In the case of
Hill V. Wentworth, 38 Vt.
428, it is said that "whether
the articles in question were
personal property or fixtures
should be determinable and
plainly appear from an inspec-
tion of the property itself, tak-
ing into consideration their
nature, the mode and extent of
their annexation, and their
purpose and object, from which
the intention would be in-
dicted."
■i Peck V. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233.
= See: 3 Cent. L. J. 617.
« Peck V. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233.
' Bishop V. Bishop, 11 N. Y. 123;
s.c. 62 Am. Dec. 68.
« Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.)
142.
" McLaughlin v. Johnson, 46 lU.
163;
House V. House, 10 Paige Ch. (N.
Y.) 158.
See: Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 2
B. &C. 76; s.c.9 Eng. C. L.42;
Walmsby v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S.
115; s.c. 97 Eng. C. L. 114.
" Eogers v. Gilinger, 30 Pa. St. 185;
s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 694.
" See: McLaughlin v. Johnson, 46
111. 163;
Salmer v. Forbes, 23 111. 301;
Strickland v. Parker, 54 Me. 306,
267;
Van Keuren v. Central E. Co. of
N. J., 38N. J. L. (9 Vr.)165.
'2 Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97
Mass. 279;
People ex rel. The N. Y. & H. R.
Co. V. Commissioners of Taxes,
101 N. Y. 332; s.c. 4 N. E. Eep.
127;
Smyth V. Mayor of New York,
68 N. Y. 552.
Chap. III. §§ 106, 107.] ROLLING STOCK. 97
over them, in the absence of any agreement to the con-
trary.^ But where rails are laid under an agreement
that they shall he put down on a specified part of the
road-bed, and remain the property of the vendor until
paid for, they do not lose their character as personalty
and become a part of the land until such obligation is
discharged.^
Sec. 106. Same — Poundation, columns, viaducts, etc., of
railroad.— The question whether the foundations, columns,
and superstructure of an elevated railway are within
the statutory definition of land, and liable to taxation as
realty, came up in the case People ex rel. The New York
Elevated Eailroad Company v. Commissioners of Taxes, ^
and it was held that they are real estate,* the court re-
marking "that they would be fixtures at common law,
as articles annexed to the freehold, is plain both upon
principle and authority."^ And that the same is true of
the tunnels, tracks, substructures, superstructures, sta-
tions, viaducts, and masonry of a railroad company was
determined by the New York Court of Appeals in the
case of People ex rel. New York and Harlem River Rail-
road Company v. Cominissioners of Taxes. ^
Sec. 107. Same — Rolling stock.— Whether the rolling
stock of a railroad company, such as engines, cars, and
the like, are to be regarded as personal property or real
estate is an unsettled question. In several of the states
it is held that the rolling stock and appliances of a rail-
road company, being essential to its operation, although
movable in fact, are a part of the structure, and to be re-
' Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97 ^ See: Hunt v. Bay State Iron Co.,
Mass. 379. 97 Mass. 279.
See: Richardson v. Copeland, 73 Haven v. Emery, 33 N. H. 66;
Mass. (6 Gray) 536; s.c. 66 Am. Pierce v. Emery, 82 N. H. 484.
Dec. 434; ' 83 N. Y. 459, 461.
Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) * The same is true of electric poles
40; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 755; and wires. See: Ante, % 47.
Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 'See: MoRea v. Central National
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306; s.c. 38 Bank of Troy, 66 N. Y. 489;
Am Deo 368; Walker v. Sherman, 30 Wend.
Peirce v. Goddard, 39 Mass. (33 (N. Y.) 655. ,,,,„„
Pick.) 559; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. « 101 N. Y. 332; s.c. 4 N. E. Rep.
764. 137.
'7
98
MARINE INCREMENT.
[Book
garded as a part of the realty.^ But the weight of de-
cision and the better doctrine is thought to be that the
roUing stock of a railroad is personal property. This
doctrine prevails in Alabama,^ lotva,^ New Hampshire,*
New Jersey,^ New York,® Ohio,'' Wisconsin,* and per-
haps other states.
Sec. 108. Sear-weed— Marine increment.— Sea- weed, which
has been thrown upon land by the sea, is regarded as a
marine accretion, and belongs to the owner of the soil.
The rule is, that if the marine increase be by small and
imperceptible degrees it goes to the owner of the land ;
but if it be by sudden and considerable, it belongs to the
sovereign.^ The sea- weed- must be supposed to have
' Palmer v. Forbes, 23 lU. 300, 302;
(Compare : Sangamon and M. R.
Co. V. Morgan Co., 14 111. 163;
S.C. 56 Am. Dec. 497);
Coe V. McBrown. 23 Ind. 252;
Douglass V. Cline, 12 Bush (Ky.)
608;
Phillips V. Winslow, 18 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 431; s.c. 68 Am. Deo.
729;
State V. Northern R. Co., 18 Md.
193;
Youngman v. Elmira & W. R.
Co., 65 Pa. St. 378;
Covey V. Pittsburgh, F. W. & C.
R. Co., 3 Phila. (Pa.) 173;
Milwaukee & M. R. Co. v. James,
73 U. S. (6 WaU.) 750; bk. 18
L. ed. 854;
Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co. , 69
U. S. (3 Wall.) 609; s.c. siib
nom. Milwaukee & Minnesota
Co. V. Soutter, bk. 17 L. ed. 886;
Gue V. Tidewater Canal Co., 65
U. S. (34 How.) 257; bk. 16 L.
ed. 635;
Pennock v. Coe, 64 U. S. (23
How.) 117; bk. 16 L. ed. 436;
Scott ■;;. Clinton & S. R. Co., 6
Biss. C. C. 539;
Farmers' Trust & Loan Co. v. St.
Jo. & D. R. Co., 3 Dill. C. C.
413.
» Meyer v. Jbhnston, 53 Ala. 337,
253.
' Neilson v. Iowa Eastern R. Co., 51
Iowa 184; s. c. 33 Am. Rep.
124; 1 N. W. Rep. 434.
* Boston, C. & M. R. Co. v. Gilmore,
37 N. H. 410.
See: Pierce v. Emery, 33 N. H.
484.
■^ Williamson v. New Jersey & 8. R.
Co., 39 N. J. Eq. (2 Stew.) 311;
s.c. 15 Am. R. W. Rep. 572.
Engines and Cars — New Jersey doc-
trine.— In the case of the
State Treasurer v. Summerville
& E. R. Co., 28 N. J. L. (4
Dutch.) 31, the court say that
engines and cars are no more
appendages of the railroad than
are wagons and carriages of
the highway ; that both are
equally essential to the enjoy-
ment of the road, but that
neither constitute a part of it.
« People ex rel. N. Y. & H; R. R.
Co. V. Commissioner of Taxes,
101 N. Y. 333;
Hoyle V. Plattsburgh & M. R. Co.,
54 N. Y. 314 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep.
595*
Randall v. Elwell, 53 N. Y. 531;
s.c. 11 Am. Rep. 747;
Stevens v. Buffalo & N. Y. C. R.
Co., 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 590.
■> Coe V. Columbus, P. & Ind. R.
Co., 10 Ohio St. 373; s.c. 75
Am. Dec. 518.
'Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v.
Borough of Ft. Howard, 31 Wis.
44 ; s.c. 91 Am. Dec. 458.
' Emans v. TurnbuU, 3 John. (N.
Y.) 313, 333; s.c. 3 Am. Dec.
427, 430-431;
2 Bl. Com. 261;
Harg. Law Tracts, 28.
See: Mather v. Chapman, 40 Conn.
382; s.c. 16 Am. Rep. 46.
Chap. III. §§ 109, 110.] BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW WATER. 99
accumulated graduallj'. The slow increase, and its use-'
fulness as a manure, and as a protection to the bank,
will, upon every just and equitable principle, vest the
property of the weed in the owner of the land. It forms
a reasonable compensation to him for the gradual en-
croachment of the sea, to which other parts of his estate
may be exposed. This is only one reason for vesting the
maritime increments in the proprietor of the shore. The
jus alluvionis ought, in this respect, to receive a liberal-
encouragement in favor of private right.
Sec. 109. Same — "WTien cast between high and low water-
mark.—According to the common law of England the
sea-shore, between high and low water-mark, belongs to
the sovereign, in trust for his subjects,^ and consequently
when the sea-weed is cast upon the shore between high
and low water-mark it belongs to the public at large and
becomes the property of the first occupant or taker.*
This rule does not apply in those states where, by virtue
of statute, the title of proprietors adjoining navigable
waters extends to low water-mark as in Maine, Massachu-
setts, and New Hampshire by virtue of the colonial or-
dinance of 1641, since adopted as law by statutory, enact-
ment.^
Sec. 110. Saw-mill, saw-dust, etc., real estate when. —
A building erected upon the land of another may or may
not be a permanent improvement according to the agree-
ment and intentions of the parties.* Thus it has been
■ said that a steam saw-mill placed upon the land of
another, conditionally, may be the personal property of
the builder, and Hable for his obligations,^ if the owner
of the land has failed to perform his part of the con-
tract.^ And the off- fall from such a mill, — such assaw-
' Barker v. Bates, 30 Mass. (13 Pick.)355; s.c. 33 Am. Deo.378;
Pick ) 255 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. Parker v. Smith, 17 Mass. 413 ;
678 s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 157;
« Mather v. Chapman, 40 Conn. Storer v. Freeman, 6 Mass. 435;
383- s.c. 16 Am. Rep. 46. s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 155.
'See- Mather v. Chapman, 40 .« See: Post chapters on "Fixtures."
Conn. 383; s.c. 16 Am. Rep. 46; '^ See : State v. Bonham, 18 Ind.
Lanish v. Bangor Bank, 8 Me. 85; 333.
Barker v. Bates, 23 Mass. (13 « Yater v. Mullen, 33 Ind. 563.
100 WHEN WATER REAL ESTATE. [Book I.
dust, slabs, shavings, and other refuse, — when used to
fill up low or marshy ground, becomes real property ; but
when piled up on the land to be removed for fire- wood,
or other purposes, remains personal property.^
Sec. 111. Water real estate when.— Water is a mov-
able thing of a wandering nature, and incapable of abso-
lute ownership.^ It is in no proper sense real estate,
although it is sometimes classified with oil and gas as a
kind of mineral,^ and is invested with some of the attri-
butes of real property when congealed to ice.* If water
can properly be classed as a mineral at all, it is a mineral
of peculiar attributes, and, unlike its volatile sisters, gas
and oil, the rules and regulations of mines, and the decis-
ions in ordinary cases relating to mining rights, have no
application to either running, standing, or percolating
waters. \ Water and oil, and still more appropriately
gas, may be classified by themselves, — if the analogy be
not too fanciful, — as minerals ferce naturce, because, in
common with animals, and unlike other mineral sub-
stances, they have the power and the tendency to escape
without the volition of the owner. ^ Their fugitive and
wandering existence within the limits of a particular
tract of land is always uncertain.'' They belong to the
owner of the land and are a part of it, so long, and only
so long, as they are in or on it, and are subject to his
control, but when they escape and go into or onto other
land, or come under another's control, the title of the
former owner is goneJd Being of a movable and wan-
dering nature, with a tendency to escape from any and
every particular tract of land, water of necessity con-
tinues common by the law of nature ; so that one can
' Jenkins v. McCurdy, 48 Wis. 638; ural Gas Co. v. DeWitt, 130 Pa.
s.o. 33 Am. Eep. 841; 4 N. W. St. 335; s.c. 18 Atl. Rep. 724; 5
Rep. 807. L. R. A. 731; 1 BaU. Am. L. of
° Brown v. Best, 1 Wils. 174; E. P. 1893, § 317.
1 Co. Lite. (19th ed.) 4a. « Brown v. Vanclergrift, 80 Pa. St.
^ Westmoreland & Cambria Natural 147, 148.
Gas Co. V. DeWitt, 130 Pa. St. ' Westmoreland & Cambria Nat-
335 ; s.c. 18 Atl. Rep. 724; 5 L. ural Gas Co. v. DeWitt 130 Pa
R. A. 731; 1 Ball. Am. L. of R. St. 235; s.c. 18 Atl. Rep 734- 5
'4 o ^- ff' I T- ^- ^- ^- ^^^' 1 Ball. Am. L.'of
* See: Ante, § 70. R. P. 1893, § 317.
* Westmoreland & Cambria Nat-
Chap. III. § 111.] PROPERTY IN WATER. 101
only have a temporary, uncertain, transient, usufruct-
uary property in it.^ While the grant of a parcel of
land passes the property in a stream of water which runs
over it, as much as it does the property in the stones that
are upon the surface,^ yet the right of the grantee to
the uninterrupted and full use of the water as it flows
naturally past his land is not an absolute right, but a
natural one, qualified and limited by the existence of like
rights in others. His enjoyment must necessarily be
according to his opportunities, prior to those below him,
and subsequent to those above him, and liable to be modi-
fied or abridged by the reasonable use of the stream by
others.*
' 2 Bl. Com. 14, 18. 30 Mirm. 249; s-c. 44 Am. Rep.
» Browne v. Kennedy, 6 Har. & J. 194, 196 ;
(Md.) 195; S.C. 9 Am. Dec. 503 ; Merrifield v. City of Worcester,
Elliot V. Fitchburg R. Co., 64 110 Mass. 216; s.c. 14 Am. Rep.
Mass. (10 Cush.) 191, 193 ; 592 :
Canal Commissioners v. People, 5 Palmer v. Mulligan, 3 Cai. (N.
Wend. (N. Y.) 423 ; Y.) 307; s.c. 2 Am. Deo. 270 ;
Buckingham v. Smith, 10 Ohio Piatt r. Johnson, 15 John. (N. Y.)
288. 213 ; s.a 8 Am. Dec. 233.
3 Red River Roller Mills v. Wright,
CHAPTER IV.
FIXTUBBS.
Sec. 113. Definition of fixture.
Sec. 113. What fixtures pass with the realty.
Sec. 114. Criteria for determining.
Sec. 115. Same — 1. Actual annexation.
Sec. 116. Same— Same— Manner of annexation and character of article.
Sec. 117. Same — 2. Appropriation to use.
Sec. 118. Same — 3. Adaptation to the use.
Sec. 119. Same — 4. Policy of the law.
Sec. 120. Same— 5. Intention of the parties.
Sec. 131. Same — Same — Permanency of attachment controlled by in-
tent.
Sec. 123. Kinds or classes of fixtures.
Sec. 133. Same — 1. Agricultural fixtures.
Sec. 124. Same — 3. Domestic fixtures— a. Useful fixtures.
Sec. 125. Same — Same — b. Ornamental fixtures.
Sec. 136. Same — 3. Ecclesiastical fixtures.
Sec. 137. Same — 4. Trade fixtures.
Sec. 128. Same — 5. Mixed fixtures.
Sec. 139. Between whom the question of fixtures may arise.
Sec. 130. Same — 1. Assignee in bankruptcy and for benefit of creditors.
Sec. 131. Same — 3. Debtor and execution creditor.
Sec. 133. Same — 3. Executor and heir-at-law.
Sec. 133. Same — 4. Executor of tenant for fife and remainderman.
Sec. 134. Same — 5. Heir-at-law and devisee.
Sec. 135. Same — 6. Landlord and tenant.
Sec. 136. Same — Same — Removal of fixtures by tenant.
Sec. 137. Same — Same — Renewal of lease without removal of fixtures.
Sec. 138. Same — 7. Mortgagor and mortgagee.
Sec. 139. Same — 8. Personal representative and devisee.
Sec. 140. Same — 9. Tenants in common.
Sec. 141. Same — 10. Vendor and vendee.
Sec. 143. Same — Same — Gas-fixtures, chandeliers, etc.
Sec. 143. Same — Same — Fixtures annexed by one in possession under
contract of purchase.
Sec. 144. Agreement in relation to fixtures.
Sec. 145. Same — Limitation of doctrine.
Sec. 146. Removal of fixtures.
Sec. 147. Same — ^Exceptions to the rule.
102
Chap. IV. §§ 112, 113.] FIXTURES— DEFINITION.
103
Section 112. Deflnition of fixture.— The word "fixture"
is a substantive term of modern origin/ and is applied to
articles of the nature of personal property. It includes
any article which was a chattel, but which, by being physi-
cally annexed or affixed to the realty, becomes accessory
to, and part and parcel of it ; ^ and if on the premises
at the time of the execution of a deed, pass with the con-
veyance.^ Fixtures, though attached to the soil, are not
for all purposes, and between all parties who may be con-
cerned, a part of the freehold.*
Sec. 113. What fixtures pass with the realty.— Those fix-
tures which are incident to the land and used in connection
therewith, although temporarily detached, pass by a deed
of the realty, notwithstanding an oral exception and res-
ervation made at the time of the execution of the deed : ^
' Hutchins i\ Masterson, 46 Tex.
551 ; s.c. 26 Am. Rep. 286.
For a full discussion, see 3 Alb. L.
J. 407, 421.
2 Teaff V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ;
S.C. 59 Am. Dec. 634.
See : Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6
Greenl.)155; s.c. 19 Am. Dec.
201;
Mather ■;;. Fraser, 3 Kay & J. 536.
3 Stockwell V. Campbell, 89 Conn.
363 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 393 ;
Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287 ;
s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485 ;
Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. (Va.)
753 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 323 ;
Holland v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P.
838 ; s.c. 3 Moak's Eng. Rep.
655;
D'Eynoourt v. Gregory, L. R. 3
Eq. Cas. 383.
See : Ottumwa Woolen Mill Co. v.
Hawley, 44 Iowa 57 ; s.c. 24
Am. Rep. 719 ;
BringholfiJ.Munzemaler, 20 Iowa
513;
Corliss V. McLagin, 29 Me. 115 ;
Turll V. Fuller, 28 Me. 545 ;
Union Bank v. Emerson, 15 Mass.
152;
Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 N. H.
503 ; B.C. 77 Am. Deo. 780 ;
Miller v. Plumb, 6 Cow. (N. Y.)
665;
Fryatt v. SuUivan County, 5 Hill
(N. Y.) 116 ;
Powell V. Monson & B. Mfg. Co.,
3 Mas. C. C. 347, 459.
■* See : Kerr's Benjamin on Sales,
vol. I., p. 108, §131 ;
Blackburn on Sales, 9, 10.
6 Brock V. Smith, 14 Ark. 431 ;
Parson v. Camp, 1 1 Conn. 535 ;
MoLaughUn v. Johnson, 46 lU.
163;
Smith V. Price, 39 111. 28 ;
Palmer v. Forbes, 21; III. 300 ;
Redlon i\ Barker, 4 Kan. 445 ;
Fulton V. Norton, 64 Mc. 410 ;
Turll V. Fuller, 28 Me. 545 ;
Lassell v. Reed. 6 Me. (0 Greenl.)
■233;
Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6
Greenl.) 157 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec.
201;
Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co.,
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 30G ; s.c. 38
Am. Dec. 368 ;
Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (21
Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec.
369;
Noble V. Bosworth, 36 Mass. (19
Pick.) 314.
Glidden v. Bennett. 48 N. H. 306 :
Wadleigh f. Janvrin, 41 N. H.
503 ; s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 780 ;
Conner v. Coffin, 37 N. H. 543 ;
Sawyer v. Twiss, 26 N. H. 345 ;
Needham v. Allison, 34 N. H. (4
Fost.) 855 ;
Kittredge v. Woods. 3 N. H. 503 ;
B.C. 14 Am. Dec. 393 ;
Snedeker v. Warring, 13 N. Y.
170;
Bishop V. Bishop, 11 N. Y. 133;
s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 68 ;
104
WHAT PASS WITH LAND.
[Book I.
such as a bell hung upon a frame, and fastened to it
by a hasp, the frame being nailed to the cupola of a barn ; *
the boiler of a cotton mill ; ^ the blinds to the win-
dows of a dwelling ; ^ a cider-mill ; * a copper kettle boiler
in a brew-house ; ^ a cotton-ginn," attached to the gears
in the ginn-house ; " the doors of a building ; ^ a dye-
kettle affixed in brick in a fulling-mill ; ^ a dye-house ; i"
the engine of a cotton mill,^^ and the engine, utensils and
implements, whether attached or loose, used in working
a mine ; ^ everything put into and forming a part of a
building ; ^^ a factory bell hung in a tower built upon the
factory to receive it ;■'* fences, ^^ fence rails or material
placed along the line of a contemplated fence and not yet
used,^^ or temporarily detached ;^^ frames filled with
satin and attached to the walls- ; ^^ fruit trees and orna-
mental shrubbery, though growing in. a nursery ; ^^ gar-
Austin i'.Sawyer,9 Cow.(]Sr.y.)39;
Raymond v. White, 7 Cow. (N.
Y.) 319.
Miller v. Plumb, 6 Cow. (N. Y.)
665 ; s.c. 16 Am. Dec. 456 ;
Goodrich v. Jones, 3 Hill (N. Y.)
143;
Cresson v. Stout, 17 Johns (N. Y.)
116 : s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 373 ;
Heermance v. Vernoy, 6 Johns.
(N. Y.) 5 ;
Walker v. Sherman, 30 Wend.
_(N. Y.) 686 ;
Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend.
(N. Y.) 169 ;
Bond V. Coke, 71 N. C. 97 ;
Latham v. Blakely, 70 N. C. 368 ;
Meig's Appeal, 63 Pa. St. 38 ; s.c.
1 Am. Rep. 372 ;
Hm V. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 271 ;
S.C. 91 Am. Dec. 209, 211 ;
Voorhis v. Freeman, 3 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 116 ; S.C. 37 Am. Deo. 490 ;
Ripley v. Paige, 12 Vt. 353.
' Weston V. Weston, 101 Mass. 514.
See : Alvord Carriage Mfg. Co.
V. Gleason, 36 Conn. 86.
' McKim V. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 186.
" Peck V. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233.
'' Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 N. H.
503 ; s.c. 77 Am. Dec. 780.
' Gray v. Holdship, 17 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 413 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. 680.
' Bond V. Coke, 71 N. C. 97 ;
Latham v. Blakely, 70 N. C. 368.
' Farris v. Walker, 1 Bail. (S. C.)
L. 540.
" Peck V. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 338.
' See: Union Bank v. Emerson, 15
Mass. 159.
'» Noble V. Bosworth, 36 Mass. (19
Pick.) 814.
" McKim V. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 106.
" Fisher v. Dixon, 13 CI. & Fin.
312 ; s.c. 9 Jiir. 883.
'^See: Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me.
(6 Greenl.) 154; s.c. 19 Am.
Dec. 301 ;
Noble V. Bosworth, 36 Mass. (10
Pick.) 314 ;
Richardson v. Borden, 43 Miss. 71 ;
s.c. 2 Am. Rep. 595 ;
Tabor v. Robinson, 36 Barb. (N.
Y.) 483 ;
Main v. Schwarzwselder, 4 E. D.
Smith (N. Y.) 378 ;
Lynde v. Russell, 1 Bai-n. & Adol.
394; s.c. 20Eng. C.L. 532.
Compare : Peck v. Batchelder, 40
Vt. 288 ;
" Alvord Carriage Mfg.Co. v. Glea-
son, 36 Conn. 86.
See : Weston v. Weston, 103
Mass. 514.
'= Ghddin v. Bennett, 43 N. H. 306.
" Conklin?;. Parsons,l Chand. (Wis.)
240.
" Goodrich v. Jones, 3 Hill (N. Y.)
142.
'* D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. R. 5
Eq. Cas. 883 ; s.c. 36 L. J. Ch.
107; 15 W. R. 186.
'» Smith V. Price, 39 111. 38 ; s.c. 89
Am. Dec. 284.
Chap. IV. § 113.] WHAT PASS WITH LAND.
105
den-seats of stone ;^ gasoliers ;2 gas-fixtures area "per-
manent fixture " between the vendor and vendee where
the latter are to remain ; ^ gas-pipes which run through the
walls and under the floors of a house ; * a hat-rack, where
attached to the building in the course of its erection, and
as a part of the process ; ^ hay scales ; ^ hop-poles, though
detached from the ground and stacked in a pile ; '' a hotel
sign attached to the building or a post ; ^ the key to a
building ; ^ a kitchen range ; ^^ lumber hauled for a
building ; ^^ machinery put in a building fitted up as a
manufactory by the owner of the fee, where it is essential
to the manufactory ; ^ machinery in a shop and necessary
' D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. R. 3
Eq. Cas. 383 ; s.c. 36 L. R. Cli.
107 ; 15 W. R. 186.
2 Sewell V. Angerstein, 18 L. T. N.
S. 301.
' Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126 ; s.c.
41 Am. Rep. 351.
Compare : Towne v. Fiske, 127
Mass. 135, 137 ; s.c. 34 Am.
Rep. 353.
McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins.
Co., 81 N. y., 38; s.c. 37 Am.
Rep, 471.
* McKeage i\ Hanover Fire Ins. Co.,
81 N. y. 38 ; s.c. 37 Am. Rep.
471.
5 Ward V. Kilpatriok, 85 N. y. 413.
* Dudley v. Foote, 63 N. H. 57 ; s.c.
56 Am. Rep. 489.
See : Arnold v. Crowder, 81 111.56.
' Bislaop V. Bishop, 11 N. y. 123.
Compare : Noyes v. Terry, 1
Lans. (N. Y.) 219, 332.
* Redlon v. Barker, 4 Kan. 382 ; s.c.
96 Am. Dec. 180.
Compare : Woodward v. Lasar,
31 Cal. 448; s.c. 83 Am. Dec.
751
Ex parte Sheen, JJe Thomas, 43
L. T. N. S. 688.
9 See : 3 Cent. L. J. 617.
i» Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126 ; s.c.
41 Am. Rep. 251.
" McLaughlin v. Johnson, 46 111.
163.
" Ottumwa Woollen Mill Co. v.
Hawley, 44 lovra, 57 ; s.c. 24
Am. Rep. 719 ;
Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6
Greenl.) 154 ;
Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. (Va.)
752 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 323 ;
Longbottom v. Berry, L. R. 5 Q.
B. 133 ;
Queen v. Inhabitants of Parish of
Lee, L. R. 1 Q. B. 241 ; s.c. 14
W. R. 311 ;
Hubbard ?'. Bagsha^v, 4 Sim. 336.
As to when machinery Is a fixture, —
See : Hancock v. Jordan, 7 Ala.
448 ; s.c. 43 Am. Dec. COO ;
Swift V. Thompson, 9 Conn. 63 ;
s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 718 ;
Taffei;. Warnick, 3 Blackf . (Ind.)
Ill ; s.c. 23 Am. Deo. 383 ;
Goddard v. Bolster, 6 Me. (6
Greenl.) 437 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec.
320;
Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6
Greenl.) 154, 157 ; s.c. 19 Am.
Dec. 201 ;
Kirwan v. Latour, 1 Har. & J.
(Md.) 389; s.c. 3 Am. Dec.
519;
Winslow V. Merchants" Ins. Co.,
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 406; s.c. 38
Am. Dec. 368 ;
Gale V. Ward, 14 Mass. 352 ; s.c.
7 Am. Dec. 323 ;
Hunt V. Mullanphy, 1 Mo. 508 ;
s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 300 ;
Despatch Line v. Bellamy Mfg.
Co., 12 N. H. 205 ; s.c. 37 Am.
Dec. 203 ;
Randolph v. Gwynne, 7 N. J. Eq.
(3 Halst.) 88 ; s.c. 51 Am. Dec.
265;
Miller v. Plumb, 6 Cow. (N. Y.)
665 ; s.c. 16 Am. Dec. 456 ;
Holmes v. Tremper, 20 John. (N.
y.)29; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 208;
Cresson v. Stout, 17 John. (N. \.)
116 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 373 ;
Harlan v. Harlan, 15 Pa. St. 507 ;
s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 612;
Gray v. Holdship, 17 Eng. & R.
(Pa.) 413 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. 680 ;
Pyle V. Pennock, 3 Watts & S.
106
WHAT PASS WITH LAND.
[Book I.
to its usefulness ; ^ machinery of a marine railway ; ^
machinery used in carrying on business, where part is at-
tached to the soil, and the other parts not attached are
necessary to the use of the parts so attached ; ^ machinery
for manufacturing purposes where essential to the manu-
factory ; * machinery in a mill ^ for manufacturing pur-
poses ;^ manure '' made on a farm in the usual course of
husbandry ; ^ the mill-wheel and gearing of a factory,
attached to the same, and necessary for the operation of
such factory ;^ mirrors built into a house ;^'' mosquito
screens ;^^ pictures in panels on the wall ;^ platform
(Pa.) 390 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec.
517;
Voorhis v. Freeman, 3 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec.
490;
McKenna v. Hamiraond, 3 Hill.
(S. C.) L. 831 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec.
366;
Degraffenreid v. Scruggs, 4
Hump. (Tenn.) 451 ; s.c. 40 Am.
Dec. 658 ;
Tobias v. Francis, 3 Vt. 425 ; s.c.
23 Am. Dec. 217.
South Bridge Savings Bank v.
Stevens Tool Co., 130 Mass.
547.
Compare : Hubbell v. East Cam-
bridge Five Cent Savings Bank,
132 Mass. 447 ; s.c. 43 Am. Eep.
446.
' Tyson v. Post, 108 N. Y. 217 ; s.c.
2 Am. St. Eep. 409.
'Dudley v. Hurst, 67 Md. 44; s.c.
1 Am. St. Kep. 368 ; 8 Atl. Eep.
901.
* Gray v. Holdship, 17 Serg. & E.
(Pa.) 413.
See : Pea v. Pea, 35 Ind. 387 ;
Bowen v. Wood, 35 Ind. 268 ;
Stanhope v. Suplee, 2 Brewst.
(Pa.) 455 ;
Climie v. Wood, L. R. 3 Ex. 257.
» Farrar v. Staokpole, 6 Me. (6
Greenl.) 154, 157 ; s.c. 19 Am.
Dec. 201 ;
Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co.,
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ; s.c. 88
Am. Dec. 368 ;
Eobertson V. Corset, 39 Mich. 777 ;
Hill V. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 271;
s.c. 91 Am. Dec. 209 ;
Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec.
490.
* Capen v. Peckham, 35 Conn. 88 ;
Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. 78 ;
s.c. 11 Am. Eep. 310 ;
Jones V. Detroit Chair Co., 38
Mich. 93 ; s.c. 31 Am. Eep. 314 ;
Coleman v. Stearns Mfg. Co., 38
Mich. 80 ;
Case V. Arnett, 26 N. J. Eq. (11
C. E. Gr.) 959 ;
Grimshawe v. Burnham, 25 U. C.
Q. B. 147 ;
McLaren v. Coombs, 16 Grant TJ.
C. 587.
' Parsons v. Camp, 11 Conn. 535 ;
Chase v. Vvingate, 68 Me. 304 ;
s.c. 6 Eep. 749 ;
Staples V. Emery, 7 Me. 201 ;
Lassell v. Eeed, 6 Me. 223 ;
Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (21
Pick.) 367 ; s.c. 32 Am. Dec.
369;
Sawyer v. Twiss, 36 N. H. 345.
Needham v. Allison, 34 N. H. (4
Fost.) 85a ;
Conner v. Coffin, 22 N. H. 588 ;
Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 508 ;
s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 393 ;
Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.)
142 ;
Middlebrooke v. Corwin, 15
Wend. (N. Y.) 169.
* Parsons v. Camp, 11 Conn. 535;
Kittredge v. Woods, 3N. H. 503 ;
s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 393 ;
Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.)
142.
* Powell V. Monson & B. Mfg. Co.,
3 Mas. C. C. 347, 459.
" Mackie v. Smith, 5 La. An. 717 ;
Wardv. Kilpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413 ;
s.c. 39 Am. Eep. 674 ;
Lockwood V. Lockwood, 3 Eedf .
(N. Y.) 830.
" Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126 ;
s.c. 41 Am. Eep. 351.
" D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. E. 3
Chap. IV. § 113.] WHAT PASS WITH LAND. loT
scales,^ where bolted and fastened to sills, laid upon a
brick wall, set in the ground, and intended for permanent
farm use ; ^ rails and materials prepared for a fence ; ^
rollers of a marine railway ; * salt-pans erected by the
owner of a salt spring for the profitable enjoyment of the
inheritance ;^ a saw-mill with such appurtenances as
the mill-chain, dogs, and bars ; ^ seats in a theater, where
made after a pattern furnished with special reference to
the size and shape of the auditorium, and screwed to the
floor ; '' shaftin ; of a marine railway ; ^ shutters to the
windows of a dwelling ; ® a smutter, lent to the owner
of a grist-mill and fastened therein in the usual manner ;^''
statuettes ; ^^ stoves, permanently attached to the brick-
work of chimneys,^ — but it is otherwise where they have
been disconnected and put away for the summer, ^^ or are
merely connected by a pipe ; ^* a sugar-mill on a planta-
tion ; ^° a sun-dial ; ^*' tanks ; ^"^ tapestry on the wall ; ^
a threshing machine affixed by the owner in a barn by
means of screws and bolts ; ^^ tip-hammers firmly at-
tached to blocks set in the ground, and especially ad-
apted to use in connection with the freehold ; ^° vases ; ^^
a varnish-house ; ^ a water filter ; ^ the windows of a
Eq. Cas. 382 ; s.c. 36 L. J. Ch. Eq. Cas. 382 ; s.c. 36 L. J. Ch.
107 ; 15 W. R. 186. 107 ; 15 W. R. 186.
' Arnold v. Crowder, 81 lU. 56 ; s.c. >« Blethen v. Towle, 40 Me. 310.
25 Am. Rep. 260. See : Folsom v. Moore, 19 Me. 253;
See : Dudley v. Foote, 63 N. H. Smith v. Heiskell, 1 Cr. C. C. 99.
57 ; s.c. 56 Am. Rep. 489. " Blethen v. Towle, 40 Me. 310.
' Arnold i\ Crowder, 81 111. 56 ; s.c. " Freeland v. Southworth,24 Wend.
25 Am. Rep. 260. (N. Y.) 191.
» McLaughlin v. Johnson,46 111.163; " Hutchins v. Masterson, 46 Tex.
Goodrich v. Jones, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 551 ; s.c. 26 Am. Rep. 286.
143 • 'n Snedeker v. Warring, 12 N. Y.
Ripley v. Paige, 17 Vt. 353. 170.
< Tyson v. Post, 108 N. Y. 217 ; s.c. " Fratt v. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126 ;
2 Am. St. Rep. 409. s.c. 41 Ana. Rep. 251.
5 Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Bl. 260 ; '» D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. R. B
s.c. 2 Rev. Rep. 764. Eq. Cas. 382 ; s.c. 36 L. J. Ch.
• Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6 107 ; 15 W. R. 186.
Grcenl.) 154 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. " Wiltshear v. Cottrell, 1 El. & Bl.
201 674 ; s.c. 73 Eng. C. L. 674.
' Gross V. Jackson, 6 Daly (N. Y.) «" McLaughlin v. Nash, 96 Mass.
463 ; s.c. 17 Alb. L. J. 479. (14 AUen) 136.
« Tyson v. Post, 108 N. Y. 217 ; s.c. " D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. R. 5
2 Am St Rep. 409. Eq. Cas. 382; s.c. 36 L. J. Ch.
• Peck V. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233. 107 ; 15 W. R. 186.
■"Stillmani;. Flenniken, 58 Iowa «2 pgnton v. Robart, 3 East88 ; s.c.
450 ; s.c. 43 Am. Rep. 120 ; 10 6 Rev. Rep. 376.
N. W. Rep. 482. ^' Fratt v. Whittier, 58 Cal. 136; s.c.
" D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. R. 3 41. Am. Rep. 351.
108
"WHAT NOT PASS WITH LAND.
[Book I.
house ; ^ and the hke. But it has been held otherwise as
to aviaries ; ^ a Baltimore heater ; ^ a boiler built into
a frame erected for that purpose in a house, but capable
of removal without injury to the building ; * a carding-
machine in a wool-carding factory,^ fastened to the
floor with cleats and nails,® even though not capable of
being taken out of the building without being first taken
to pieces ; "^ a church-bell ; ^ a cider-mill ; ^ conserva-
tories ; ^^ cord- wood ; ^^ a cupboard fitted into a recess ; ^
a ferry-boat run by a chain fastened to the shore on either
side ; •'^ frames to carding and spinning machines ; ^* a
gin-head, though attached to the gin-house by a
brace ; ^ a heater in a tannery vat ; ^^ hot-houses ; ^'' a
hotel sign ; ^^ gas-fixtures in a house, although connected
with the house in the usual m.anner,^^ whether in the
shape of chandehers suspended from the ceiling, or as
I Peck V. Batohelder, 40 Vt. 233.
'^ Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & Bl. 237,
345; B.C. 90 Eng. C. L. 335,
345;
Wire V. Mitchell,10 Barn.& C.299,
814 ;s.o. 31 Eng. C. L. 133, 138.
^ Harmony Building Association ■;;.
Berger, 99 Pa. St. 330.
* Hunt V. Mullanphy, 1 Mo. 508 ;
s.c. 14 Am. Deo. 300.
^ Gale V. Ward, 14 Mass. 353 : s.c.
7 Am. Dec. 333 ;
Sturgis V. Warren, 11 Vt. 33 ;
Tobias v. Francis, 3 Vt. 435.
« Swift V. Thomson, 9 Conn. 63 ;
Taffe V. Warwick, 3 Blackf.
(Ind.) Ill ;
Vanderpool v. Van Allen, 10
Barb. (N. Y.) 157 ;
Cresson v. Stout, 17 John. (N. Y.)
116;
Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend.
(N. Y.) 636.
' Gale V. Ward, 14 Mass. 352 ; s.c.
7 Am. Dec. 223.
* Congregational Society v. Flem-
ing, 11 Iowa 533 ; s.c. 79 Am.
Dec. 511.
' Holmes v. Tremper, 20 John. (N.
Y.) 29, where erected by a ten-
ant holding from year to year
at his own expense, and for his
own use, in making cider on
the farm.
>» Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & Bl. 237,
245 ; s.c. 90 Eng. 0. L. 337,
245;
Wise V. Metoalf, 10 Barn. & C.
314 ; s.c. 31 Eng. C. L. 133.
" Brock V. Smith, 14 Ark. 431.
'2 Blethen v. Towle, 40 Me. 310.
" Cowart V. Cowart, 3 Lea (Tenn.)
57.
» Cresson v. Stout, 17 John. (N. Y.)
116 ; s.c. 8 Am. Deo. 373.
'° Hancock v. Jordan, 7 Ala. 448 ;
s.c. 43 Am. Deo. 600.
" Raymond v. White, 7 Cow. (N.
Y.) 319.
" Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & Bl. 337,
245 ; S.C. 90 Eng. C. L. 237,
345;
Wise V. Metcalf, 10 Bam. & C.
299, 314; s.c 31 Eng. C. L.
133, 138.
'* Woodward v. Lazar, 31 Cal. 448 ;
s.c. 83 Am. Deo. 751 ;
Ex parte Sheen, Be Thomas, 43
L. T. N. S. 638.
Compare : Redlon v. Barker, 4
Kan. 383; s.c 96 Am. Deo. 180.
" Towne v. Fiske, 137 Mass. 135 ;
S.C. 33 Am. Rep. 353. But not
as between mortgagor and
mortgagee.
McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins.
Co., 81 N. Y. 38 ; s.c. 37 Am.
Rep. 471. Although they are
held to be "permanent fix-
tures" as between vendor and
vendee, where they are to re-
main.
Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 136;
s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 251.
Chap. IV. § 113.] "WHAT NOT PASS WITH LAND.
109
brackets from the side-walls, though attached to the gas-
pipes by screws and made tight by cement ; ^ a loom
used in a building, ^ such as a woolen factory, and
fastened to the floor by screws, connected with the
motive powers by leathern bands, and capable of being
removed without injury to the building or themselves ; ^
machinery in a factory, heavy and screwed to the floor,
and connected with the shafting, but removable without
injury to the building, and serviceable elsewhere ;*
menageries ; ^ mirrors supported by hooks driven into the
wall," — but it will be otherwise where the mirror frames
are actually annexed to the building during the course
of its erection and as a part of the process ; "^ but mirrors
put in after a house is built, kept in their place by
hooks and supports, some of which are fastened with
screws to the wood- work, ahd others driven in the wall,
capable of being detached without injuring the walls,
are not fixtures ; ^ observatories ; ® a packing machine
' McConnell v. Blood, 133 Mass. 47 ;
s.o. 25 Am. Eep. 12 ;
Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191 ;
Eogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.o.
93 Am. Dec. 299.
Shaw V. Lenke, 1 Daly (N. Y.)
487;
Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N.
Y.) 363 ;
Heysham v. Dettre, 89 Pa. St.
506 ; s.c. 29 Am. Rep. 403, note ;
Jarechi v. Philharmonic Society,
79 Pa. St. 403 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep.
78;
Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (S.
C ^ L 135
■2 Walker t;. Sherman, 20 Wend. (N.
Y.) 363 ;
Teafl V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ;
s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 639 ;
Hutchinson v. Kay, 23 Beav. 413.
Compare: In re Dawson, 16 W.
R. 424.
8 Murdook v. Gilford, 18 N. Y. 28.
* Hubbell V. East Cambridge Five
Cent Savings Bank, 132 Mass.
447 ; S.C. 43 Am. Rep. 446.
' Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & Bl. 237,
345 ; s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 337, 245 ;
Wise V. Metcalf, 10 Barn. & C.
214; s.c. 31 Eng. C. L. 132.
sMcKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins.
Co., 81 N. Y. 38 ; s.c. 37 Am.
Rep. 471.
See : Winslow v. Merchants' Ins.
Co., 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306, 311 ;
Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c.
93 Am. Dec. 299 ;
Shaw V. Lenke, 1 Daly (N. Y.)
487;
Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N.
Y.) 363 ;
Vaughen v. Haldeman, 33 Pa. St.
523;
Montague v. Dent. 10 Rich. (S.
C.) L. 13.-) :
Beck V. Rebow, 1 Pr. Wms. 94.
■" Ward V. Kilpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413.
* McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. ,
81 N. Y. 38 ; s.c. 37 Am. Eep.
471.
See : Winslow v. Merchants' Ins.
Co., 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 84;
Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c.
93 Am. Deo. 299 ;
Shaw V. Lenke, 1 Daly (N. Y.)
487;
Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N.
Y.) 363 ;
Vaughen v. Haldeman, 38 Pa.
St. 533 ;
Montagvie v.
C.) L. 135 ;
Beck V. Rebow, 1 Pr. Wms. 94.
° Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & Bl. 337,
245; s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 237,
345;
Wise V. Metcalf, 10 Barn. & C.
Dent, 10 Rich. (S.
110
WHAT NOT PASS WITH LAND,
[Book I.
used in a building ; ^ pineries ; ^ a portable air-furnace,
although connected with the house in the usual man-
ner ; ^ a safe ; * salt-kettles, though imbedded in brick
arches, but capable of being removed without injury
to themselves ; ^ settees used as seats in a church ; ^
a saw-mill erected on land by one other than the owner
of the fee ; "^ a shearing-machine used in a building ; *
show-cases in a store, though resting on the floor and
nailed or screwed to the wall, but furnishing no part of
the room ; ^ a sign-board screwed to a block in the wall ; '"
spinning- jennies used in a building ; " spinning-frames
fastened to the floor by cleats and nails ; ^ stones for
grinding bark, affixed to a bark-mill ; ^^ a steam-engine
erected by a tenant for life for the purposes of trade ; i*
stones reserved and removed to another part of the prem-
ises ; ^® stone piers and abutnients for a bridge built by a
299, 314 ; s.c. 31 Eng. C. L. 132,
138.
1 Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend. (N.
Y.) 636.
See : Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St.
511 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 634.
« Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & BI. 237, 245 ;
s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 237, 245 ;
Wise V. Metcalf, 10 Barn. & C.
314 ; s.c. 31 Eng. C. L. 132.
3 Towne V. Fiske, 127 Mass. 125 ;
s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 353.
A portable iron famace used for
heating a church has been
held not to be a fixture within
a mortgage of the land.
Rahway Savings Institution v.
Irving Street Baptist Chm-oh,
36 N. J. Eq. (9 Stew.) 61.
Compare: Stockwell v. Camp-
bell, 39 Conn. 363.
■■ Moody V. Aiken, 50 Tex. 65.
See : Dostal v. McCadden, 35
Iowa 318 ;
Folger V. Kenner, 34 La. An. 436.
^ Ford V. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 844.
See : Sheldon v. Edwards, 35 N.
Y. 279.
' Chapman v. Union Mutual. Life
Ins. Co., 4 Bradw. (111.) 292.
Special seats. — It is otherwise,
however, where the seats are
made of a pattern and size
furnished with especial refer-
ence to the size, shape, and
plan of the room, and are
screwed to the floor.
See : Gross v. Jackson, 6 Daly
(N. Y.) 463 ; s.c. 17 Alb. L. J.
497.
' Brown v. Lillie, 6 Nev. 244.
" Walker v. Slierman, 20 Wend.
(N. Y.) 636.
See : Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St.
511 ; s.c. 59 Am. Deo. 634.
' Kimball v. Masters Grand Lodge
of Masons, 131 Mass. 59.
See : Towne v. Fiske, 137 Mass.
135 ; s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 353-;
Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191 :
Park V. Baker, 89 Mass. (7 AUen)
78: s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 668;
Wall V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray)
856 ; s.c. 64 Am. Deo. 64.
'" Ex parte Sheen, Re Thomas, 43
L. T. N. S. 638.
Compare: Woodward v. Lazar,
21 Cal. 448 ; s.c. 83 Am. Deo.
751.
" Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend.
(N. Y.) 636.
See : Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St.
511 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634.
" Cressonv. Stout, 17 John. (N. Y.)
116.
See : Swift v. Thompson, 9 Conn.
63 ;
Vanderpool v. Van AUen, 10
Barb. (N. Y.) 157.
'^ Heermance v. Vemov, 6 John.
(N. Y.) 5.
•" Estates of Hinds, 5 Whart. (Pa.)
138 ; s.c. 34 Am. Dec. 548.
" Fulton V. Norton, 64 Me. 410.
Chap. IV. § 114.] CEITERIA OF FIXTURES. HI
railroad company upon lands over which it had acquired
the right of way ; ^ the stools in a store ; ^ stoves con-
nected to a house by means of pipes ; ^ 'weather-vanes ; *
wooden structures or buildings resting by their weights
on fiat stones laid upon the surface of the grounds/ and
the like.
Sec. Hi. Criteria for determining.— As to what consti-
tutes a fixture, when an article in the nature of a chattel
is annexed to the realty and passes with it, and when it
retains its original character, there is not a little doubt
and uncertainty, consequent upon the conflict in the
decided cases. A guide which is thought to furnish
a test of general and uniform application, — one by means
of which the essential quality of a fixture can, in most
instances^ at least, be certainly and easily ascertained,
and one which tends to harmonize the apparent confiict
in the authorities relating to the subject, — will be found
in the following criteria : "
1. Actual annexation ^ to the realty, or to something
appurtenant thereto ; ^
2. Appropriation to the use or purpose of that part
of the realty with which it is connected; "
3. Adaptability of the use to which appropriated, and
to the realty to which connected ; ^^
1 Wagner v. Cleveland &T. R. Co., Capon v. Peckham, 35 Conn. 88 ;
23 Ohio St. 563 ; s.o. 10 Ani. Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y.
Rep. 770. 278, 283 ;
* Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N. Potter v. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287 ;
Y.) 363. s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485 ;
« Freeland v. Southworth, 24 Teafl: v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ;
Weud. (N. Y.) 191. s.c. 59 Am. Deo. 634.
" Harmony Bailding Association v. * Ward v. KiliJatrick, 85 N. Y. US,
Berger, 99 Pa. St. 320. 419 ;
' Carlin v. Ritter, 68 Md. 478 ; s.o. MoRea v. Central National Bank
6 Am. Sb. Rep. 467. of Troy, 66 N. Y. 489.
« Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. ° Ward v. Kilpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413,
93 Am. Dec. 299. 419 ;
'' Teaff V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; McRea v. Central National Bank
s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634. ' of Troy, 66 N. Y. 489 ;
See: Voorliees v. McGinnis, 48 Teaff v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ;
N. Y. 278, 282. s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634.
Exceptions to tMs rule there are •» Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y.
in those articles which are 278, 382 ;
themselves annexed but are Potter v. Cromwell, 40 JN. Y. ^87,
deemed to be of the freehold 297 ; s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485 ;
from their use and character, Pyle v. Pennock, 3 Watts & S.
such as mill-stones, fejices, (Pa.) 390 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 517;
statutory, and the like. Voorhis v. Freeman, 3 Watts &
112
ACTUAL ANNEXATION.
[Book I.
4. The policy of the law connected with the purpose
of the annexation ; ^
5. The intention of the parties at the time of making
the annexation to make the article a permanent accession
to the freehold or inheritance.^
Let us consider each of these essentials in their turn.
Sec. 115. Same— l. Actual annexation.— To give chattels
the character of fixtures, and deprive them of that of per-
sonalty, they must be so attached to the realty as to
become, for the time being, a part of the freehold as
contradistinguished from a mere chattel.^ Some of the
cases hold that they must be so firmly attached to the
realty that they cannot be removed without injury to the
freehold by the act of removal and apart from the ab-
stracting of the thing removed ; * but the better doctrine
is thought to be the one which regards as a fixture every-
thing that has been attached to the realty, with a view
to the purpose for which it is employed or held, however
slight or temporary the physical connection may be.^ Some
S. (Pa.) 116 ; S.C. 37 Am. Dec.
490.
' Meig's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 28 ; s.c.
1 Am. Rep. 372.
' Capon V. Peckham, 35 Conn. 88 ;
Swift V. Thompson, 9 Conn. 63 ;
Congregational Society v. Flem-
ing, 11 Iowa 533 ; s.c. 79 Am.
Dec. 511 ;
Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co.,
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ;
Ward V. Kilpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413,
419;
McRea v. Centi-al National Bank
of Troy, 66 N. Y. 489 ;
Hoyle I). Plattsburgh & M. R. Co.,
54 N. Y. 314 ;
Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y.
282;
Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y.
287 ; 100 Am. Dec. 485.
Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28 ;
Gross V. Jackson, 6 Daly (N. Y.)
463 ; s.c. 17 Alb. L. J. 479 ;
Funk V. Brigaldi, 4 Daly (N. Y.)
359 361 •
Teaff\. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ;
s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634.
5 Carlin v. Ritter, 68 Md. 478 ; s. c.
6 Am. St. Rep. 467; 13 Atl.
Ey. 370 ; 16 Id. SOI ;
Walker v. Sherman, 30 Wend.
(N. Y.) 636 ;
Teaflf V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ;
s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 513.
See : Clary v. Owen, 81 Mass.
(15 Gray) 523 ;
Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.)
40; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 757;
Campbell v. Roddy, 44 N. J. Eq.
(17 Stew.) 344 ; s.c. 6 Am. St.
Rep. 889 ; 14 Atl. Rep. 279 ;
Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 38 ;
Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S.
115 ; s.c. 97 Eng. C. L. 114.
* Swift V. Thompson, 9 Conn. 63,
67 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 718 ;
Johnson's 'Ex'rs v. Wiseman's
Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360; s.c.
83 Am. Dec. 475 ;
Gale V. Ward, 14 Mass. 352 ; s.c.
7 Am. Dec. 223 ;
Hunt V MuUanphy, 1 Mo. 508;
s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 300 ;
Farrar v. Chauffetete, 5 Den.
(N. Y.) 537 ;
Providence Gas Co. v. Thurber,
3 R. I. 15 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec.
621.
' Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's
Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 857 ; s.c. 88
Am. Dec. 475 ;
Chap. IV. § 116.] MANNER OF ANNEXATION. H3
of the courts have gone so far as to make the appropri-
ation the only- test, dispensing with actual or physical
annexation/ as of no particular consequence ; ^ but
those cases go to the other extreme. The golden mean
lies midway between ; for as a general rule there must
be some degree of actual annexation or fixation.^
Sec. 116. Same — Same — Manner of annexation and char-
acter of article.— There is no doubt but that the question
whether chattels are to be regarded as fixtures depends
less upon the manner of their annexation to the freehold
than upon their own nature, their adaptation to the
purpose for which they are used, and the intention of the
parties.* While the chattel, in order to become a fixture,
should be habitually attached to the land or some struct-
ure or building upon it, yet it need not be constantly
fastened thereto/ a constructive annexation being suf-
ficient.'' The mode of annexation is important, and
in the absence of other proof of intent, will be controlling.
It naay be in itself so inseparable and permanent as to
Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6 24 N. J. Eq. (9 C. E. Gr.) 260 ;
GreenL) 154, 157; s.c. 19 Am. Potts v. New Jersey Arms Co.,
Dec. 201 ; 17 N. J. Eq. (2 C. E. Gr.) 395 ;
TeaflE v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; Hoyle v. Plaltsburgh & M. R. Co.,
s.c. 59 Am. Deo. 634 ; 54 N. Y. 314, 823 ;
Gray v. Holdship, 17 Serg. & R. Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y.
(Pa.) 413 ; s.c. 17 Am. Deo. 680. 278, 283 ;
» Pyle V. Pennock, 2 Watts & S. Potter v. CromweU, 40 N. Y. 287,
(Pa.) 391 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 517 ; 295 ; s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485 ;
Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 Watts & Laflin v. Griffiths, 35 Barb. (N.
S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. Y.) 58, 62;
490 Beardsly v. Ontario Bank, 31
' Peck 'v. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233 ; Barb. (N. Y.) 619, 634 ;
s.c. 94 Am. Dec. 392. Stevens v. Buffalo & N. R. Co.,
2 See : Pennybecker v. McDougal, >31 Barb. (N. Y.)590 ;
48 Cal 160 • Vanderpool v. Van Allen, 10
Merrit v. Judd, 14 Cal. 59, 64 ; Barb. (N. Y.) 157, 163 ;
Capon V. Peckham, 39 ,Conn. 88, Noyes v. Terry, 1 Lans. (N. Y.)
93 • 219, 220 ;
StockweU V. Campbell, 34 Conn. TeaflE v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ;
363 . ■ s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634 ;
Baldwin v. Breed, 10 Conn. 60, Fairis v. Walker, 1 Bail. (S. C.)
66;
L. 540.
Shoemaker u Simpson, 16 Kan. ^Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wisemans
43 : s.c. 3 Cent. L. J. 133 ; Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c.
Brown v. Lillie, 6 Nev. 244 ; 83 Am. Dec. 475.
Lathrop ?J. Blake, 23 N. H. 46, 66 ; ^ Walker v. Sherman, 20 ^/end.
Despatch Line of Packets v. Bel- (N. Y.) 636.
lamy Mfg. Co., 13 N. H. 205, « Brown i.. Lillie 6 Nev. 346 ;
234 f Snedeker v. Warring, 13 N. Y,
Quimby v. Manhattan Cloth Co., 170.
114 APPROPRIATION TO USE. [Book I.
render the article necessarily apart of the realty, and
in case of less thorough annexation the mode of attach-
ment may afford convincing evidence that the intention
was that the attachment should be permanent. As, for
instance, where the building is constructed expressly
to receive the machine" or other article, and it could not
be ixLoved without material injury to the building ; or
where the article would be of no value except for use
in that particular building, or could not be removed
therefrom without being destroyed, or greatly damaged.
These are tests which have been frequently applied in
determining whether the annexation was intended to be
temporary or permanent, but they are not the only ones,
nor is it indispensable that any of these conditions should
exist.
Sec. 117. same — 2. Appropriation to the use To ren-
der an article that is in the nature of personalty a fixt-
ure, there must be an appropriation of such article to
the use or purpose of that part of the realty with which
it is connected.^ If the article is attached for the per-
manent use of the freehold it constitutes an appropria-
tion to the use, and the article becomes a fixture ; but if
for temporary use only, it is otherwise ; ^ and for this
reason the circumstances of the transaction are always
to be taken into consideration, to ascertain whether the
annexation wr.z made for the permanent improvement
of the freehold or only for a temporary purpose.*
Sec. 118. Same — 3. Adaptation to the use The ancient
rule which treated nothing as a fixture except such
chattels as were fastened to the realty and more or less
immovable, has been modified and remodeled to suit
the improvements in the arts and the advancement in
' MoRea v. Central National Bank ■* Potter v. Ci-omwell 40 N Y S87
of Troy, 66 N. Y. 489, 495 ; 293 ; s.c. 100 Am. Deo.'485 ; '
Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287 ; Farrar .v. ChaufEetete, 5 Den
s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485. (N. Y.) 527, 531.
•> Teaff V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; See : Swift v. Thompson, 0 Conn
s.o. 59 Am. Dec. 684. 63 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 718 ;
2 See : McRea v. Central National McKim i\ Mason, 3 Md. Ch 186 •
Bank of Ti-oy, 06 N. Y. 489. Gale v. Ward, 14 Mass. 853 ; s.c'
7 Am. Dec. 223.
Chap. IV. §§ 119, 120.] POLICY OF LAW. ,11/5
the sciences in modern times. At the present time' the
question whether chattels are to be regarded as fixtures
depends less upon the manner of their annexation to, the
freehold, than upon their own nature and their adapta-
tion to the purposes for which they are used.^ Actual
annexation to the freehold and adaptation to its pur-
poses must both unite in order to render the personal
property incident and appurtenant to real estate.^
Sec. 119. Same — 4. Policy of the law The policy of
the law is always to be taken into consideration in deter-
mining whether the annexation of an article to the
estate changes its character from personalty to realty.^
The law presumes that every useful addition to an
estate is for the benefit of the inheritance, unless a con-
trary intention appears. The annexation of chattels to
the freehold by a tenant is regarded as an additional
gift to the owner of the fee, which may be defeated by
removal thereof during the term of the tenancy, but be-
comes absolute in case the premises are surrendered
without its removal.*
Sec. 120. Same — 5. Intention of tlie parties — To change
the character of an article from a chattel to a fixtm-e
there must be not only an annexation or fixation to the
' Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's Shepard v. Spaulding, 45 Mass.
Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c. 83 (4 Met.) 416 ;
Am Deo. 475 ; GafiBeld v. Hapgood, 34 Mass.
Ward V. Elpatrick, 85 N. Y. 413, (17 Pick.) 192 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec.
419 ; 290 ;
Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y Beckwith v. Boyce, 9 Mo. 560 ;
283 ; State v. Elliot, 11 N. H. 504 ;
Pyle V. Pennock, 2 Watts & S. Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 793 ;
(Pa.) 390 ; s.c. 37 Am. Deo. 517; s.c. 6 Am. Rep. 173 ;
Voorhia v. Freeman, 3 Watts & Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. (N. Y.)
S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 333 ;
490. , Hafliok v. Stober, 11 Ohio St.
'Despatch Line v. Bellamy Mfg. 482;
Co., 13 N. H. 205 ; s.c. 37 Am. Davis v. Moss, 38 Pa. St. 346,
Dec. 203. 353 ;
' Meig's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 28, 30 ; Overton v. WiUiston, 31 Pa. St.
s.c. 1 Am. Bep. 373, 374 ; 155 ;
Hill V. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 371 ; White v. Amdt, 1 Whart. (Pa.)
s.c. 91 Am. Dec. 209. 91 ; . r r- t. -nt
* See : Moore v. Smith, 24 LI. 513 ; Leader v. Homewood, 5 C. B N.
Mccracken v. Hall, 7 Ind. 30 ; S. 546 ; s.c. 27 L. JO. P. 316 ;
Sullivan V. Carberry, 67 Me. 531 ; 4 Jus. N. S. 1063 ; 94 Eng. C. L.
Stockwell V. Marks, 17 Me. 455 ; 544.
Davis V. Buffum, 15 Me. 160 ;
116
INTENTION OF PARTIES.
[Book I.
real estate, or something appurtenant thereto, as well as
an appropriation to the end and an adaptability to the
use for which designed, bvit also an intention on the
part of the party causing the annexation to make the
article a permanent accession to the freehold.^ This
question of intent enters into and makes an element in
each case,^ for the purpose of annexation, and the inten-
tion with which it was made, are the most important
conditions.^ This is often exemplified in questions be-
tween landlord and tenant, but is not confined to them.*
Where there is any question as to the intent in the
annexation, the claimant must show such facts and
circumstances as will clearly indicate that the owner in-
tended to change the character of the property from per-
sonalty to realty.® This intention is to be inferred from
(1) the nature of the article affixed ; (2) the relation and
situation of the party making the annexation ; (3) the
structure and mode of annexation ; and (4) the purpose
or use for which the annexation was made.®
' TeafE v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ;
S.C. 59 Am. Dec. 639, 645.
See : Sword v. Low, 123 111. 487 ;
B.C. 13 N. E. Eep. 836 ;
Manwaring v. Jenison, 61 Mich.
117 ; S.C. 27 N. W. Rep. 899 ;
Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 387 ;
B.C. 100 Am. Dec. 485 ;
Fortman v. Goepper, 14 Ohio St.
558;
Hutchins v. Masterson, 46 Tex.
551 ; S.C. 26 Am. Rep. 38G ;
Hill V. Wentworth, 38 Vt. 428 ;
Walker v. Grand Rapids Flouring
Mill Co., 70 Wis. 93: s.c. 85
N. W. Rep. 333 ; 26 Cent. L. J.
373
» Potter V. CromweU, 40 N. Y. 387 ;
s.c. 100 Am. Deo. 485 ;
Farrar v. Chauifetete, 5 Den.
(N. Y.) 537, 531.
' Congregational Society v. Flem-
ing, 11 Iowa 533 ; s.c. 79 Am.
Dec. 511 ;
MoRea v. Central National Bank
of Troy, 66 N. Y. 495, 499 ; s.c.
50 How. (N. Y.) Pr. 53, 54 ;
Tiffit V. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377, 383 ;
Hart V. Sheldon, 34 Hun (N. Y.)
45 ; s.c. 30 Week. Dig. 386 ;
Snedeker v. Warring, 13 N. Y.
170;
Wright V. O'Brien, 5 Daly (N. Y.)
54, 61.
* Shoemaker v. Simpson, 16 Kan.
43; s.c. 3 Cent. L. J. 133.
Citing: FuUer ?;. Tabor, 39 Me. 619;
Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97
Mass. 279 ;
Hinps V. Amenti 43 Mo. 298 ;
Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 429 ; s.c.
75 Am. Dec. 195 ;
Haven v. Emery, 33 N. H. 66 ;
Wagner v. Cleveland & T. R. Co.
33 Ohio St. 563.
5 Hunt V. Mullanphy, 1 Mo. 508 ;
s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 300 ;
Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 387;
s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485, 489;
Farrar v. Chauffetete, 5 Den. fN.
Y.) 537, 531.
See: Swift v. Thompson, 9 Conn.
63; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 718;
MoKim V. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 186 ;
Gale V. Ward, 14 Mass. 353; s.c.
7 Am. Dec. 233.
« TeaflE v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ;
s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634, 645.
See: Tillman v. DeLacy, 80 Ala.
103;
Capon V. Peckham, 35 Conn. 88;
Pea V. Pea, 35 Ind. 387;
Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan. 314 ; s.c.
15 Am. Rep. 345;
Chap. IV. § 121.] INTENT CONTROLS. 117
Sec. 121. Same — Same — Permanency of attachment con-
trolled by intent.— It is well established by a large num-
ber of adjudicated cases that where an article is at-
tached for temporary use merely, with the intention of
removing it, the article does not lose its character as
personalty ; but if the article is afi&xed for the perma-
nent improvement of the freehold, it becomes realty.^
The permanency of the attachment, and its character in
law, does not depend so much upon the degree of physi-
cal force with which the thing is attached, or the man-
ner or means of its attachment, as upon the motives and
intentions of the parties in attaching it. If this inten-
tion is that the article shall not by annexation become
part of the freehold, as a general rule it does not. The
exception to this rule is where the subject or mode of
annexation is such that the attributes of personal prop-
erty cannot be predicated of the thing in controversy ; ^
as where the property cannot be removed without prac-
tically destroying it, or when the article, or a part of
it, is essential to the support of that to which it is
attached.^
Dudley v. Hurst, 67 Md. 44 ; s.c. Walker v. Sherman, 30 Wend.
8 Atl. Rep. 901 ; (N. Y.) 636;
Weathersby v. Sleeper, 42 Miss. Hellawell v. Eastwood, 6 Exch.
732; 295, 312;
Rogers V. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N.
93 Am. Dec. 299; S. 115; s.c. 97 Eng. C. L. 114;
Ouimby v. Manhattan Cloth Co., Lanohester v. Eve, 5 C. B. N. S.
42 N. J. Eq. (9 C. E. Gr.) 260 ; 717; s.c. 94 Eng. C. L. 715.
Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. Eq. ^ Manwaring v. Jenison, 61 Mich.
(3 Stockt.) 29; 117; s.c. 27 N. W. Rep. 899;
McRea v. Central Nat. Bank, of Ford v. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344.
Troy 66 N Y 489; ^ Manwaring v. Jenison, 61 Mich.
Potter%. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287; 117; s.c. 37 N. W. Rep. 899
sc 100 Am. Dec. 485; See: Wade'y.Johnston,25 Ga.33l;
Hu'tc'hins v. Masterson, 46 Tex. Ballou v. Jones, 37 111. 95;
551- s.c. 26 Am. Rep. 386; Eaves v. Estes, 10 K^n. 314 ; s.c.
HiU V. Wentworth, 38 Vt. 428; 15 Am. Rep., 345.
Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. (Va.) Trull v. Fuller, 28 Me. 548;
753- s 0. 21 Am. Rep. 323; Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co.,
Taylor v. CoUins, 51 Wis. 133; 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306;
so 8 N. W. Rep. 23; Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. Eq.
Heilawell v. Eastwood, 6 Exch. (3 Stockt.) 29, 35;
295 Sisson v. Hibbard, 75 N. Y. 542 ;
' Manwaring v. Jenison, 61 Mich. McRea v. Central Nat. Bank of
m s c 27 N. W. Rep. 899; Troy, 66 N. Y. 489;
Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. Eq. TifiEt v. Horton, 53 N. Y 377;
(o stockt ) 29- Voorhees v. McGmms, 48 N. Y.
Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287; 378-383 ;
s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485;
j^lg AGRICULTURAl, FIXTURES. [BOOK t
. Sec. 122. Kinds or classes of fixtures.— For the conven-
ience of treatment, fixtures may be divided in five gen-
eral classes, as follows :
, , 1. Agricultural fixtures ;
2. Domestic fixtures ;
3. Ecclesiastical fixtures ;
4. Trade fixtures ; and
5. Mixed fixtures.
We will take up each of these classes in its turn.
Sec. 123. Same — 1. Agricultural fixtures.— Agricultural
fixtures are such fixtures as are annexed to the freehold
for convenience in cultivating the soil. The English
coinmon law did not extend to fixtures erected for the
purposes of agriculture the same favors and leniency, in
respect to the right of removal, that it did to fixtures
erected for the purposes of trade. ^ But the common law
of England is not to be taken in all respects to be the
law of America.^ Our ancestors brought with them the
general principles of the common law, and claimed it as
their birthright ;- but they brought with them and
adopted only that portion of the common law which was
applicable to their condition.^ The rigorous rule regard-
ing agricultural fixtures was one of the principles not
adapted to the condition of our forefathers. The country
was a wilderness, and the universal policy was to pro-
cure its cultivation and improvement. The interest of
TeafE v. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511; Pierson v. Lane, 60 Iowa 60; s.c.
s.c. 59 Am. Deo. 634; 14 N. W. Rep. 90;
.■HiU V. Wentworth, 28 Vt. 428, Wagner'!;. Bissell, 3 Iowa 396;
436. Lathrop v. Commercial Bank, 8
Elwes V. Maw, 4 East 38; s.c. 6 Dana (Ky.) 114 ; s.c. 38 Am.
Rev. Rep. 523; 3 Smith's Lead. Dec. 481;
•■ Gas. (9th Am. ed.) 1433. Commonwealth v. York, 50 Mass.
See : Gaffield v. Hapgood, 34 (9 Met.) 93; s.c. 43 Am. Dec.
Mass. (IV Pick.) 193; s.o. 28 373;
. ' Am. Dec. 390; Going v. Emery, 33 Mass. (16
Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. 349; Pick.) 107 ; s.r . 36 Am. Dec. 645;
! Wing V. Gray, 36 Vt. 261. Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2
3 Harkness ■;;. Sears, 36 Ala. 493; Mass. 530, 534;
s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 742. Stout v. Keyes, 2 Doug. (Mich.)
3 Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. 493; 184; s.c. 43 Am. Dec. 465;
s.c. 62 Am. Dec. 742. Pennook's Estate, 20 Pa. St. 368;
See : Boyer v. Sweet, 3 Scam. s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 718;
■ (lU.) 131; Lindsley v. Coates, 1 Ohio 243;
SicelofE V. Redman's Admr., 26 Van Ness v. Pacard, 26 U. S. (2
Ind. 251; Pet.) 137; bk. 7 L. ed. 374.
Chap. IV. § 124.] USEFUL FIXTURES. 119
the owner of the soil, as well as the public policy of the'
country, which permits the tenant to make the most
profitable and comfortable use of the premises demised
consistent with the rights of the owner of the freehold, ^
required that all erections for agricultural purposes, put
upon the land by the tenant, should receive the same
protection in favor of the tenant that was extended by
the common law of England to fixtures erected for the
purposes of trade. ^ Thus where hop-poles are put upon
a farm by a tenant for his own temporary use, with the
intention of removing them, they remain his personal
property ; ^ but when they are put there by the owner of the
realty, for permanent use, they become a part of and pass
with it the same as do fences.* Where land is leased for
nursery purposes, the trees grown remain personal prop-
erty, as between the lessor and lessee and their assigns,^
but if planted by the owner of the soil, they become a
part of the realty."
Sec. 124. Same— 2. Domestic fixtures— a. Useful fixtures.—
Domestic fixtures are such annexations as are made by
a tenant to the dwelling-house, or other building oc-
cupied by him, to render it more ornamental or convenient
' GraflBeld v. Hapgood, 34 Mass. (17 cussing the more general ques-
Piok.) 193, 195; s.o. 28 Am. tion of fixtures, says that " trees
Dec. 290. in a nursery ground are a part
Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. 493 ; of the freehold until severed,"
s.o. 62 Am. Dec. 742. but this applies only in a case
See: Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. where the ownership of the
349; ground and trees unite in one
Dubois V. EeUy, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) and the same person.
496; * Price v. Brayton, 19 Iowa 309.
Wing V. Gray, 36 Vt. 261; See: Maples v. Millon, 31 Conn.
Leland v. Gassett, 17 Vt. 403; 698.
Van Ness v. Pacard, 27 U. S. (2 Hurserr stock— Eaised on mortgaged
Pet.) 137; bk. 7 L. ed. 374. land, — And this is the case
5 Wing V. Gray, 86 Vt. 26. even though the nursery stock
* Bishop V. Bishop, UN. Y. 123; which was raised on mortgaged
s.c. 62 Am. Deo. 68. ' realty has been conveyed by .
* Miller V. Baker, 42 Mass. (11 Met.) chattel mortgage. Adams i).
27 ; Beadle, 47 Iowa 439 ; s.c. 39
King V. Wilcomb, 7 Barb. (N. Am. Rep. 487. This is on the
Y.) 363; principle laid down by Chief
Penix)n v. Robart, 3 East 88 : s.c. Justice Gibbs in Lee v. Risdon,
6 Rev. Rep. 376 ; 7 Taunt. 191 ; s.c. 2 Marsh.
Wyndham v. Way, 4 Taunt. 316. 495 ; 3 Eng. C. L. 330, hereto-
Nnrsery stock — A part of freehold fore referred to, that " ti-ees in
when.— In the case of Lee v. a nursery are a part of the free-
Risdon, 7 Taunt. 791 ; s.c. 2 hold until severed."
Marsh. 495 ; 2 Eng. C. L. 320, See : Miller v. Baker, 43 Mass.
however, Gibbs, C. J., in dis- (11 Met.) 37, 33.
120 02NAMENTAL FIXTUEES. [Book I.
or comfortable for his use.-' Fixtures of this kind are
divided into two classes, to wit : (a) useful fixtures ; and
(b) ornamental fixtures.^ Useful domestic fixtures are
such as are peculiarly adapted to the house or building in
which they are placed, or which are essential to the en-
joyment of the estate. Useful fixtures placed in a house
or other building by a tenant may or may not become a
part of the realty according to the circumstances of the
case and the intention of the party ; but when placed in
the building by the owner thereof they attach to and
become a part of the realty ; ^ but not such as are inci-
dental merely to a part of a building or buildings. * Within
this principle it has been held that the pipes and bath-
tubs of a dwelling ; the water-tanks of a building ; ^ the
counters of a store ; the vats, stills, and kettles of a brew-
ery or distillery, arc fixtures."
Sec. 125. Same — Same — b. Ornamental domestic fixtures. —
Ornamental domestic fixtures are such as are attached to
the building for its ornament merely or principally ; ''
such as panel pictures,^ satin adornments,^ and the like ;
and may at the same time be useful, such as gas-fixtures
' Wall V. Hinds. 70 Mass. (4 Gray) Jenkins v. Gething, 3 Johns. & H.
35G ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64. 520 ;
" Id. Winn v. Ingilby, 1 Dow & Ey.
'' Stockwell V. Campbell, 39 Conn. 247 ; s.c. 5 Barn. & Aid. 625 ; 7
362 ; s.c. 12 Am. Eep. 393 ; Eng. C. L. 341 ;
Wall V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) Ex parte Eeynald, 2 Mont. D. &
256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64, 73 ; DeG. 443 ;
Meig's Appeal, 63 Pa. St. 38 ; s.c. Ex parte Montgomery, 4 Ir. Ch.
1 Am. Eep. 373 ; Eep. 520.
Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. " McConnell v. Blood, 133 Mass. 47.
115 ; s.c. 6 Jiir. N. S. 125 ; 29 » Wall v. Hinds, 70 Mass. {4 Gray)
L. J. C. P. 97 ; 1 L. T. N. S. 256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64.
93 ; 97 Eng. C. L. 114. « Eogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91, 94 ; s.c.
See : McConnell v. Blood, 123 93 Am. Dec. 299, 302.
Mass. 47 ; See : Cohen v. Kyler, 37 Mo.
Hill V. Farmers & Mechanics' 122 ;
Nat. Bk., 97 U. S. 450 ; bk. 24 Tabor v. Eohnson, 36 Barb (N.
L. ed. 1051 ; 8 Eep. 577 ; Y.) 483 ;
Hutchinson v. Kay, 23 Beav. 413 : Main v. Schwarzwaslder, 4 E. D.
HoUand v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. Smith (N. Y.) 273 ;
P. 323 ; s.c. 41 L. J. C. P. (N. Bryan v. Lawrence, 5 Jones (N.
S.) 146 ; 20 W. E. 990 ; 3 Moak's C.) L. 337.
Eng. Eep. 655 ; ' Wall v. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray)
Boyd V. Shorrock, L. E. 5 Eq. 73 ; 356 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64, 73.
s.c. 16 W. E. 103 ; s D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. E. 3
Mather v. Eraser, 2 K. & J. 536 ; Eq. Cas. 383 ; s.c. 36 L. J. Ch.
3 Jur. N. S. 900; 35 L. J. Ch. 107 ; 15 W. E. 186.
361; • Id.
Chap. IV. §§ 126, 127.] ECCLESIASTICAL FIXTURES. 121
and chandeliers/ and water-pipes. ^ The reason for this
would seem to be because the gas and water are much
more a matter of convenience than a necessity ^
Sec. 126. Same— 3. Ecclesiastical fixtures.— Ecclesiastical
fixtures may be defined as those annexations which are
made for the convenience and comfort of the incumbent of
an ecclesiastical benefice, or the ornamentation of the prop-
erty. As a rule the former remain personal estate/ while
the latter pass to the successor.^ It has been laid down
as a general rule that the lamps, chandeliers, candelabras
and gas-fixtures of a church are not a part of the realty
and do not pass on a sale thereof ; " but a church organ
fitted into a niche or recess left for that purpose in the
erection of the building, which cannot be removed with-
out destroying the architectural design, or finish and
symmetry of the structure, and leaving exposed to view
the unfinished wall of the building, is to be regarded
as a part of the internal finish of the edifice and will pass
with it.''
Sec. 127. Same— 4. Trade fixtures.- Trade fixtures are
1 Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (S. C.) Co.. 81 N. Y. 38; s.c. 37 Am.
L. 135 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec. 572. Rep. 471 ;
See : WaU v. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Shawr. Lenke.l Daly (N.Y.) 487;
Gray) 256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Deo. 64, Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N.
73 ; Y.) 363 ;
Keeler v. Keeler, 31 N. J. Eq. (4 Vaughen v. Halderman, 38 Pa.
Stew.) 181, 191 ; St. 538 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 622 ;
McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins. Beck v. Rebow, 1 Pr. Wms. 94.
Co., 81 N. Y. 41 ; s.c. 37 Am. ■• Martin v. Roe, 7 El. & Bl. 237 ;
Rep. 471. s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 236.
Jarechit'. Philharmonic Soc, 79 See : Huntley v. Russell, 13 Ad.
Pa. St. 404 ; & E. N. S. 572 ; s.c. 66 Eng. C.
Vaughen v. Halderman, 33 Pa. L. 570.
St. 523 ; s.c. 75 A. D., 623 ; ^ Coi-ven's Case, 12 Co. 106.
Sewell V. Angerstein, 18 L. T. N. * Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c.
S. 300. 93 Am. Dec. 299. This decision
' Wall V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) is founded upon the following
356 ; B.C. 64 Am. Deo. 64, 73. cases :
' Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (S. C.) Tv'aU v. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray)
L. 135 ; s.c. C7 Am. Dec. 572. 256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64 ;
See : Fratt v. Whittier, 58 Cal. Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N.
136 ; s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 351 ; Y. 363 ;
Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's Vaughen v. Halderman, 33 Pa.
Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c. 83 St. 532 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 622 ;
Am. Dec. 475 ; and
Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., Montague -y. Dent, 10 Rich. (S. C.)
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 311 ; L. 135 ; s.c. 67 Am Dec. 573.
Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. ' Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c.
93 Am. Dec. 399 : 93 Am. Dec, 399.
McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins.
122
TRADE FIXTURES.
[Book I.
fixtures erected on the premises by a tenant for the pur-
pose of carrying on a trade or manufactory/ The erec-
tion may be made by the owner of the fee, in which in-
stance the fixture becomes a part of the freehold ; or it
may be made by the lessee, in which case it remains per-
sonal property,^ and may be removed by him during the
term.^ Where the annexation is made by the tenant or
lessee, if such removal is not made before the end
of the term, and the lessee surrenders the premises
without removal, the law imputes an intention on
his part to make a gift of them to the landlord.*
This class of fixtures includes buildingwS,^ store fixtures,®
■ Justice Blackstone defines trade or
tenant's fixtures as ' ■ things
which are annexed to the land
for the purpose of trade or of
domestic convenience or orna-
ment in so permanent a manner
as to become part of the land,
and yet the tenant who has
erected them is entitled to re-
move them during his term, or
it may be within a reasonable
time after its expiration."
See : Holland v. Hodgson, L. R.
7 C. P. 338, 333 ; s.c. 2 Moak's
Eng. Rep. 665, 666 ;
Climie v. Wood, L. R. 4 Ex. 338.
' Walton w. Wray, 54 Iowa 351 ; s.c.
6 N. W. Rep. 742 ;
Cooper v. Johnson, 143 Mass. 108 ;
s.c. 9 N. E. Rep. 33 ;
Carpenter v. Walker, 140 Mass.
416 ; s.c. 5 N. E. Rep. 160 ;
Hubbell V. East Cambridge Five
Cent Savings Bank, 133 Mass.
447 ;
Lamphere v. Lowe, 3 Neb. 131 ;
Globe Marble Works Co. v. Quinu,
76 N. Y. 23 ; s.c. 33 Am. Rep.
259;
Tifft V. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377 ;
Ford V. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344 ;
Mott V. Palmer, 1 N. Y. 564 ;
Kile V. Giebner, 114 Pa. St. 381 ;
s.c. 7 Atl. Rep. 154 ;
Church V. Griffith, 9 Fa. St. 117,
118 ; 8. c. 49 Am. Deo. 548 ;
White's Appeal., 10 Pa. St. 253 ;
Lamar v. Miles, 4 Watts (Pa.) 13,
30.
Compare : Jones v. Detroit Chair
Co., 38 Mich. 93 ; s.c. 31 Am.
Rep. 314.
■ Wall T. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray)
'356; s.c. 64 Am. Dec, 64;
Hunt V. Mullanphy, 1 Mo. 508 ;
s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 300:
See : Harkness v. Sears, 36 Ala.
493 ; s.c. 03 Am. Dec. 743 ;
Wattris v. First Nat. Bank of
Cambridge, 134 Mass. 571 ; s.c.
36 Am. Rep. 694 ;
Holbrook v. Chamberlin, 116
Mass. 155 : s.c. 17 Am. Rep.
148 ; ■ ■
Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. 349 :
Weathersby v. Sleeper, 43 Miss.
733 *
Hill V. Packard, 27 U. S. (3 Pet.)
137 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 374.
' Hall V. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 271, 273 ;
s.c. 91 Am. Dec. 209, 211.
See : Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J.
L. (9 Vr.) 457 ; s.c. 20 Am. Rep.
431;
Josslyn V. McCabe, 46 Wis. 591 ;
s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 174 ;
Keogh V. Daniel, 13 Wis. 163 ;
Van Ness v. Pacard, 27 U. S. (3
Pet.) 137; bk. 7 L. ed. 374.
' Conrad v. Saginaw Mining Co.,
54 Mich. 249; s.c. 20 N. Vv.
Rep. 39.
See : Beers v. St. John, 16 Conn.
333;
Walton V. Wray, 54 Iowa 531 ;
s.c. 6 N. W. Rep. 743 ;
Mclver v. Eastbrook, 134 Mass.
550;
Beokwith v. Boyce, 9 Mo. 560 ;
Kissamv. Barclay, 17 Abb. Pr.
(N. Y.) 360 ;
Western N. C. R. Co. v. Deal, 90
N. C. Ill ;
Krouse v. Ross, 1 Cr. C. C. 368 ;
Robinson v. Wright, 2 McA. D.
C. 54.
' See : Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass,
191-
Chap. If. § 128.]
MIXED FIXTURES.
123
machinery/ steam-engines and boilers,^ gas-fixtures, ^
and the like.
Sec. 128. Same— 5. Mixed fixtures.— There is another
class of fixtures in which, as Lord Hardwick says in the
case of Dudley v. Ward,* "the use is a mixed case
Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co.,
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306; s.c. 38
Am. Dec. 368 ;
Josslyn V. McCabe, 46 Wis. 591 ;
s.c. 1 N. "W. Rep. 174.
> See: Moore u. Smith, 24 111.512,513 ;
MeUiop V. Meinhart, 70 Iowa 685 ;
S.C. 28 N. W. Rep. 545 ;
Citizens' Bank v. Knapp, 33 La.
An. 117 ;
Fuller V. Tabor, 39 Me. 519 ,
Tapley v. Smith, 18 Me. 12 ;
RusseU V. Richards, 10 Me. 429 ;
Carpenter v. Walker, 140 Mass.
416 ; s.c. 5 N. E. Rep. 160 ;
Maguire v. Park, 140 Mass. 21 ;
s.c. IN. E. Rep. 750;
Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. 78;
s.c. 11 Am. Rep. 310 ;
Ashmun v. Williams, 25 Mass. (8
Pick.) 403 ;
WeUs V. Bannister, 4 Mass. 514 ;
Lyle V. Palmer, 43 Mich. 314;
s.c. 3 N. W. Rep. 931 ;
Wheeler v. Bedell, 40 Mich. 693 ;
Stokoe V. Upton, 40 Mich. 581 ;
s.c. 39 Am. Rep. 560 ;
Ferris v. Quimby, 41 Mich. 202 ;
s.c. 3 N. W. Rep. 9 ;
Wolford V. Baxter, 33 Minn. 12 ; '
s.c. 21 N. W. Rep. 744 ;
Weathersby v. Sleeper, 42 Miss.
732;
Thomas v. Davis, 76 Mo. 73 ; s.c.
43 Am. Rep. 756 ;
Priestley v. Johnson, 67 Mo. 633 ;
Hines v. Ament, 43 Mo. 398 ;
Dame v. Dame, 38 N. H. 479 ; s.c.
75 Am. Dec. 195 ;
■ Scheifele v. Schmitz, 43 N. J. Eq.
(15 Stew.) 700 ; s.c. 1 Atl. Rep.
698;
Deane v. Hutchinson, 40 N. J.
Eq. (13 Stew.) 83 ; s.c. 3 Atl.
Rep. 392 ;
Cook V. Transportation Co., 1
Den. (N. Y.) 91 ;
Qreen v. Phillips, 36 Gratt. (Va.)
753 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 333 ;
Van Ness v. Pacard, 37 U. S. (3
Pet.) 137 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 374 ;
Weill V. Thompson, 24 Fed. Rep.
14;
Wansbrough v. Maton, 4 Ad. &
El. 884 ; s.c. 31 Eng. C. L. 386 ;
King V. Otley, 1 Barn. & Ad. 161 ;
s.c. 20 Eng. C. L. 438 ;
Penton v. Robart, 3 East 88 ; s.c.
6 Rev. Rep. 376.
Building erected without consent. —
But if the building be erected
without the consent of the land-
owner and against his will, it
seems that the building be-
comes a part of the realty.
Cannon v. Copeland, 43 Ala. 352 ;
Dart V. Hercules, 57 111. 446 ;
Bonney v. Foss, 62 Me. 348 ;
Washburn v. Sproat, 16 Mass.
449;
Honzik v. Delaglise, 65 Wis. 494 ;
s.c. 27 N. W. Rep. 171.
' Merrit v. Judd, 14 Cal. 60 ;
Hayes v. N. Y. Mining Co., 3
Colo. 275 ;
Dobschuetz v. HoUiday, 82 111.
371;
Cooper V. Johnson, 143 Mass. 108 ;
Conrad v. Saginaw Mining Co.,
54 Mich. 249 ; s.c. 52 Am. Rep.
817 ; 20 N. W. Rep. 39 ;
Robertson v. Corsett, 39 Mich.
777;
Kelsey v. Durkee, 33 Barb. (N.
Y.) 410 ;
Lawton v. Lawton, 1 Atk. 13.
Compare: McNally v. Connolly,
70 Cal. 3 ; s.c. 11 Pac. Rep. 330 ;
Ottumwa Woolen Mill Co. v.
Hawley, 44 Iowa 57 ; s.c. 24
Am. Rep. 719 ;
Thomas v. Davis, 76 Mo. 72 ;
Treadway v. Sharon, 7 Nev. 37 ;
Scheifeler v. Schmitz, 42 N. J.
Eq. (15 Stew.) 700 ; s.c. 1 Atl.
Rep. 698.
3 McCall V. Walter, 71 Ga. 287 ;
Towne v. Fiske, 127 Mass. 125 ;
s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 353 ;
Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191 ;
Hays V. Doane, 11 N. J. Eq. (3
Stockt.)84;
Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N.
Y.) 363.
» Amb. 113. ■
124 BETWEEN WHOM QUESTION. [Book I.
between enjoying the profits and the lands, and carrying
on a species of trade." ^ This class of fixtures also
remains personal property. Thus it has been held that
barns erected by a tenant for the purposes of carrying on
dairy business, and a cider-mill and press erected by a
yearly tenant, at his own expense and for his own use,
in making cider on the farm, although firmly attached to
the soil, remain the personal property of such tenant ; ^
so also is a fire-engine set up by a tenant for life for the
benefit of a colliery, because, as Lord Hardwick says, the
operating a colliery is not only the enjoyment of an estate,
but in part carrying on a trade. ^
Sec. 129. Between whom the question of fixtures may
arise.— The parties between whom the various questions
respecting fixtures may arise has a great deal to do with
the determination of the question whether a particular
article, in the nature of a chattel, is personal property or
a part of the realty in any given case. The various
claimants in cases where the question of fixtures is
involved may be divided into ten classes, each of which
classes has its peculiar rules that govern the courts in
passing upon their respective claims, and will be con-
sidered in their order.
These classes are where the questions arise between :
1. An assignee in bankruptcy or for the benefit of
creditors and others ;
2. Debtor and execution creditor ;
3. Executor and heir at law ;
4. Executor of tenant for life and remainderman ;
5. Heir and devisee ;
6. Landlord and tenant ;
Y. Mortgagor and mortgagee ;
8. Personal representative and devisee ;
' See : Elwes v. Maw, 3 East 38 ; Elwes v. Maw, 3 East 38 ; s. o.
s.c. 6 Eev. Eep. 533 ; 2 Smith's « Rev. Rep. 528 ; 3 Smith's
Lead. Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1433, Lead. Gas. (9th Am. ed.) 1433,
1435. 1435.
' Holmes v. Tremper, 30 John. (N. Compare : Wadleigh v. Janvi-in,
Y.) 29 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 238. 41 N. H. 503 ; s.c. 77 Am. Dec.
See : Culling v. TuflEnaU, BuU. N. 780.
P. 34 ; ' Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13.
Chap. IV. §§ 130, 131.] ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY. 125
9. Tenants in common ; and
10. Vendor and vendee.
Sec. 130. Same— 1. Assignee in bankruptcy or for benefit
ofcreditors and others.— Where there has been a general
assigmnent in bankruptcy, or for the benefit of creditors,
the assignees, generally speaking, are entitled to what-
ever interest in the fixtures the assignor himself pos-
sessed.^ The general rule is that the fixtures pass
with the real estate and not to the assignee as " goods
and chattels" under the statute. ^ Thus it has been
held that the machinery and looms in a worsted mill pass
to the mortgagee as fixtures, and not to an assignee in
bankruptcy, though merely attached to the floor for the
purpose of steadying them.^ Trade fixtures form an
exception to this general rule,* however, and may be
removed by the assignee, if such removal is made before
the landlord takes possession of the premises.^
Sec. 131. Same— 2. Debtor and execution creditor.— The
right of a creditor to treat articles in the nature of chat-
tels annexed to the freehold as personal property depends
upon the right of the debtor to do so. If the debtor is at
liberty to sever and remove the fixtures, an execution
creditor may seize upon and remove them.^ But fixt-
' Trappes v. Harter, 3 Tyrwh. 603. 328 ; s.o. 3 Moak's Eng. Rep.
See : In re Richards, L. R. 4 Ch. 655; 41 L. J. C. P. (N. S.) 146;
630 ; 20 W. R. 999. .
Horn V. Baker, 9 East 315; s.c. 9 Following: Longbottom v. Berry,
Rev. Rep. 541; 2 Smith's Lead. L. R. 5 Q. B. 123 ;
Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1467; Mather v. Eraser, 2 Kay & J. 536.
Ex parte Cotton, 3 Mont. D. & See : Sheldon v. Edwards, 35 N.
DeG. 725. Y. 283;
« Bilger v. National Bank of New- Ford v. Cobbs, 20 N. Y. 344';
burgh, 26 Hun (N. Y.) 520; s.c. Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28.
14 Week. Dig. 410; ■* Trappes v. Harter, 2 Cromp. & M.
Ryall V. Stevens, 1 Atk. 165; 152 ; ^ ^ ,^ „
Coombs V. Beaumont, 5 Barn. & Ex pdrte Barclay, 5 DeG. M. &
Ad. 72; s.c. 27 Eng. C. L. 40 ; G. 403 ;
Clark V. Crownshaw, 3 Bam. & Watefall v. Penistone, 6 El. & B.
Ad. 804; s.c. 23 Eng. C. L. 876; s.c. 88 Eng. C. L. 875.
353. ' Saint V. Pilley, L. R. 10 Exch. 137 ;
Storer v. Hunter, 3 Barn. & C. s.o. 13 Moak's Eng. Rep. 577;
368; s.c. 10 Eng. C. L. 172 ; In re Moser, L. R. 13 Q. B. Div.
Horn V. Baker, 9 East 315 ; s.c. 9 738. , 00 t. o^
Rev. Rep. 541; 3 Smith's Lead. See : Morris' Appeal, 88 Pa. St.
Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1467. 368. ^ot ., 001
» Holland v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C. P. * See : State v. Bonham, 18 Ind. 331;
126
EXECUTOR AND HEIR AT LAW.
[Book I.
ures which could be removed by a tenant, when annexed
by the owner of the freehold for permanent use, become
a part thereof,^ and are not subject to be levied upon
and sold as personal property under an execution against
him.^ Thus it is said in the case of Voorhis v. Free-
man^ that machinery in a mill or factory built and
equipped by the owner is a part of the realty as between
the executor and the heirs at law, although as between a
tenant and landlord or remainderman a different principle
might prevail.
Sec. 133. Same— 3. Executor and heir at law.— It has
been said that there appears to be more uncertainty in
the doctrine of fixtures, as it applies to the case of an
executor and the heir at law, than to that of any other
class of persons,^ and also that the rule obtains with most
Walton V. Wray, 54 Iowa 531 ;
s.o. 6 N. W. Rep. 742 ;
Kirwan v. Latour, 1 Harr. & J.
(Md.) 289 ;
O'DonneUv. Hitchcock, 118 Mass.
401;
Gale V. Ward, 14 Mass. 352; s.c.
7 Am. Dec. 323 ;
Lanphere v. Lowe, ? Neb. 181 ;
Farrar v. Chauffetete, 5 Den. (N.
Y.) 527 ;
Cresson v. Stout, 17 John. (N. Y.)
116;
Heffner v. Lewis, 73 Pa. St. 802 ;
Lemar v. Miles, 4 Watts (Pa.)
330;
PiUow V. Love, 5 Hayw. (Tenn.)
109;
Tobias v. Francis, 3 Vt. 435 ;
Minshall v. Lloyd, 2 Mees. & W.
450;
Poole's Case, 1 Salk. 368.
' See : StockweU v. Campbell, 39
Conn. 363; s.o. 12 Am. Rep.
393 *
McConnell v. Blood, 123 Mass. 47;
Meig's Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 28 ; s.c.
1 Am. Rep. 873 ;
Voorhis v. Freeman, 3 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec.
490;
HUl V. Farmers & Merchants'
Nat. Bank. 97 U. S. 450 ; bk.
34 L. ed. 1051 ; 8 Rep. 577 ;
Hitchinson v. Kay, 33 Beav. 413;
Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S.
115 ; s.c. 6 Jur. N. S. 135 ; 29
L. J. C. P. 97 ; 1 L. T. N. S.
63 ; 97 Eng. C. L. 115 ;
Winn V. Ingilby, 1 D. & R. 347 ;
s.c. 5 Barn. & Aid. 635 ; 7 Eng.
C. L. 841 ;
Ex parte Montgomery, 4 Ir. Ch.
Rep. 530 ;
Jenkins v. Gething, 3 Johns. &
H. 520 ;
Mather v. Eraser, 3 Kay & J. 536 ;
s.c. 3 Jur. N. S. 900 ; 25 L. J.
Ch. 361 ;
Holland v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C.
P. 338 ; s.c. 3Moak's Eng. Rep.
655 ; 4 L. J. C. P., (N. S.) 146 ;
30 W. R. 990 :
Boyd V. Shorrock, L. R. 5 Eq.
73; s.c. 16 W. R. 102;
Ex parte Reynal, 3 Mont. D. &
DeG. 443.
i' Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. (Va.)
753; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 323;
Winn V. Ingilby, 5 Barn. & Aid.
625 : s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. 341 ;
1 Dow. & Ry. 347.
3 2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am.
Dec. 490.
■■ See : Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich.
(S. C.)L. 135 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec.
572.
Rule as to executors— Solo infixum.—
In this case the court say
that ' ' in early times the ex-
ecutor contended with the
heir at disadvantage, and such
was the temper of the courts so
late as the time of Bacon's
Chap. IV. § 133.] EXECUTOR AND REMAINDERMAN.
127
rigor in favor of the inheritance, and against the right to
consider as a personal chattel anything which has been
affixed to the freehold ; ^ but it is thought that, in the
recent English cases at least, ^ the law has been construed
as favorable for mortgagees as for heirs. The general
rule may be said to be that where an article has once
been annexed to the freehold it cannot be removed by the
executors,* unless the ancestor manifested an intention, —
which intention may be inferred from circumstances, —
that the thing affixed should remain personal property ;
in which case such fixtures may be regarded as personal
property and go to the executor instead of the heir.* It
may be said to be elementary doctrine that when annex-
ations are made by a stranger to the fee, where the owner
has not been at fault in relation thereto, they pass with
the freehold to the heir.^
Sec. 133. Same. — 4. Executor of tenant for life and re-
mainderman.—As between the executor or administrator
of a tenant for life, or in tail, and the remainderman, or
Abridgment. The rigor ap-
plied to the executor has been
relaxed, however, but stiU,
perhaps, mainly upon the clear
modern rule which favors a
tradesman and his represent-
ative. The elementary idea
is that the article claimed as
part of the freehold must be in
some way fixed to the soil or
part or parcel of that which is.
'Solo infixum' are the words
of Lord Brogham, in Fisher v.
Dixon, 13 CI. & Fin. 312."
■ Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's
Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c.
83 Am. Dec. 475.
See : Voorhis v. Freeman, 3
Watts & S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.o. 37
Am. Dec. 49 ;
Fisher v. Dixon, 130. &Fin. 313;
s.c. 9 Jur. 883 ;
Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 3 Barn.
& C. 76 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 42.
' See : Climie v. Wood, L. R. 4 Ex.
Gas. 328 ;
In re Richards, L. R. 4 Ch. 630 ;
Longbottom v. Berry, L. R. 5
Q. B. 123 ;
Holland v. Hodgson, L. R. 7 C.
P. 338 ; s.o. 41 L. J. C. P. (N.
S.) 146 ; 30 W. R. 990.
' See : KinseU v. BUlings, 35 Iowa
154;
Doak V. Wiswell, 38 Me. 569 ;
Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 N. H.
503;
Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y.
378, 383 ;
Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb.
(N. Y.) 43 ;
House V. House, 10 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.)158;
McDavid v. Wood, 5 Heisk.
(Tenn.) 95 ;
Winn V. Ingilby, 5 Barn. & Aid.
635 ; s.o. 7 Eng. C. L. 341 ; 1
Dow. & Ry. 247 ;
Fisher v. Dixon, 13 CI. & Fin.
313 ; s.c. 9 Jur. 883 ;
Elwes V. Maw, 3 East 38 ; s.c. 6
Rev. Rep. 533 ; 3 Smith's Lead.
Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1433 ;
Lee V. Risdon, 7 Taunt. 188; s.c.
3 Marsh. 495; 3 Eng. C. L.
330.
* Fisher v. Dixon, 13 CI. & Fm.
312; s.c. 8 Jur. 883;
Harvey v. Harvey, 2 Stra. 1141 ;
Beck V. Rebow, 1 Pr. Wms. 94;
Culling V. Tuffnall, BuU. N. P.34.
' See : Morrison v. Berry, 42 Mich.
389 ; s.c. 36 Am. Rep. 446 • 4
N. W. Rep. 731.
128 HEIR AT LAW AND DEVISEE. [Book I.
reversioner, the right to the fixtures is in favor of the
executor.^ While the law as to fixttires between this class
of persons is not so strict as between executors and heirs,
neither is it so liberal as between landlord and tenant.
Yet it may be laid down generally that the representative
of the particular tenant is entitled, as against the re-
mainderman or reversioner, to such fixtures as were
erected wholly or in part for the furtherance of the
trade. ^
Sec. 134. Same— 5. Heir at law and devisee.— As be-
tween the heir at law and the devisee of a tenant for life
or in tail, the devise of fixtures is void, because the devisor
has no power to devise the realty to which they are in-
cident,^ except in those cases where the .things devised
would pass to his executors.*
Sec. 135. Same — 6. Landlord and tenant. — In the case
of landlords and tenants the claiming of articles considered
as personal property, which have been annexed to the soil
by the tenant, is received with great latitude and indul-
gence,^ from motives of public policy.® It has been said
that there are certain rules that may be taken as well
settled by the uniform current of judicial decision, the first
and leading one of which is that the law regards with
pecuUar favor the rights of tenants as against landlords,
to remove articles annexed by them to the freehold,^ and
' Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's Wall v. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray)
Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c. 256 ; s.o. 64 Am. Deo. 64 ;
83 Am. Dec. 475. Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co
» See : Dudley v. Warde, Amb. 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ;
113 ; MuUer v. Baker, 42 Mass. (11 Met.)
Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13 ; 27 ;
Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Bl. 260 ; Gaffleld v. Hapgood, 34 Mass.
s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 764 ; (17 Pick.) 193 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec.
Elwes V. Maw, 3 East 38; s.c. 6 390 ;
Rev. Rep. 533 ; 3 Smith's Lead. Finnev v. Watkins, 13 Mo. 291.
Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1433. « MiUer "v. Plumb, 6 Cow. (N. Y.)
' Herlakenden's Case, 4 Co. 63 ; 665 ; s.c. 16 Am. Deo. 456
Shep. Touch. 469, 470. ' See : Hayes v. N. Y. Mining Co.,
* See : D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L. 3 Colo. 378 ;
R. 8 Eq. 382. Youngblood v. Eubank, 68 Ga.
'' Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's 630 ;
Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360; s.c. Thomas i). Crout, 5Bush(Ky.)37;
83 Am. Dec. 475. Davis v. Buffum, 51 Me. 160;
See: Pellenz v. Bullerdieck, 13 Winslow v. Merchants' Ins. Co.,
La. An. 374 ; s.c. 18 La. An. 614; 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306, 310 ;
Chap. IV. § 135.] LANDLORD AND TENANT. 129
extends much greater indulgence to them in this respect
than is conceded to executors, remaindermen, or any
other class of persons. ^ The ground for this is because
tenants usually pay their landlords adequate rents, and
for that reason it is equitable that they should have the
right to remove fixtures which have been put up by them
for their own convenience and use and at their own ex-
pense.^ But a person occupying lands under a contract
of purchase will not have a tenant's right to remove a
fixture he has placed upon the land.^
The second of these well-settled rules is that fixtures
which tenants are allowed to disannex and carry away are
comprehended within two classes, or are of a mixed
nature,^ falling partly within and partaking of the nature
of each. These classes are : first, those articles which
are put up for ornament, or the more convenient use of
the premises, known as domestic fixtures ; ^ and second,
those articles which are put up for the purposes of trade. '^
Fixtures which do not fall under either of these two
classes, and which have manifestly been erected for the
general improvement of the premises occupied, inure to
the benefit of the freehold and cannot be removed.' This
Gaffield v. Hapgood, 34 Mass. (17 Bliss v. Whitney, M Mass- (O
Pick.) 192; s.c. 28 Am. Dec. Allen) 114 ;
290 ; King v. Jolinson, 73 Mass. (7
Conrad v. Saginaw Mining Co. , Gray) 239 ;
54 Mich. 249 ; s.c. 20 N. W. Rep. Wall v. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray)
39 ; 256 ; s.c. 04 Am. Dec. 64 ;
Deane v. Hutchinson, 40 N. J. Hays v. Doane, 11 N. J. Bq. (3
Eq. (13 Stew.) 83 ; Stockt.) 84 ;
Western N. C. R. Co. v. Deal, 90 Kutter v. Smith, 69 U. S. (2 Wall.)
N. C. 110 ; 491 ; bk. 17 L. ed. 830 ;
Oregon, R. & N. Co. v. Mosier, 14 Grymes v. Boweren, 6 Bing. 437 r
Oreg. 519 ; s.c. 58 Am. Rep. s.c. 4 Moore & P. 143 ; 19 Eng.
821 ; 13 Pac. Rep. 300 ; C. L. 201.
Keogh V. DanieU, 12 Wis. 163 ; " King v. Johnson, 73 Mass. (7 Gray)-
Lawton v. Lawton. 3 Atk. 13 ; 239 ;
Penton v. Robart, 2 East 88 ; s.c. Murphy v. Marland, 62 Mass. (»
C Rev. Rep. 376 ; Cush.) 575 ; „„ ,, „
Pugh V. Arton, L. R. 8 Eq. 626. Hutohins v. Shaw, 60 Mass. (6
' Wall V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) Cush.) 58 ;
256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64. McLaughlin v. Nash, 9b Mass. (14
See : Grymes v. Boweren, 6 Bing. Allen) 136; s.c. 92 Am. Dec.741.
439 ; s.c. 19 Eng. C. L. 201 ; ' See : Ante, § 128.
Elwes r. Maw, 3 East 38; s.c. = See : Ante,^m._ ^ ^^ ^^
6 Rev Rep. 533; 2 Smith's "Sec: Wall v. Hmds, lO Mass. (4
Lead. Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1423 ; Gray) 256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Deo. 64 ;
Elliott V. Bishop, 10 Exch. 507. Ante, S 127. t, i,. « , , ,.
= Blethen v. Towle, 40 Me. 311 ; ' See : Buckland v. Butterfield, 2.
Bainway w.Cobb,99 Mass. 457,459; Brod. & B. 54.
9
130
REMOVAL OF FIXTURES.
[Book I.
right of the tenant to remove domestic and trade fixtures
has been fully recognized since Poole's Case,^ decided by-
Lord Holt in Queen Anne's time.^
Sec. 136. Same — Same— Bemoval of fixtures by tenant.—
This removal of fixtures must be made by the tenant
without serious injury to the freehold,^ during his term,
because after the expiration of his term of lease he loses
all control over them, they becoming part of the real
estate, and cannot be claimed by the tenant or his assignee
as against the owner of the land ; * and this is true
whether the lease is terminated by expiration of time or
by breach of contract and re-entry of the landlord.® This
rule, however, applies only where the tenant leases for a
term certain, and the instrument creating the estate con-
tains no special provisions in regard to fixtures.'' Where
the term is uncertain, or depends upon a contingency — as
where a party is in possession as tenant for life, or at will,
— the fixtures may be removed within a reasonable time
after the tenancy is determined.^
' Salt. 368.
See : Elwes v. Maw, 3 East 38 ;
s.c. 6 Rev. Rep. 528 ; 2 Smith's
Lead, Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1423,
1484.
" See : Penton v. Robart, 2 East 88,
90 ; s.c. 6 Rev. Rep. '376 ;
Dean v. AUaUey, 3 Esp.* N. P. 11 ;
Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Bl. 260 ;
S.O. 2 Rev. Rep. 764 ;
Fitzherbert v. Shaw, 1 H. Bl. 258.
' See : Allen v. Kennedy, 40 Ind.
142;
Conrad v. Saginaw Mining Co.,
I 54 Mich. 249 ; s.c. 20 N. W.
Rep. 39 ;
Ambs V. HiU, 10 Mo. App. 108 ;
Cubbins v. Ayres, 4 Lea (Tenn.)
329.
* Watrisa v. First Nat. Bank of
Cambridge, 134 Mass. 571 ; s.c.
26 Am. Rep. 694, 696.
See: Youngblood v. Eubank, 68
Ga. 630 ;
Talbot V. Wliipple, 96 Mass. (14
AUen) 177 ;
Bliss V. Whitney, 91 Mass. (9
Allen) 114, 115 ;
WaH V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Grav)
256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Deo. 64 ;
Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.)
40 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 757 :
Shepard i\ Spaulding, 45 Mass. (4
Met.) 416; ■- >-,-.
Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co.,
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306, 311 ;
Noble V. Bosworth, 86 Mass. (19
Pick.) 314 ;
Gaffield v. H^pgood, 84 Mass. (17
Pick.) 192 ; s.c.38 Am. Dec.290 ;
Goddard v. Chase, 7 Mass. 432 ;
Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J. L. (9
Vr.) 457 ; s.c. 20 Am. Rep. 431 ;
Hays V. Doane, 11 N. J. Eq. (3
Stockt.) 84 ;
Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792 ;
Van Ness v. Paoard, 27 U. S. (3
Pet.) 137 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 874 ;
Lyde v. Russell, 1 Barn. & Ad.
394 ; s.c. 30 Eng. C. L. 533 ;
Elwes V. Maw, 3 East 38 ; s.c. 6
Rev. Rep. 523 ; 2 Smith's Lead.
Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1423 ;
Penton v. Robart, 2 East 88 ; s.c.
6 Rev. Rep. 376 ;
Minshalli;.Lloyd,3 Mees.& W.450;
Poole's Case, 1 Salk. 368.
Pugh V. Arton, L. R. 8 Eq. 626.
Watriss v. First Nat. Bank of
Cambridge, 124 Mass. 571 ; s.c.
26 Am. Rep. 694.
Watriss v. First Nat. Bank of
Cambridge, 134 Mass. 571 ; s.c.
26 Am, Rep. 694 ;
* See: Post, (*) footnote to § 292.
Chap. IV. § 137.] RENEWING LEASE WITHOUT REMOVAL. 131
Sec. 137. Same — Same — ^Renewal of lease without rem.oval
of fixtures.— It has been said that where a tenant has
added fixtures and then taken a new lease to commence
on the termination of the first one, that he thereby loses
his title in and his right to remove such fixtures.'
Against this doctrine Judge Cooley enters a vigorous pro-
test,^ saying, among other things: "The requirement
that the tenant shall remove during his term whatever he
proposes to claim a right to remove at all is based upon a
corresponding rule of public policy for the protection of
the landlord, and which is, that the tenant shall not be
suffered, after he has surrendered the premises, to enter
upon the possession of the landlord or of a succeeding
tenant, to remove fixtures which he might and ought
to have taken away before. A regard for the succeeding
interests is the only substantial reason for the rule which
requires the tenant to remove his fixtures during the
term ; indeed, the law does not in strictness require of
him that he shall remove them during the term, but only
before he surrenders possession, and during the time he
has a right to regard himself as occupying in the char-
acter of a tenant. " ^
Sec. 138. Same— 7. Mortgagor and mortgagee. — The rules
respecting fixtures that apply between mortgagor and
mortgagee are the same as those between executor and
heir at law, vendor and vendee.* All improvements and
Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792 ; Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 Mees. &
S.C. 6 Am. Rep. 173. W. 14.
See : Doty v. Gtorham, 23 Mass. ■• See : Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala.
(5 Pick.) 487, 490 ; s.c. 16 Am. 493 ; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 743 ;
Dec. 417 ; Arnold v. Crowder, 81 111. 56 ;
Whiting V. Brastow, 21 Mass. (4 s. c. 25 Am. Rep. 260 ;
Pick.) 310, 311 ; Johnson v. Wiseman, 4 Met. (Ky.)
Ellis V. Paige, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.) 357 ; ,„ ,^ , ,
43 49 . Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.)
Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. (N. 40 ; s.c. 39 Am. Deo. 757 ;
Y ) 333 • Winslow Y. Merchants Ins. Co.,
Martin v.'Hoe, 7 El. & Bl. 337 ; 45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ; s.c. 38
B.C. 90 Eng. C. L. 386. Am. Dec. 368 ;
1 Merrit v. Judd, 14 Cal. 59 ; Weathersby v. Sleeper, 43 Miss.
Loughran u Ross, 45 N. Y. 793 ; 732; .
S.C. 6 Am. Rep. 173. Thomas u Davis, 76 Mo 73 ;
' Kerr v Kingsbury, 39 Mich. 150 ; Burnside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H.
s.c. 33 Am. Rep. 363, 364. 390 ; • .1 mct -.oq
s Penton v. Robart, 2 East 88 ; s.c. 6 Wadleigh w. Janvrin, 41 N.H 503;
Rev. Rep. 376 ; Despatch Lone v. Bellamy Mfg.
132
MORTGAGOR AND MORTGAGEE.
[Book I.
annexations to the soil pass to the mortgagee, or to the
purchaser at foreclosure sale, unless they are excepted
from the Uen of the mortgage in express terms. -^ This is
true alike of fixtures upon the property at the time the
mortgage was given and all annexations made after its
execution.^ Thus it has been held that trade fixtures,
Co., 13 N. H. 305 ; s.c. 37 Am.
Dec. 203 ;
Davidson v. Westchester Gas-
Light Co., 99 N. Y. 559 ; s.c. 3
N. E. Rep. 893 ;
Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 116 ; s;c. 87 Am.Dec.490;
Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (S. C.)
L. 135 ; S.C. 67 Am. Dec. 573 ;
Degrafflenreid v. Scruggs, 4
Humph. (Tenn.) 451 ; s.c. 40
Am. Deo. 658.
» See : Merrit v. Judd, 14 Cal. 60 ;
Maples V. MiUon, 31 Conn. 568 ;
Arnold v. Crowder, 8l lU. 56 ;
s.c. 35 Am. Rep. 360 ;
Pea V. Pea, 35 Ind. 387 ;
Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co. ,
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ; s.c. 38
Am. Deo. 368 ;
Union Bank v. Emerson, 15 Mass.
159;
Wadleigh v. Janvrin, 41 N. H.
503, 514 ;
Quimby v. Manhattan Cloth Co.,
84 N. J. Eq. (9 C. E. Gr.) 360 ;
McRea v. Central Nat. Bank of
Troy, 66 N. Y. 489 ;
Hoskin v. Woodward, 45 Pa. St.
43;
Longstaff v. Meagoe, 3 Ad. & E.
167 ; s.c. 39 Eng. C. L. 94 ;
Wahnsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S.
115 ; s.c. 6 Jur. N. S. 125 ; 29
L. J. C. P. 97 ; 1 L. T. N. S. 62 ;
97 Eng. C. L. 115 ;
Ex parte Belcher, 4 Dea. & Ch.
703;
Longbottom v. Berrv, L. R. 5 Q.
B. 123 ;
Hitchman v. Walton, 4 Mees. &
W. 409.
Mortgagor and mortgagee — As to
what constitutes fixtures be-
tween, among other cases, see
Rogers v. Prattville Mfg. Co. , 81
Ala. 483 ; s.c. 60 Am. Rep. 171
1 So. Rep. 643 ;
Arnold v. Crowder, 81 111. 56
s.c. 25 Am. Rep. 260 ;
Hamilton v. Huntley, 78 Ind. 531
s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 593 ;
Adams v. Beadle, 47 Iowa 439 ;
s.c. 29 Am. Rep. 487 ;
Ottumwa Woolen Mills Co. v.
Hawley, 44 Iowa 57 ; s.c. 24
Am. Rep. 719 ;
Snowden v. Craig, 26 Iowa 156 ;
S.C. 96 Am. Dec. 125 ;
Daniels v. Bowe, 35 Iowa 403 ;
s.c. 95 Am. Dec. 797 ;
Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan. 314 ; s.c.
15 Am. Rep. 345 ;
Dudley v. Hurst, 67 Md. 44 ; s.c.
1 Am. St. Rep. 368 ; 8 Atl. Rep.
901 ;
Hubbell V. East Cambridge Five
Cent Savings Bank, 133 Mass.
447 ; s.c. 42 Am. Rep. 446 ;
McConnell v. Blood, 133 Mass. 47 ;
s.c. 25 Am. Rep. 12;
Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. 78 ;
s.c. 11 Am. Rep. 310 ;
McLaughlin v. Nash, 96 Mass. (14
AUen) 136 ; s.c. 93 Am. Dee.
741;
State Savings Bank v. Kircheval,
65 Mo. 683 ; s.c. 27 Am. Rep.
310;
Jones V. Detroit Chair Co., 38
Mich. 92 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 314 ;
Wolford V. Baxter, 33 Minn. 13 ;
s.c. 53 Am. Rep. 1 ;
Thomas" t;. Davis, 76 Mo. 73 ; s.o.
43 Am. Rep. 756 ;
Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c.
93 Am. Dec. 299 ;
McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins.
Co.,81N. Y. 38; s.o. 37 Am.
Rep. 471 ;
Globe Marble Mills Co. v. Quinn,
76 N. Y. 33 ; s.c. 33 Am. Rep.
259;
Tiffit V. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377;
s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 537;
Foote V. Gooch, 96 N. C. 365 ; s.ci.
60 Am. Rep. 411 ; 1 S. E. Rep.
535;
Green v. Phillips, 36 Gratt. (Va.)
753 ; s.o. 31 Am. Rep. 333.
'- McLaughlin v. Nash, 96 Mass. (14
Allen) 136 ; s.c. 93 Am. Dec. 741.
See: Wood v. Whelen, 93 ILL
153;
Chap. IV. § 138.J MOBTGAGOE AND MORTGAGEE.
133
which were upon the land at the time of the mortgage,
pass with the land to the mortgagee/ or to the purchaser
at a sale under the mortgage/ and that fixtures placed
in a building, after the execution of a mortgage, in-
tended to permanently increase the value of the build-
ing for occupation,* become a part of the realty and pass
under the mortgage.* Such, however, is not the case
HamUton v. Huntley, 78 Ind. 521 ;
Ottumwa Woolen Mill Co. v.
Hawley, 44 Iowa 57 ; s.c. 24
Am. Rep. 719 ;
Clore V. Lambert, 78 Ky. 234 ;
Wight V. Gray, 73 Me. 297 ;
Smith Paper Co. v. Servin, 130
Mass. 511 ;
Cole V. Stewart, 65 Mass. (11
Cush.) 181 ;
Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.)
40 ; S.C. 39 Am. Dec. 757 ;
Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co.,
45 Mass. (4 Met) 306 ; s.c. 38
Am. Dec. 368 ;
Coleman v. Steams Mfg. Co., 38
Mich. 30 ;
State Savings Bank v. Kercheval,
65 Mo. 683 ;
Campbell v. Roddy, 44 N. J. Eq.
(17 Stew.) 344 ; s.c. 6 Am. St.
Rep. 889 ;
Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S.
115 ; s.c. 97 Eng. C. L. 114 ;
CuUwick V. Swindell, L. R. 3 Eq.
Cas. 349.
See, also : TiUman v. DeLacy, 80
Ala. 103 ;
Corliss V. McLagin, 29 Me. 115 ;
McKim V. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 186 ;
Lynde v. Rowe, 94 Mass. (12
Allen) 100 ;
Richardson v. Copeland, 73 Mass.
(6 Gray) 536 ;
Jones V. Detroit Chair Co., 38
Mich. 93 ; s.o. 31 Am. Rep. 314;
Coleman v. Stearns Mfg. Co., 38
Mich. 30 ;
Bumside v. Twitchell, 43 N. H.
390:
Snedeker v. Warring, 13 N. Y.
170;
Blake v. Respass, 77 N. C. 193 ;
Bond V. Coke, 71 N. C. 97 ;
Hill V. Sewald. 53 Pa. St. 271 ;
s.c. 91 Am. Dec. 209 ;
Roberts v. Dauphin Dep. Bank,
19 Pa. St. 71 ;
Sweetzer v. Jones, 35 Vt. 317 ;
Ex parte Belcher, 4 Dea. & Ch.
703;
Ex parte Cotton, 2 Mont. D. &
DeG. 725.
' See : Ottumwa Woolen Mill Co. v.
Hawley, 44 Iowa 57 ; s.c. 24
Am. Rep. 719 ;
Parsons v. Copeland, 88 Me. 537 ;
s.c. 54 Am. Dec. 628 ;
Corliss V. McLagin, 39 Me. 115 ;
Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. 155 ;
Burnside v. TwitcheU, 43 N. H.
390;
Harlan v. Harlan, 15 Pa. St. 507,
513;
Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 116 : S;c. 37 Am. Dec.
490.
Compare: Galeu Ward, 14 Mass.
352; S.C. 7 Am. Deo. 223;
Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287 ;
Murdock v. Gifford, 18 N. Y. 28 ;
Walker v. Sherman, 30 Wend.
(N. Y.) 656 ;
Corwin v. Cowan, 13 Ohio St.
629;
Teaff V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ;
s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634:
Bartlett v. Wood, 32 Vt. 372 ;
Hill V. Wentworth, 28 Vt. 428,
« See : Dudley v. Hurst, 67 Md. 44 ;
s.c. 1 Am. St. Rep. 368 ; 8 Atl.
Rep. 901 ;
Mather v. Fraser, 2 Kay & J. 536 ;
Chmie v. Wood, L. R. 3 Ex. 257 ;
Longbottom v. Berry, L. R. 5 Q.
B. 133.
»See: McConnell v. Blood, 123
Mass. 47 ; s.c. 25 Am. Rep. 13.
* McConnell v. Blood, 143 Mass. 47;
s.c. 25 Am. Rep. 13.
See: Wood v. Whelen, 93111.153 ;
Hamilton v. Huntley, 78 Ind. 52;
Clore V. Lambert, 78 Ky. 324 ;
Wight V. Gray, 73 Me. 297 ;
Smith Paper Co. v. Servin, 130
TW^Qag^ 511 *
Lynde' v. Rowe, 94 Mass. (13
AUen) 100 ;
Richardson v. Copeland, 73 Mass.
(6 Gray) 536 ;
Cole V. Stewart, 65 Mass. (11
Cush.) 181 ;
134: PERSONAL REPEESENTATIVE AND DEVISEE. [BOOK I.
with machinery or fixtures merely incidental to a business
carried on in the building at the date of the mortgage ; ^
or with gas chandeliers and pendant gas-burners and
gas-jets on the side-walls, capable of being detached
without injury to the pipes or the building.^
Sec. 139. Same — 8. Personal representative and devisee.
— As between the personal representative and a devisee,
such fixtures as are severable from, the freehold, and
which would go to the personal representative in exclu-
sion of the heir, may be devised by the testator, where
the estate upon which they are located is devisable ; but
it is otherwise where the estate to which they are at-
tached is not devisable by the testator.^ In such a case
the rights of the devisee are the same as would be those
of the heir, in whose place he stands.*
Sec. mo. Same — 9. Tenants in common.— The same
general rules that apply as between an executor and the
heir at law, and between a mortgagor and mortgagee,
will be applied to fixtures erected upon land by ten-
ants in common, on a division of the estate by partition.^
Sec. 141. Same — 10. Vendor and vendee.— As between
the vendor and the vendee, the strict rule as to fixtures
applies, and the purchaser is entitled to everything that
has been annexed to the freehold with a view to increas-
ing its value, or adapted to the purpose for which it is
used, unless there has been an express provision to the
contrary,® in the contract of sale, or instrument of con-
"Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., Early v. Burtis, 40 N. J. Eq. (13
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ; Stew.) 501 ; s.c. 4 Atl. Eep. 765;
Jones V. Detroit Chair Co., 38 Vaughen v. Halderman, 33 Pa.
Mich. 92; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 314. St. 532;
1 McConnell v. Blood, 123 Mass. 47; Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (S.
s.c. 25 Am. Rep. 13. C.) L. 135; s.c. 67 Am. Dec.573.
See : Pierce v. George, 108 Mass. * See : Herlakenden's Case, 4 Co.
78 ; s.c. 11 Am. Rep. 310 ; 62 ;
Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., Shep. Touch. 469, 470.
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ; s.c. 38 * Stuart i\ Bute, 3 Ves. 313.
Am. Dec. 368 ; = Parsons v. Copeland, 38 Me. 537 ;
HeUawell v. Eastwood, 6 Exch. s.c. 54 Am. Dec. 628.
295; Queen v. Lee, L. R. 1 Q. B. » Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c.
241. 93 Am. Dec. 299.
'/See : Chapman v. Union Mutual See : Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala.
Life Ins. Co., 4 111. App. 29; 493; s.c. 62 Am. Dec. 742 ;
Chap. IV. § 141.] VENDOR AND VENDEE.
135
veyance.i Within this principle it has been held that
various articles are fixtures, and pass with the land to
Fratt V. Whittier, 58Cal. 126; s.c.
41 Am. Rep. 251 ;
Kennard v. Brough, 64 Ind. 23 ;
Pea V. Pea, 35 Ind. 387 ;
Clore V. Lambert, 78 Ky. 224 ;
Smith V. Commonwealth, 14
Bush (Ky.) 31 ;
Johnson v. Wiseman, 4 Met.
(Ky.) 357 ;
Lapham v. Norton, 71 Me. 83 ;
Davis V. Buffum, 51 Me. 160 ;
Farrar v. Stackpole, 6 Me. (6
Greenl.) 154, 157 ;
Kirwan v. Latour, 1 Harr. & J.
(Md.) 289 ;
Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's
Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c.
87 Am. Dec. 475 ;
Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c.
93 Am. Dec. 299 ;
Schlemmer v. North, 32 Mo. 206 ;
Cohen v. Kyler, 27 Mo. 122 ;
Connor v. Coffin, 27 N. H. 538 ;
Despatch Line v. Bellamy Mfg.
Co., 12 N. H. 205 ; s.c. 37 Am.
Dec. 203 ;
Kittredge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503;
s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 393 ;
MUler V. Plumb, 6 Cow. (N. Y.)
665;
Walker v. Sherman, 20 Wend.
(N. Y.) 636 ;
Hutchins v. Masterson, 46 Tex.
551 ;
Connor v. Squiers, 50 Vt. 680 ;
Preston v. Briggs, 16 Vt. 124;
Stone V. Proctor, 2 D. Chip. (Vt.)
113;
Hitchman v. Walton, 4 Mees. &
W. 409 ; s.c. 2 Smith's Lead.
Cas. (9th Am. ed.) 1452 ;
2 Kent. Com. (13th ed.) 441.
As to what are fixtnres lietween vend-
or and vendee among other cases,
See : Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala.
493 ; s.c. 62 Am. Dec. 742 ;
Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126; s.c.
41 Am. Rep. 251 ;
McGreary v. Osborne, 9 Cal. 119 ;
Stockwell V. Campbell, 39 Conn.
362 ; s.c. 12 Am. Rep. 393 ;
Smith V. Price, 39 111. 28 ; s.c. 89
Am. Dec. 284 ;
BuU V. Griswald, 19 111. 631 ;
Leonard v. Stickney, 131 Mass.
541;
McLaughlin v. Nash, 96 Mass.
(14 AUen) 136 ; s.c. 92 Am. Dec.
741;
Richardson v. Copeland, 72 Mass.
(6 Gray) 536 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec.
424;
Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's
Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360; s.c.
83 Am. Dec. 475 ;
Richardson v. Borden, 42 Miss.
71 ; s.c. 2 Am. Rep. 595;
Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91; s.c.
93 Am. Dec. 299 ;
Cohen v. Kyler, 27 Mo. 122 ;
Hunt V. Mullanphy, 1 Mo. 508 ;
s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 300 ;
Despatch Line v. Bellamy Mfg.
Co., 12 N. H. 205; s.c. 37 Am.
Dec. 203 ;
Terhune v. Elberson, 3 N. J. L.
(2 Penn.) 297 ;
Potter V. Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287;
s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 485 ;
Shaw V. Lenke, 1 Daly (N. Y.)
487;
Teaff V. Heuoitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ;
s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634 ;
Heysham v. Dettre, 89 Pa. St.
506;
Jarechi v. Philharmonic Soc, 79
Pa. St. 403 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep.
78, 80 ;
Meig"s Appeal, 62 Pa. St. 28; s.c.
1 Am. Rep. 372 ;
Voorhis v. Freeman, 2 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec.
490;
Degraffenreid v. Scruggs, 4
Humph. (Tenn.)451; s.c.40Am.
Dec. 658 ;
Hitchins v. Masterson, 46 Tex.
551 ; s.c. 26 Am. Rep. 286 ;
Peck V. Batchelder, 40 Vt. 233 ;
s.c. 94 Am. Dec. 392 ;
Cross V. Marston, 17 Vt. 533 ; s.c.
44 Am. Dec. 593 ;
Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. (Va.)
752 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 323.
Smith V. Price, 39 lU. 28 ; s.c. 89
Am. Dec. 284.
See : Connor v. Clark, 12 Cal.
108 ; S.C. 73 Am. Dec. 529 ;
Purinton v. Northern Illinois R.
Co., 46 111. 297, 300;
Martin v. Pensacola & G. R. Co.,
8 Fla. 370 ;s.c. 73 Am. Dec.713 ;
Dioken ■;;. Morgan, 54 Iowa 684,
686 ; s.c. 7 N. W. Rep. 145 ;
Rohrabacher v. Ware, 37 Iowa
85. 87 ;
Johnson v. Tatlinger, 31 Iowa
500, 502 ;
136
VENDOR AND VENDEE.
[Book I,
the vendee, such as a bath-tub ; ^ bell, where attached to
the realty ; ^ boilers used in a flouring-mill ; ^ chande-
liers ; * a cotton-gin on a plantation,^ fixed in place ; ^
CMiduit pipes to conduct water to a house ; '' counters in
a store ; ^ crops growing on land ; ^ double- windows in a
dwelling,^" and the dwelling itself, unfinished, or set on
blocks laid on the ground ; ^^ dye-kettles, brick-set in a
dye-house ; ^ fencing materials ; ^^ front piece to a fire
grate, ^* and the grate itself ; ^^ gas-fixtures ; ^^ hop-poles
used in cultivating hops;^'^ a hot-air furnace used in
heating a dwelling, ^^ and the screens placed in front of
steam -radiating pipes ; ^^ machinery annexed to realty
Jack V. Naber, 15 Iowa 450, 453 ;
Gelpcke v. Blake, 15 Iowa 387;
S.C. 83 Am. Dec. 418, 422 ;
Timms v. Shannon, 19 Md. 296 ;
B.C. 81 Am. Dec. 632 ;
Noble V. Bosworth, 36 Mass. (19
Pick.) 314 ;
Fulton V. Hood, 34 Pa. St. 365 ;
s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 664 ;
Kearly v. Duncan, 1 Head (Tenn.')
397 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 179 ;
Downie v. White, 13 Wis. 176 ;
s.c. 78 Am. Dec. 731.
1 Cohen v. Kyler, 27 Mo. 133.
' Alvord Carriage Mfg. Co. v. Glea-
son, 36 Conn. 86.
« Sands v. Pf eifEer, 10 Cal. 259.
^ Johnson's Ex'r v. Wiseman's Ex'r,
4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c. 83 Am.
Deo. 475.
' Richardson i;. Borden, 42 Miss. 71;
s.c. 2 Am. Rep. 595.
See: Brattonw. Clawson, 2 Strobh.
(S. C.) 478 ;
Farris v. Walker, 1 Bailey (S. C.)
L. 540 ;
MoKenna v. Hammond, 3 HUl
(S. C.) L. 331 ;
Degraffenreid v. Scruggs, 4
Humph. (Tenn.) 431, 451.
• Bratton v. Clawson, 2 Strobh.
(S. C.) L. 478.
' Philbrick v. Ewing, 97 Mass. 133,
134, and through the rooms of
a dwelling ;
Cohen v. Kyler, 27 Mo. 122.
' Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c.
93 Am. Dec. 299, 302.
« Planters' Bank v. Walker, 3 Smed.
& M. (Miss.) 409 ;
Keisel v. Earnest, 21 Pa. St. 90 ;
Smith V. Johnson, 1 Pen. & W.
(Pa.) 471.
See : Pickens v. Reed, 1 Swan
(Tenn.) 80.
"> Peck V. Batohelder, 40 Vt. 333 ;
s.c. 94 Am. Dec. 392.
" Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.)
43 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 757.
" Noble V. Bosworth, 36 Mass. (19
Pick.) 314.
'''Goodrich v. Jones, 3 Hill (N. Y.)
143.
" See : Leonard v. Stickney, 181
Mass. 541.
■'Id.
" Johnson's Ex'rs v. Wiseman's
Ex'rs, 4 Met. (Ky.) 360 ; s.c. 83
Am. Dec. 475.
See : Fratt v. Whittier, 58 Cal.
136 ; s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 251 ;
Smith V. Commonwealth, 14
Bush (Ky.) 31 ; s.c. 29 Am. Rep.
403;
Post, § 143.
" Bishop V. Bishop, 11 N. Y. 133 ;
s.c. 62 Am. Dec. 68.
■8 Stockwell V. Campbell, 39 Conn.
363 ; s.c. 12 Am. Rep. 393.
" Iron screens before radiating pipes,
— Question for jury. — In the case
of Leonard v. Stickney, 131
Mass. 541, it is said that the
question whether iron screens,
placed in front of tlie steam-
radiating pipes, resting on the
floor and kept in position by
their own weights, with marble
slabs upon them, pass by deed,
is a question of fact for the jury,
if the evidence is conflicting on
the points whether the screens
and slabs formed part of the
steam-heating apparatus and
its connections ; whether the
apparatus would be complete
Chap. IV. § 141.] VENDOR AND VENDEE. I37
by the owner ; 1 manure made in the course of hus-
bandry ;2 an organ fitted into a niche in a church ;3 a
portable grist-mill ; * potash kettles appertaining to a
building used in the manufacture of ashes ; '^ salt-pans
used in the manufacture of salt ; " statuettes erected for
ornament, though kept in their place merely by their
own weight ; '' steam-engines and fixtures used in driv-
ing a bark-mill/ or a brick-mill,^ or a flouring-mill,!"
where attached or fastened to a frame of timber, or im-
bedded in a quartz ledge and used for the purpose of
working the ledge ; ^^ a steam-heating apparatus ; ^^
stoves affixed to the brick of chimneys ; ^ tables fixed
and dormant ; " trees cut down and lying at full length
on the ground where they grew ; ^^ vats, stills, and ket-
tles of a brewery ; ^® wainscot work ; ^^ the window-blinds
of a building ; ^^ and the like. Many things pass by deed
of a house, being put therein by the owner and seller,
which a tenant who has affixed might have removed.
They are regarded as fixtures, and pass to the vendee,
although annexed and used for purposes of trade, manu-
without them ; whether they ' Snedeker v. Warring, 12 N. Y.
were fitted to their places hav- 170.
ing regard to the walls near See : D'Eyncourt v. Gregory, L.
which tlipy stood and the appar- E. 3 Eq. 382; s..c. 36 L. J. Ch.
atus itself ; whether they could 107 ; 15 "W. R. 180.
be arranged for any other place * Ovcs v. Oglesby, 7 Watts (Pa.)
without disproportionate ex- 106.
pense ; and whether, if re- See : Morgan v. Arthur, 3 Watts
moved, they were worth more (Pa.) 140.
than their value as marble and ' Oves v. Oglesby, 7 Watts (Pa.)
old iron. 106.
1 Harkness v. Sears, 26 Ala. 493 ; '" Sands v. Pfeiflfer, 10 Cal. 259.
s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 742 ; " Sands v. Pfeifier, 10 Cal. 259.
McGreary v. Osborne, 9 Cal. 119 ; ''^ Leonard v. Stickney, 131 Mass.
Green v. Phillips, 26 Gratt. (Va.) 541.
752 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 353 ; " Goddard v. Chase, 7 Mass. 432.
Walmsley v. Milne, 7 C. B. N. S. » Sands v. Pfeifccr, 10 Cal. 259.
115 ; s.c. 97 Eng. C. L. 114. " Brackett v. Goddard, 54 Me.
' See : Ante, S 126 ; 309.
Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c. " Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c.
93 Am. Dec. 299. 93 Am. Dec. 299, 302.
' See • Chapman v. Union Mutual See : Tabor v. Robinson, 36 Barb.
Lifelns. Co.,4Ill. App. 29; (N. Y.) 483 ;
Strickland v. Parker, 54 Me. 263 ; Bryan v. Lawrence, 5 Jones (S.
Tliomas v. Davis, 76 Mo. 72. C.) L. 337 ;
* Potter ■;; Cromwell, 40 N. Y. 287 ; Main v. Schwarzwselder, 4 E. D.
s c 100 Am. Dec. 485. Smith (N. Y.) 273.
» Miller V. Plumb, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) " Sands v. Pfeiffer 10 Cal. 259.
665 • s c. 16 Am. Dec. 456. '* Peck v. Batohelder, 40 Vt. 233 ;
' Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Bl. 260 ; s.c. 94 Am. Dec. 392.
S.C. 2 Eev. Eep. 764.
GAS-FIXTURES AND CHANDELIERS
[Book I.
facture, or for ornament or domestic use.^ According
to the weight of decision, an article may be a fixture
constituting a part of the realty as between the vendor
and vendee, which would not, under like circumstances,
be such as between landlord and tenant ; ^ and for this
reason the right of the vendee to things of a personal
character must be established by showing that they
were, in the deed, treated as real estate.^
Sec. 142. Same — Same — Gas-fixtures, chandeliers, etc. —
The general rule is that all real fixtures, placed on the
premises and attached to the freehold, as a fixed estab-
lishment, become a part of the freehold and pass to the
vendee.* But the better doctrine is that lamps, chan-
deliers, candlesticks, candelabra, sconces, gas-fixtures,
side-brackets, and the various contrivances for lighting
houses, by means of candles, oil, other fluid, or gas, are
not fixtures, form no part of the realty, and do not pass
with a conveyance thereof, ° unless it is the manifest in-
' Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 136
s.o. 41 Am. Rep. 351, 255.
2 Teaff V. Hewitt, 1 Oliio St. 511
524 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634, 639.
3 Hunt V. MuUanphy, 1 Mo. 508
s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 300.
* Rice V. Adams, 4 Harr. (Del.) 333
Sparks v. State Bank, 7 Blackf.
(Ind.)469;
Symonds v. Harris, 51 Me. 14
s.c. 81 Am. Dec. 553 ;
Parsons v. Copeland, 38 Me
537 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 638 ;
Corliss V. McLagin, 29 Me. 115
TruU V. Fuller, 28 Me. 545 ;
McKim V. Mason, 3 Md. Ch. 186
Union Bank v. Emerson, 15
Mass. 159 ;
Richardson v. Copeland, 72 Mass
(6 Gray) 536 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec,
424;
Phillipson v. MuUanphy, 1 Mo.
630 ; s.c. 14 Am. Deo. 380 ;
Baker v. Davis, 19 N. H. 825 ;
Murdock v. Harris, 20 Barb. (N
Y.) 407 ;
Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb.
(N. Y.) 43 ;
Witmer's Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 455
s.o. 84 Am. Dec. 505 ;
Christian v. Dripps, 28 Pa. St.
271;
Roberts v. Dauphin Bank, 19 Pa.
St. 71 ;
Harlan v. Harlan, 15 Pa. St. 507
Oves V. Oglesby, 7 Watts (Pa.
106 ;
Pyle V. Pennock, 2 Watts & S,
(Pa.) 390 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec
517;
Voorhis V. Freeman, 2 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 116 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec.
490;
Sweetzer v. Jones, 85 Vt. 817 ;
Harris v. Haynes, 34 Vt. 230.
5 McConnell v. Blood, 123 Mass.
47 ; s.c. 25 Am. Rep. 13 ;
Sogers v. Crow. 40 Bio. 91; s.c
93 Am. Dec. 299 ;
Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich.
C.) L. 135 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec.
572.
See : Fratt v. Whittier, 58 Cal.
126; s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 251;
Towne v. Fiske, 127 Mass. 135
Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191
Heysham v. Dettre, 89 Pa.St.506,
Jarechit). Philharmonic Soc, 79
Pa. St. 403 ;. s.o. 21 Am. Rep,
78; ^
Vadghen v. Halderman, 83 Pa.
St. 533 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 633 ;
Terhune v. Elberson, 3 N. J. L.
(3Penn.)397;
Chap. IV. § 143.] ANNEXATIONS BY PURCHASER.
139
tention to have them pass with the property, or the pres-
ence of these articles and the convenience arising from
their use are held out as an inducement to the purchaser,
and are the means of making the sale. Thus it has been
said by the New York Supreme Court in Funk v. Bri-
galdi,! that when the owner of a house, in order to in-
duce the vendee to purchase it, gave him to understand
that the gas-fixtures were a part of the realty, such induce-
ment was suflBcient evidence that the owner intended to
make them a permanent attachment to the house, and
that they passed to the vendee.
Sec. 143 Same — Same — Fixtures annexed by one in pos-
session under contract of purchase.— Fixtures annexed to
the freehold by one in possession, under an executory
contract of purchase from the owner, become a part of
the realty,^ and on breach of the conditions of purchase,
the person thus annexing the fixtures will not have the
McKeage v. Hanover Fire Ins.
Co., 81 N. Y. 38; s.c. 37 Am.
Rep. irn
Shaw V. Lenke, 1 Daly (N. Y.)
487;
Lawrence v. Kemp, 1 Duer (N.
Y.) 863 ;
Cross V. Marston, 17 Vt. 533 ; s.c.
44 Am. Dec. 358.
Iiamps, chandeUers, and gas fixtures,
though often sold with the
house, are not fixtures, and
will not pass to the vendee, un-
less there be a special agree-
ment ia regard to them.
Towne v. Fiske, 127 Mass. 125 ;
Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 191 ;
Rogers v. Crow, 40 Mo. 91 ; s.c.
93 Am. Dec. 299 ;
McKeage v. Hanover Ins. Co.,
81 N. Y. 38; s.c. 87 Am. Rep.
471;
Jarechi v. Philharmonic Soc, 79
Pa. St. 403 ;
Vaugheni>. Halderman, 33 Pa. St.
522;
Montague v. Dent, 10 Rich. (S.
C.) L. 135 ; s.c. 67 Am. Deo.
572
> 4 Daly (N. Y.) 359.
« Smith V. Moore, 26 lU. 292 ;
Central Branch E. Co. v. Fritz,
20 Kan. 430 ; B.C. 27 Am. Rep.
175;
Lapham v. Norton, 71 Me. 83 ;
Hinkley & E. Iron Co. v. Black,
70 Me. 473 ;
Westgate v. Wixon, 128 Mass.
304;
Oakman v. Dorchester Mut. F.
Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 57 ;
Curtis V. Riddle, 89 Mass. (7
Allen) 185 ;
King V. Johnson, 73 Mass. (7
Gray) 289;
Murphy v. Marland, 62 Mass. (8
Cush.) 575;
Milton V. Colby, 46 Mass. (5
Met.) 78;
Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. 349 ;
Moore v. Vallentine, 77 N. C.
188.
Lease of articles — Afl5xing under con-
tract of purchase. — In the case of
Hendy v. Dinkerhoff, 57 Cal. 3;
s.c. 40 Am. Rep. 107, A leased
to B an engine and boiler, with
a privilege of purchase, and B
affixed them in a permanent
manner to land of C in posses-
sion of B under a contract for
purchase, which provided that
if B failed to perform, all tools
and machinery put on the land
by him should belong to the
defendant. A 'knew that the
engine and boiler were to be
affixed to the land, but did not
140 ANNEXATIONS BY PURCHASER. [Book I.
right to remove them.^ Although a person occupying
land under a contract of purchase may be said to be, in a
certain sense, a tenant of the owner, still the analogy
does not hold good in all respects. In one essential par-
ticular, at least, it fails. The occupier is not liable to
pay rent to the owner. It would seem to follow natu-
rally from this that he has no right to remove fixtures
annexed by him to the freehold. The reason why a ten-
ant is allowed to remove structures erected for the pur-
poses of trade or convenience, affixed by him to the
realty during his tenancy, is because, having paid as
rent a full equivalent for the premises as demised, it
would be inequitable to compel him to forfeit articles, at
the end of his term, which he had procured for his own
use and at his own expense.^ That reason is wholly in-
applicable to the case' of a person occupying under a con-
tract of purchase. In such a case the occupant has paid
no equivalent for the use and enjoyment of the prem-
ises ; nor is he compelled to surrender the estate at a
fixed period of time, as upon the expiration of a term de-
mised. He can, by fulfilling his contract of purchase,
become the owner of the estate, and enjoy the full bene-
fit of all the erections and improvements which he has
made thereon. There is therefore no reason for apply-
ing to a case of this sort the very liberal rule in regard
to fixtures, which prevails where the relation of lessor
and lessee obtains between the parties.^
know of this agreement respect- 256, 270-371 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec.
ing fixtures. B failed to per- 64.
form. The court held, that ^ King v. Johnson, 73 Mass. (7 Gray)
A could recover the engine and 239, 241.
boiler or their value from. C. Erecting building upon lands by
But see : Morrison v. Berry, 43 tsnant in possession, with privilege
Mich. 389; s.c. 36 Am. Rep. of purchase.— In the recent case
446 ; 4 N. W. Rep. 731, vrhere of Westgate v. Wixon, 138
a different doctrine is held. Mass. 804, 306, one Abbott,
' Westgate v. Wixon, 138 Mass. in possession of a parcel of
304. land under a bond for a deed,
See : Murphy v. Marland, 63 Mass. erected a barn upon the prem-
(8 Gush.) 575 ; ises, the sills of which rested in
Eastman v. Foster, 49 Mass. (8 part on large stones imbedded
Met.) 19 ; in the soil, and in part upon
Milton V. Golby, 46 Mass. (5 Met.) the soil itself. After a breach
78 ; of the bond, but while Abbott
Ashmun v. Williams, 35 Mass. was still in possession of the
(8 Pick.) 403. land, the barn was attached
" Wall u Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) ■ andremovedby one of Abbott's
Chap. IV. § 144.] AGREEMENT AS TO FIXTURES.
141
Sec. 144. Agreement in relation to fixtures.— It is a well-
settled rule of law that the parties between whom the
question as to fixtures arises, may, by express agreement,
fix upon chattels annexed to realty whatever character
they may have agreed upon. Property which the law
regards as fixtures may be by them considered as person-
alty, and that which is considered in law as personalty
they may regard as a fixture. Whatever may be their
agreement in this respect the court will enforce, as
between themselves. ^ Thus it has been held that if a
creditors. In an action of
tort in the nature of trover,
brought by the owner of the
land against the officer, after
demand, it was held that the
barn was a part of the realty
and not subject to attachment.
The court say : " As a general
rule, buildings are a part of the
realty, and belong to the owner
of the land on which they
stand. Even if built by a person
who has no interest in the land,
they become a part of the
realty, unless there is an agree-
ment by the owner of the land,
either express or implied from
the relation of the parties, that
they shall remain personal
property."
Webster v. Potter, 105 Mass. 414,
416;
Poor V. Oakman, 104 Mass. 309 ;
Oakman v. Dorchester Ins. Co.,
98 Mass. 57 ;
Howard v. Fessenden, 90 Mass.
(14 Allen) 124.
"The facts in this case do
not take it out of the general
rale. There was no express
agreement by the plaintiff that
Abbott might remove the barn,
and the relations of the parties
were not such as that the law
will imply such an agreement.
Abbott was in the occupation
of the land under a bond, by
which the plaintiff agreed to
convey the land to him upon
the performance of certain
conditions stipulated therein.
While he thus occupied, Abbott
built the barn in question.
The legal title to the land
was in the plaintiff, but Abbott
had an equitable interest in it,
a right to obtain a title to the
soil upon performance of the
conditions of the bond. He
was not, therefore, a mere
stranger, who erected a build-
ing upon the land of another
with the consent of the
owner, in which case an agree-
ment that he might remove it
might more easily be implied.
Nor can he be regarded as a
tenant of the plaintiff, so that
the liberal rules in regard to
fixtures, which prevail between
lessor and lessee, can be applied.
The essential features of a
tenancy upon which those
rules rest are wanting ; he was
not under any liability to pay
rent, and he was not compelled
to surrender the estate at a
fixed time, as upon the expira-
tion of the term ; but, upon
performing the conditions of
the bond, all the additions and
improvements made by him
would inure to his own bene-
fit."
Westgate v. Wixon, 128 Mass. 304,
306.
Citing : King v. Johnson, 70 Mass.
(7 Gray) 239.
> Fratt V. Whittier, 58 Cal. 126 ;
s.c. 41 Am. Rep. 251, 250 ;
Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97
Mass. 279 *
Sisson r. Hibbard, 75 N. Y. 542 ;
Tifft V. Horton, 53 N. Y. 377 ;
s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 537 ;
Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 N. Y.
146 ; s.c. 11 Am. Rep. 683 ;
Ford V. WilUams, 24 N. Y. 359 ;
Ford V. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344 ;
Smith uBenson,l Hill (N.Y.)176;
Smith V. Waggoner, 50 Wis. 155;
s.c. 6 N. W. Rep. 568.
See : Merrit v. Judd, 14 Cal. 60;
Cromio v. Hoover, 40 Ind. 49, 61;
142
AGREEMENT AS TO FIXTURES.
[Book I.
man builds a house on lands which are not his own,
by consent of the owner, the house is personal property^
and remains separate from the freehold by virtue of the
agreement between the parties.^ And rails when laid
upon a railway track become a part of the realty, in the
absence of any agreement to the contrary ; ^ but when
they are delivered under an agreement that they shall
be laid down on a specified part of the railroad-bed, and
continue the property of the vendors until a specified
price is paid therefor, they remain the personal
property of the vendors, until payment is made,
and are not, when laid, so inseparably annexed to or
incorporated with the realty that they cannot be
removed for the non-payment of the agreed price. The
agreement of the parties supersedes the law, and is
binding alike upon the original ■ parties and subsequent
mortgagees or purchasers with notice.*
Frederick v. Devol, 15 Ind.
357"
McCracken v. HaU, 7 Ind. 30 ;
Foster V. Prentiss, 75 Me. S79;
Curtis V. Riddle, 89 Mass. (7 Allen)
185;
Robertson i;.Corsett,39 Mich.777;
Warner v. Kenning, 25 Minn.
173;
Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J. L. (9
Vr.) 457;
Brearley v. Cox, 24 N. J. L. (4
Zab.) 287 ;
Sampson v. Graham, 96 Pa. St.
405;
Sullivan v. Jones, 14 8. C. 362 ;
Josslyn V. McCabe, 46 Wis. 591
S.C. 1 N. W. Rep. 174 ;
Mansfield v. Blackbume, 6 Bing,
N. C. 426 ; s.o. 37 Eng. C. L.
699;
Saint V. PiUey, L. E. 10 Ex. 137
Perry v. Brown, 2 Stark. 403 ;
Naylor v. Collinge, 1 Taunt. 10
S.O. 9 Rev. Rep. 691.
Curtis V. Riddle, 89 Mass. (7 Allen)
185, 187.
Citing : Belding v. Gushing, 67
Mass. (1 Gray) 578 ;
First Parisli of Sudbury v. Jones,
62 Mass. (8 Cush.) 190 ;
Ashmun ■!;. Williams, 25 Mass. (8
Pick.) 402 ;
Doty V. Gorham, 22 Mass. (5 Pick.)
489 ; S.C. 16 Am. Dec. 417;
Wells V. Bannister, 4 Mass. 514.
' Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97
Mass. 279, 283 ;
Curtis V. Riddle, 89 Mass. (7 Allen)
185, 187.
Agreement by parol. — ^As the agree-
ment relates to personal prop-
erty, it may be made by
parol.
Curtis «. Riddle, 89 Mass. (7AUen)
185.
' Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97
Mass. 279, 283.
See : Richardson v. Copeland, 72
Mass. (6 Gray) 536 ; s.c. 66 Am.
Dec. 424 ;
Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.)
40 ; s.o. 39 Am. Deo. 757 ;
Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co.,
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306 ;
Peirce v. Goddard, 39 Mass. (22
Pick.) .559.
Rails and ties for repairs. — It is said
in Covey v. Pittsburg, Ft. W.
& C. R. Co., 3 Phila. (Pa.) 173,
that old and new rails and ties
lying along the track of a rail-
road, for use in making repairs,
are a part of the realty.
Hunt V. Bay State Iron Co., 97
Mass. 279, 283 ;
Haven v. Emery, 33 N. H. 66 ;
Pierce v. Emery, 32 N. H. 484.
See : Strickland v. Parker, 54 Me.
263.
Chap. IV. § 145.] LIMITATIONS OP DOCTEINE. 143
Sec. 145. Same— Limitations of doctrine. — There are
limitations and exceptions to this doctrine, however. In
the first place, the property in question must be of such
a character as to be capable of becoming personal
property. If the subject itself, or the mode of annexation,
is such that the attributes of personal property cannot
be predicted of the thing in controversy, the agreement
of the parties will not govern.^ In the second place,
such agreements are subject to the statute of frauds,
where the fixtures are incorporated with the freehold,^
although it is said not to apply where the fixture is
merely annexed to the freehold.^ But such contracts
are so far relieved from the statute that they may be
proven by parol.* In the third place, such agreements
are invalid as against the rights of the third person,^
as bona fide purchasers of the land.^ Thus where
a person who has hired the use of certain personal
property converts it by annexing to and making it a
part of his real estate, and then sells the real estate to
a third person who has no notice of the facts, the wrong-
' See : Ford v. Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344 ; Severance— Notice of, necessary to
Fortman v. Goepper, 14 Ohio St. bind purchaser. — It is said by the
558. Supreme Court of Ohio, in the
'See: Meyers t'. Schemp, 67 111. 469; case of Brennan v. Whitaker,
Trull V. Fuller, 38 Me. 545. 15 Ohio St. 446, 453-4, that " it is
' Strong V. Doyle, 110 Mass. 93. true that in the case of Ford r.
Citing : Bostwick v. Leach, 3 Day Cobb, 20 N. Y. 344, it was held
(Conn.) 476 ; that an agreement which was
HaUen v. Eunder, 1 Cromp. M. evidenced by a chattel mort-
& E. 866. gage was effectual against a
• See: Frederick ?J.Devol,15 Ind.357: subsequent purchaser of the
"Walker v. Schindel, 58 Md. 360 ; land, without notice. But it
Mitchell V . Freedley, 10 Pa. St. seems to us to be the sounder
]^98 rule, and more in accordance
<■ Ott uSpecht (Del.), 13 Atl. 731 ; with principle, and the policy
s c. 11 Cent. Eep. 344 ; of our recordmg laws, to re-
Badger V. Batavia Paper Mfg. quire actual severance, or no-
Co 70 111 303 ; tice of a binding agreement to
Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan. 314 ; sever, to deprive the purchaser
Sisson V. Hibbard, 75 N. Y. 542. of the right to fixtures or ap-
' Eowand v Anderson, 33 Kan. purtenances to the treehold.
264 • s c 6 Pao. Eep. 355 ; See : Eichardson v. Copeland, 72
Bartholomew v. Hamilton, 105 Mass. (6 Gravi 536 ; s.c. 66 Am.
Mass 239 ■ Dec. 434 ;
Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake Fryatt v. SuUivan Co., 5 HiU ^N.
Guano &FertiUzer Co.,83 N. ^ Y.) 116 ; -,, r.^,- a^
y ^^g . Fortman v. Goept)er 14 Ohio St.
Fryatt v.'The Sullivan Co., 5 Hill Eep. 565; ,^ ,^ , , , ^
W Y ) 116 • Frankland v. Moultob et al., 5
Smith V. Waggoner, 50 Wis. 155 ; Wis. 1.
s.c. 6 N. W. Eep. 568.
144
EEMOVAL OF FIXTURES.
[Book: I.
fully annexed property passes to the purchaser.^ And
the owner of the land cannot, by agreement between
himself and another, make that which is in its nature
land, personal property, as against a subsequent purchaser
for value without notice, there having been no actual
severance of the soil when the subsequent grant was
made.^ Thus it was held by the Supreme Court of
Kansas in the case of Rowand v_. Anderson ^ that a
fence built by one person upon the land of another,
under a parol license or agreement that it might be
removed at the will of the builder, becomes a fixture
which will pass with a grant of the land to a hona fide
purchaser without notice of the adverse title to such
fence.*
Sec. 146. Removal of fixtures.— As between landlord
and tenant, the right to' remove fixtures depends upon the
intention to annex. ^ Where fixtures are annexed by the
tenant for the purposes of trade, or some other immediate
or temporary use, or for ornament or furniture,® he may
' Fryatt v. The Sullivan Co., 5 HiU
(N. Y.) 116 ; aff'd 7 Hill (N. Y.)
539.
See : Peirce v. Gtoddard, 39 Mass.
(23 Pick.) 559 ; s.o. 33 Am. Deo.
764;
Voorhees v. McGinnis, 48 N. Y.
378 ; S.C. 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 343 ;
Ford V. Cobb, 30 N. Y. 344.
^ Lacustrine Fertilizer Co. v. Lake
Guano & Fertilizer Co., 83 N.
Y. 476.
' 33 Kan. 264 ; s.c. 6 Pac. Kep. 255.
* See : Prince v. Case, 10 Conn. 375;
s.c. 27 Am. Deo. 675 ;
Dostal V. McCaddon, 33 Iowa 318 ;
Smith V. Carroll, 4 G. Greene
(la.) 146 ;
Eaves v. Estes, 10 Kan. 314 ;
Houx V. Seat, 36 Mo. 178 ; s.c. 73
Am. Dec. 203 ;
Haven v. Emery, 38 N. H. 63 ;
Powers V. Dennison, 30 Vt. 753 ;
Wesootfc V. Delano, 30 Wis. 514.
5 Teaff V. Hewitt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ;
s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 634 ;
Hill V. Sewald, 53 Pa. St. 271 ;
s.c. 91 Am. Deo. 238 ;
Pyle V. Pennock, 3 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 390 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 517.
See : Foster v. Maybe, 4 Ala. 402 ;
s.c. 87 Am. Dec. 749 ;
Hunt V. MuUanphy, 1 Mo. 508;
s.c. 14 Am. Deo. 300;
Gray v. Holdship, 17 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 418 ; s.o. 17 Am. Dec. 680,
686.
positive act necessary to change nat-
ure of chattel. — It is said in the
case of Fortman v. Goepper, 14
Ohio St. 558, that TeafE v. Hew-
itt, 1 Ohio St. 511 ; s.c. 59 Am.
Deo. 634, "is not in conflict
with the case of HiU v. Went-
worth, 28 Vt. 438, holding that
to change the character of an
article from a chattel to a fixt-
ure there should be some posi-
tive act and intent to that effect
on the part of the person an-
nexing it to the building, and
if the intent is in doubt, upon
an inspection of the property
itself, taking into consideration
its nature, the mode, extent,
and purpose of its annexation,
it should be held to be personal
property."
• Coombs V. Jordan, 3 Bland. Ch.
(Md.) 384 ; s.o. 23 Am. Dec. 336 ;
Holmes v. Tremper, 20 John. (N.
Y.) 129 ; s.o. 11 Am. Dec. 238 ;
Gaffield v. Hapgood, 34 Mass. (17
Pick.) 193 ; s.o. 38 Am.Dec.290;
Chap. IV. § 146.] REMOVAL OF nXTUEES.
145
remove them during the continuance of his original
term,i qj. g^^^j^ further period of possession by him as he
holds the premises under the right to still consider him-
self a tenant, 2 when he can do so without material in jury-
to the freehold ; ^ hut if he fails to do so and quits
without any special agreement with his landlord respect-
ing them, neither he nor his assignee can afterwards
claim such fixtures as against the owner of the land or
his grantee ;* and this is true whether the lease is ter-
Hunt V. MuUanphy, 1 Mo. 508 ;
s.c. 14 Am. Deo. 300.
See- Hayes v. N. Y. Mining Co.,
3 Colo. 273 ;
Beers v. St. John, 16 Conn. 323 ;
Mason v. Fenn, 13 lU. 525 ;
Griffin v. RansdeU, 71 Ind. 440 ;
AUen V. Kennedy, 40 Ind. 142 ;
Dostal V. McCaddon, 35 Iowa
318;
Thomas i;.Crout, 5 Bush (Ky.)B7 ;
Dingley v. Buflum, 57 Me. 381 ;
Davis V. Buflfum, 51 Me. 160 ;
Bliss V. "Whitney, 91 Mass. (9
Allen) 114; s.c. 85 Am. Dec.
745;
Shepard v. Spaulding, 45 Mass.
(4 Met.) 416 ;
Gaffield v. Hapgood, 34 Mass.
(17 Pick.) 193 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec.
390;
Powell V. McAsham, 28 Mo. 70 ;
Kuhlmann v. Meier, 7 Mo. App.
360;
State V. EUiot, 11 N. H. 540 ;
Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J. L.
(19 Vr.) 457 ; s.c. 30 Am. Rep.
421;
Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. (N. Y.)
323 •
Haflic'k V. Stober, 11 Ohio St.
482;
Davis V. Moss, 38 Pa. St. 346 ;
White V. Amdt, 1 Whai-t. (Pa.)
91;
Preston v. Briggs, 16 Vt. 124 ;
Josslyn V. McCabe, 46 Wis. 591 ;
s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 174 ;
Pitt V. Shew, 4 Barn. & Aid. 306 ;
s.c. 6 Eng. C. L. 453 ;
Davis V. Jones, 2 Barn. & Aid.
165;
Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 3 Barn.
& C. 76 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 42 ;
Lyde v. Russell, 1 Barn. & Aid.
394 ; s.c. 20 Eng. C. L. 533 ;
Wilde V. Waters, 16 C. B. 637 ;
8.C. 81 Eng. C. L. 637 ;
10
Heap V. BM-ton, 13 C. B. 374;
S.C. 74 Eng. C. L. 273 ;
Leader v. Homewood, 5 C. B. N.
S. 546 ; S.C. 27 L. J. C. P. 316 ;
4 Jur. N. S. 1062 ; 94 Eng. C.
L. 544;
Hallen v. Runder, 1 Cromp. N.
& R. 266 ;
Penton v. Robart, 3 East 88 ; s.c.
6 Rev. Rep. 376 ;
Pugh V. Arton, L. R. 8 Eq. Cas.
636:
Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 Mees. & '
W. 14;
Mackintosh v. Trotter, 3 Mees. &
W. 184 ;
MinshaU v. Lloyd, 2 Mees. & W.
450;
Rofifey V. Henderson, 17 Q. B.
574 ; s.c. 79 Eng. C. L. 573 ;
Lee V. Risdon, 7 Taunt. 188-191 ;
s.c. 3 Marsh. 495 ; 2 Eng. C. L.
320.
« Carlin v. Ritter, 68 Md. 478 ; s.c.
6 Am. St. Rep. 467; 13 Atl.
Rep. 370 ; 16 Id. 301.
» StockweU V. Marks, 17 Me. 455 ;
s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 266.
* Stookwell V. Marks, 17 Me. 455 ;
S.C. 35 Am. Dec. 266 ;
Gaffield v. Hapgood, 34 Mass.
(17 Pick.) 192 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec.
290;
Colegrave v. Dias Santos, 2 Bam.
& C. 76 ; S.O. 9 Eng. C. L. 43 ;
Lee V. Risdon, 7 Taunt. 188 ; s.c.
3 Marsh. 495 ; 2 Eng. C. L. 320.
See : Merrit v. Judd, 14 Cal. 59 ;
Moore v. Smith, 24 lU. 513 ;
Cromie v. Hoover, 40 Ind. 49 ;
Dostal?;. McCaddon, 35 Iowa 318 ;
Sullivan v. Carberry, 67 Me. 531 ;
Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Canton
Co. of Baltimore, 30 Md. 347 ;
Watriss v. First Nat. Bank of
Cambridge, 124 Mass. 571 ; s.c.
36 Am. Rep. 694 ;
Guthrie v. Jones, 108 Mass. 196 ;
146 EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. [BOOK I.
minated by the lapse of time, or breach, or re-entry on
forfeiture.^ But the forfeiture must be judicially ascer-
tained.^ This rule finds its reason in the fact that the
annexation of a chattel to a freehold by a tenant is
regarded as a conditional gift to the landlord, which
may be defeated by its subsequent removal during the
term, but which becomes absolute if the premises are
surrendered without its having been first severed and
removed.^ The reason for this is because the interest,
right, and title of a tenant, whatever they may be in
and to the premises, terminate absolutely on his going
out of possession at or after the expiration of his term,
and any subsequent re-entry, even under another demise
from the same landlord, will not relate back to or revive
the right which was forfeited by a failure to exercise
this right at the proper time.*
Sec. 147. Same— Exceptions to the rule. —This rule
always applies when the term is of certain duration, as
under a lease for a term of years, which contains no
Hanrahan v. O'EeiUy, 102 Mass. Preston v. Briggs, 16 Vt. 129 ;
201 ; Kutter v. Smith, 69 U. S. (3 Wall.)
Bainway v. Cobb, 99 Mass. 457, 491 ; bk. 17 L. ed. 830 ;
459; J7a;j)arfe Ames, 1 Low. C.C. 561 ;
Talbot V. Wliipple, 96 Mass. (14 s.o. 6 Nat. Bank Peg. 235 ;
Allen) 181 ; Lyde v. RusseU, 1 B. & Ad. 394 ;
Bliss V. Whitney, 91 Mass. (9 s.c. 20 Eng. C. L. 533 ;
Allen) 114, 115 ; Penton v. Robart, 2 East 88 ; s.c.
WaU V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 6 Rev. Rep. 376 ;
256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64 ; MinshaU v. Lloyd, 2 Mees. & W.
Butler V. Page, 48 Mass. (7 Met.) 450 ;
40 ; s.c. 89 Am. Dec. 757 ; Poole's Case, 1 Salk. 368.
Shepard v. Spaulding, 45 Mass. ' Whipley v. Dewey, 8 Cal. 36 ;
(4 Met.) 416 ; Pugh v. Arton, L. R. 8 Eq. Cas.
Winslow V. Merchants' Ins. Co., 636 ;
45 Mass. (4 Met.) 306, 311 ; Weeton v. Woodcock, 7 Mees. &
Noble V. Bosworth, 36 Mass. (19 W. 14..
Pick.) 314 ; ' Keough v. Daniell, 12 Wis. 163.
Goddard v. Chase, 7 Mass. 433 ; » McCraoken v. Hall, 7 Ind. 30 ;
Crippen v. Morrison, 13 Mich. 23, Gaffleld v. Hapgood, 34 Mass.
31 ; (17 Pick.) 193 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec.
Torrey v. Burnett, 38 N. J. L. 390;
(9 Vr.) 457 ; s.c. 30 Am. Rep. Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. (N. Y.)
421 ; 323 ;
, Crane v. Brigham, 11 N. J. Eq. Haflick v. Stober, 11 Ohio St.
(3 Stockt.) 29 ; 483 ;
Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792 ; White v. Amdt, 1 Whart. (Pa.)
s.c. 6 Am. Rep. 173 : 91.
Reynolds^. Shuler, 5 Cow. (N.Y.) * See : Shepard v. Spaulding, 45
333 ; Mass. (4 Met.) 416 ;
Davis V. Moss, 38 Pa. St. 346 ; Ante, § 137.
Chap. IV. § 147.] EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. 147
special provisions in regard to fixtures, but where the
term is uncertain, or depends upon a contingency — as
where a party is in as tenant for life or at will-^the
fixtures may be removed within a reasonable time after
the .tenancy is determined.^ Where a lease has been
given by an agent without sufficient authority, during
the absence of the owner, and is terminated by the owner
on his return, the lessee becomes a tenant at sufferance,
and will be entitled to remove any fixtures he may have
put upon the premises within a reasonable time after such
termination.^ And where a tenant has been restrained
by an injunction from removing fixtures placed by him
upon the estate during his tenancy, and such injunction
is afterwards dissolved, the tenant will have a reasonable
time within which to remove the fixtures after the dis-
solution.*
' Watriss v. First Nat. Bank of Ellis v. Paige, 18 Mass. (1 Pick.)
Cambridge, 124 Mass. 571, 575 ; 43, 49 ;
B.C. 26 Am. Rep. 694, 697. Loughran v. Ross, 45 N. Y. 792 r
See : Sullivan v. Carberry, 67 Me. s.o. 6 Am. Rep. 173 ;
531 • Haflick v. Stober, 11 Ohio St.483
Cooper V. Johnson, 143 Mass. 108 ; Martin v. Roe, 7 E. & B. 287
Antonir. Belknap, 102 Mass. 193 ; s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 286.
Doty V. Gorham, 22 Mass. (5 ^ Antoni v. Belknap, 102 Mass. 193
Pick.) 487, 490; s.c. 16 Am. Watriss v. First Nat. Bank of
Dec. 417 ; Cambridge, 124 Mass. 571, 575 ■
Whiting V. Brastow, 31 Mass. s.c. 26 Am. Rep. 694, 697.
(4: Pick.) 310, 311 ; ' See : Mason v. Fenn, 13 111. 535
^ Bircher v. Parker, 40 Mo. 118.
BOOK IT,
TENURES.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.
Sec. 148. English origin of our institutions.
Sec. 149. Same — ^English common and statute law.
Sec. 150. Teutonic origin and English institutions.
Sec. 151. Same — ^The feudal system.
Section 148. English origin of our institutions. —Our laws
and institutions are not wholly of our own making, the
foundations were brought over by our English ancestors
from the parent country. The soil upon which the English
colonies were planted in America was derived from the
crown through royal grants/ and every form of political
government set up in the colonies rested upon royal
charters.^ The earliest form of direct legislative control
to which the colonies were subjected was in the form of
ordinances or instructions, for their guidance, emanating,
not from the law-making power of the king in par-
liament, but from the ordaining power of the king in
council.^ In the internal organization of these colonies
they were essentially the same as that of the mother
country. The unit of the constitutional monarchy was
the borough or township ; upon the township was
founded the county, composed of several townships
similarly organized ; and of several counties similarly
' See Narrative and Critical History ' Taylor's Orig. & Gr. Eng. Const
of U. S., vol. VI. p. 3. pt. I., p. 25.
* 1 Storr on Const., chs. II.-XVII.
148
Chap. I. § 150.] TEUTONIC ORIGIN OF INSTITUTIONS. 149
organized states were formed ; and of these states, first a
Federation and then a Union. ^ This process of state-
building was the same as that pursued by the Teutonic
conquerors of Britain in building up what afterwards
became the English kingdom. ^
Sec. 149. Same— English common and statute law.—
Not only did our forefathers build up the original thirteen
states and the colonial federation in the same manner in
which the Teutonic conquerors of Britain had built up
the English kingdom, but they either had forced upon
them by royal charters, or adopted of their own choice,
the principles of the common and statute law of the
mother country as it existed at the time.^ In fact they
regarded these as much a part of their heritage as the
language they spoke or the religion they cherished.*
Particularly was this true in regard to the laws relating
to and regulating real property.^ To the common law
and the statutes brought over with them, the colonists
added afterwards a few English statutes enacted sub-
sequent to their emigration to this country.^
Sec. 160. Teutonic origin of English institutions.—It
will thus be seen that the constitutional history of our
institutions does not begin with the landing of our Eng-
lish forefathers in America in the seventeenth century,
but with the landing of the English in Britain, in the
1 De Tocqueville's "Democracy in Doe ex d. Patterson t-. Winn, 30
America," vol. I., p. 49. U. S. (5 Pet.) 333, 241 ; bk. 8 L.
= Taylor's Orig. & Gr. Eng. Const., ed. 108, 111 ;
p. 27. To\vn of Pawlet v. Clark, 13 U. S.
3 OUVER, J., in Baker v. Mattocks, (9 Cr.) 293 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 375.
Quincy (Mass.) 73. ' Sackett v. Sackett, 25 Mass. (8
* See: Helms-y. May,29 Ga.121,134 ; Pick.) 309, 315, 318 ;
Commonwealth v. Chapman, 54 Marshall v. Fisk, 6 Mass. 24, 31 ;
Mass. (13 Met.) G8, 69 ; s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 76, 79 ;
Marshall ■;;. Fisk, 0 Mass. 24, 31 ; Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2
s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 76, 79 ; Mass. 535 ;
Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 3 Baker ti. Mattocks, Qmncy (Mass.)
Mass. 530, 535 ; 72. . ^r o m
Commonwealth 1;. Leach, 1 Mass. « Morris v. Vanderen, 1 U. b. (1
60, 61 ; Dall.) 64 : bk. 1 L. ed. 38 ;
Baker w. Mattocks, Quincy (Mass.) Boehm v. Engle, 1 U. S. (1 DaU.)
73 . 15; bk. 1 L. ed. 17.
Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U. S. (8 See : Blankard v. Galdy, 4 3lod.
Pet.).':::;i, 415-418 ; bk. 8 L. ed. 322.
1055 ;
150 THE FEUDAL SYSTEM. [Book II.
fifth century,^ when the conquerors of Britain, as M.
Taine puts it, "created a Grermany outside of Ger-
many, " ^ bringing with them their language, their cus-
toms, their religion, and their laws. These customs and
laws were incorporated into the civil polity of the new
nation, and were the foundation of those principles and
laws which our forefathers imported and copied after.
The laws and the customs of the victorious Germans
were what we now know as the " feudal system."
Sec. 151. Same— The feudal system.— Our theory regard-
ing the rights of private property in land, and the
foundation of many of the laws governing such property,
have their origin in the feudal system, and for this rea-
son a general survey of that system, and of the laws and
institutions it gave rise to, becomes important in our
study of the law relating to real property in this country,
because, as Chief Justice Tilghman says in the case of
Lyle V. Eichards,^ "the principles of the feudal system
arc so interwoven with our jurisprudence that there is
no moving them without destroying the whole texture."
Both ancient English tenures and modern English
tenures, upon which the doctrine of tenures as it exists
in this country to-day is founded, are derived from and the
outgrowths of the feudal system. For this reason it is
thought best to here give a concise statement of the
feudal system, as well as of ancient English tenures.*
' See: Freeman, "The English Freeman's " Norman Conquest ; "
People in its Three Homes," p. Freeman's " The English People
360 ; ■ in its Three Homes ; "
Taylor's Orig. &Gr. Eng. Const., Green's "History of the English
p. 15. People ; "
2M. Taine'sHist. Eng. Lit.,vol. I., Hallam's "Constitutional His-
p. 50. tory ; "
^OSerg. &R. (Pa.) 333. Hallam's "History of the Mid-
^ We cannot enter into a full dis- die Ages ;"
cussion of this interesting and Palgrave's " English Common-
important subject in this place. wealth ; "
Those who wish to pursue a Palgrave's " Normandy and Eng-
study of the subject at length land ; "
will find valuable assistance in Pollock's ' ' History of the Science
the following worts : of Politics ; "
Freeman's "Comparative Poll- Stubb's " Constitutional History
tics ; " of England ; "
Freeman's " Growth of the Eng- Taylor's "Origin and Growth of
li=!h Constitution ; " the English Constitution."
CHAPTEE 11.
THE FEUDAL LAW.
Sec. 153. Sources of the English law.
Sec. 153. Origin of feudal government.
Sec. 154. France and Clovis.
Sec. 155. Same — Riparian Franks.
Sec. 156. Same— Theodosian Code.
Sec. 157. Same — Introduction of feuds.
Sec. 158. Same — Laws of Normandy.
Sec. 159. Establishment of feudal tenures.
Sec. 160. Sauae — Origin and growth of feudal customs.
Sec. 161. Same — Military services.
Sec. 162. Same — The German Comites.
Sec. 163. Same— Allodial tenures.
Sec. 164. Same — Consuetudines feudorem.
Sec. 165. Definition of feuds.
Sec. 166. Kinds of feuds — Proper and improper.
Sec. 167. Same — Ligium and non-ligium.
Sec. 168. Same — Feudum antiquum and feudum novum.
Sec. 169. Same — Feudum nobile and feudum dignitatis.
Sec. 170. Investiture of feuds.
Sec. 171. Same — Improper or symbolical vestiture.
Sec. 172. Same — Breve testatum.
Sec. 173. Fealty— Oath of.
Sec. 174. Homage — Ceremony of.
Sec. 175. Duties of lord and vassal
Sec. 176. Feudal aids.
Sec. 177. Estate of vassal.
Sec. 178. Alienation of feuds.
Sec. 179. S:^me — Subinfeudation.
Sec. 180. Estate of the lord.
Sec. 181. The lord's obligation on vassal's eviction.
Sec. 182. Descent of feuds.
Sec. 183. Same — Feudum taUiatum.
Sec. 184. Same — Distinguished from succession under Roman law.
Sec. 185. Investiture upon descent.
Sec. 186. Same — Relevium.
Sec. 187. Escheat of feuds.
Sec. 188. Forfeiture of feuds.
Sec. 189. Forfeiture of seigniory.
Sec. 190. Feudal jurisdiction.
151
152 SOURCES OF ENGLISH LAW. [Book II.
Section 152. Soiirees of the English law. — It has been
established beyond all question that the laws of England
are derived from those of northern nations, who, migrat-
ing from the forests of Germany, overturned the Eoman
Empire, and established themselves in the southern part
of Europe. The Danes and the Saxons were beyond all
question swarms from the northern hive. It may be
presumed that the description which Tacitus has left us
of the manners and customs of the Germans is applicable
also to them. The Saxons, on their establishment in
England, adopted but a small portion of the laws of the
Britons, and exterminated, rather than subdued, the
ancient inhabitants, introducing their own laws rather
than adopting those which prevailed among the Brit-
Sec 153. Origin of feudal government. — Before the
northern hordes sallied forth from their home to conquer
the world, they were not subject to the government of
kings ; ^ even where monarchical government had been
established, the prince possessed but little authority, and
was a general rather than a king. His military com-
mand was extensive, but his civil jurisdiction almost
nothing.^ The army which these men led was not com-
posed of soldiers who could be compelled to serve, but of
such men as voluntarily followed his standard.* These
soldiers conquered not for their leader, but for them-
selves ; and being free in their own country, they
renounced not their liberty when they acquired new ter-
ritory and made nevv^ settlements. They did not exter-
minate the inhabitants of the countries which they
subdued, but seized the greater part of the lands, and
took the people under their protection. The difficulty of
maintaining a new conquest, as well as the danger of
being attacked by new invaders as barbarous and fero-
cious as themselves, rendered it necessary to be always
' Montesquieu says that it is impossi- tions. 2Montesqu. Spirit of L.
ble to liave any tolerable notion (10th ed. , Edinburgh), bk.30, c.
of the French political law, un- xix, p. 337.
less we are thoroughly ac- ' Csesar, lib. VI. , o. 28.
quainted with the laws and ^ Tacitus, De Mor. Germ. o. 7, 11.
manners of the German na- * Cassar, lib. VI., c. 33.
Chap. II. § 154.] ORIGIN OF FEUDAL GOVERNMENT.
153
in a posture of defense. The form of government which
they established was altogether military, and resembled
as nearly as possible that which they had been ac-
customed to in their northern home. Their general still
continued to be the head of the people, and a part of 'the
conquered lands were allotted to him ; the remainder,
under the name of beneficia or fiefs, were divided among
his principal officers. As the common safety required
that these officers should, upon all occasions, be ready to
appear in arms, for the common defense, and should also
continue obedient to the commands of their general, they
bound themselves to take the field when called upon, and
to serve him with a number of men, in proportion to the
extent of their territory. These officers again parceled
out their lands among their followers and annexed to
their grant the same condition. Thus it was that a
feudal kingdom was properly the encampment of a great
army. Military ideas predominated every walk of life,
military subordination was established, and the possession
of the lands and the profit derived therefrom was the pay
which soldiers received for their personal service. ^
Sec. 154. Trance and Clovis.— The French nation de-
rived their origin from a tribe of Germans under Clovis,
who crossed the Rhine about the year A. D. 481, and
established themselves in the northern provinces of that
countiy. The different German tribes were first governed
by codes of laws formed by their respective chiefs. One
of the most ancient of these is the Salic Law, which is
generally supposed to have been written in the fifth
century.^
1 See : 1 Robertson's Hist. Scot.
(17tli ed.) 213, et seq.
2 The Salic law is the name of a
code of laws framed by tlie
Salians, a tribe of Germans who
settled in Gaul under Phara-
mond. This law is remarkable
principally for its provisions in
relation to succession, by which
males alone inherited the lands
or succeeded to the crown of
France. De terra vero salica
nulla portio hsereditatis transit
in mulierem, sed hoc virilis
sextus acquirit ; hoc est, filii in
ipsa haereditate seccundunt.
See : Hallam's Middle Ages (Jlur-
ray's ed. of 1878), vol. I., Dp. 47,
147-149, 278, 279, 280 ;
Hume's Hist. Eng. (Worthing-
ton-s ed. 1880), vol 2, p. ISl ;
Maine's " Ancient Law," p. 152.
Same— The futile effort to introduce
the Salic law into England by
Henry IV. is fully set out by
Hume. 3 Hume's Hist. Eng.
(Worthington's ed. 1880).
15i INTRODUCTION OF FEUDS. [BoOK IL
Sec. 156. Same — Eiparian Franks.— After the Franks
had quitted their country they made a compilation
of the Sahc laws, with the assistance of the Sagas of their
own nation, and having joined themselves under Clovis ^
to the Salians, preserved their original customs ; which
Theodoric, King of Austrasia, caused them to reduce into
writing ; ^ and also collected the last of those Bavarians
and Germans who were dependent upon his kingdom.
Charlemagne was the first who reduced the Saxons, and
gave them the law still extant.^
Sec. 156. Same— Theodosian Code.— While Clovis and
his descendants governed France, that country was ruled
hy the Theodosian Code and the laws of the different
Grerman tribes who had settled there. The Theodosian
Code was in the course of time abrogated or forgotten by
reason of the fact that greater advantages were allowed
to those who lived under the Salic law. During the
reign of the first French monarchs a general assembly of
the nation took place each year, either in the month of
March or in the month of May, at which time many
ordinances were made which acquired the force of law,
and were known as Capitularii*
Sec. 157. Same— introduction of feuds.— A variety of
regulations inconsistent with the ancient code of laws
was produced by the introduction of feuds ; and France
was at that time divided into an infinite number of small
seigniories whose lords acknowledged a feudal dependency
' See : Gregory of Tours, passim. may be found in Caciani's ool-
^ See : Prologue to the laws of the lection entitled " Barbarorum
Bavarians and to the Saliclaw. Legis Antique," 5 vols. fol.
Leibnitz says, in his " Origin of Venetiis, 1781-5. The early cus-
the Franks," that this law was toms and laws of the northern
made before the reign of Clovis; nations maybe inferred with
but it cannot have been before tolerable certainty from the
the Franks quitted their Ger- " Jus Commune Norvegicum,"
man home, because they did a compilation made in the year
not at that time understand 1274 by the order of the king,
the Latin tongue. See : 8 Mon- out of the then existing codes
tesque. Spirit of L. (10th ed. in the realm, and published at
Edmburgh), lib. XXVIII., c. 1 Copenhagen in 1817 in 1 vol.
p. 306, et seq. 4to.
^Montesqu. Spirit of L. (10th Edin- ■■ 1 Cruise on Real Prop. (4th ed.)
burgh ed.) 206, et seq. 2, §§ 6 and 7.
The codes referred to tiy Montesqu.
Chap. II. § 158.] THE NOEMAN LAWS. I55
only on the monarchy, not a political one. By reason of
this it became impossible that they should all be regulated
by the same laws. The codes of the Grermans and the
Capitularii of the Salines were both superseded by the
local customs, and each seigniory and province had its
own rules and regulations ; and there were scarce two
seigniories in the whole kingdom whose customs agreed
in every particular. 1 Several of these customs were col-
lected and published in the course of the fifteenth century
under the direction of the king of France, and authen-
ticated by the most eminent lawyers and magistrates of
the different provinces, but they had in general been put
in writing by private individuals long before that period.^
Sec. 158. Same— Laws of ITormandy.— Normandy, like
other provinces of France, was governed by its own pecu-
liar customs. When it was ceded to Eollo, the Norse
leader, in the year 912, he caused an inquiry to be made
into its ancient usages and added his sanction to their
former authority. Normandy did not experience those
troubles and revolutions which disturbed the other parts
of France during the tenth and eleventh centuries, and
as a consequence the original laws and customs of the
Franks were preserved there with more purity, and suf-
fered less from a mixture of the canon and civil law than
in any other province of France.^ Upon the establishment
of the Normans in England the customary law of Nor-
mandy, which had been already reduced to writing, was
introduced and established there. The kings of England,
at the time having great possessions in France, frequently
visited that country for two centuries after the conquest,
and borrowed from the French many of the improve-
ments which were made in the French jurisprudence and
established them in England. From this it will be seen
that the primeval customs of the Grermans and the codes
of their different tribes,* together with the laws of the
> 3 Montesquieu's Spirit of L. (10th * In legibus Henrici I. Regis
Edinburgh ed.) 219. Anglias, multa reperio e Lege
* 1 Cruise on Real Prop. (4th ed.) 3, Salioa deprompta ; interdum
8 9. nominatim interdum verbatim.
" See : Howard's Lit. Pref. Spelman s Gloss, voc. Lex.
156
FEUDAL TENURES ESTABLISHED.
[Book IL
Germans during the middle ages, the Capitularii of the
French monarchs of the first two races, and the customs
of the different provinces of Normandy, are tlio real
sources from which the English ancient laws can with
certainty be deduced.^
Sec. 159. Establishment of feudal tenures.— In the ninth
and tenth centuries there were only two tenures, or
modes of holding land upon the continent of Europe, to
wit : the allodial and the feudal. Allodial lands were
those whereof the owner had the dominium directum et
verum, the complete and absolute property, free from
all service of any particular lord,^ so that the owner
could dispose of it at his pleasure or transmit it as an
inheritance to his children.^ A feud was a tract of
land acquired by the voluntary and gratuitous donation
of a superior, and held on the condition of fidelity and
certain services which were in general of a military
nature.* The tenure of the feudatory was of a preca-
rious kind, depending entirely upon the will and pleasure
of the person who granted it.^ With these ideas and
under this policy of government, the Germans made
conquests. When they acquired a province, the land
became the property of the victorious tribe, and each
individual laid claim to a certain share of it. A tract
of ground was accordingly marked out for the leader
' See : 1 Cruise, Eeal Prop. (4th ed.),
§§ 10-13.
» 2 Bl. Com. 105.
Quod est vere, simpUoissime, et
absolutissime Alaudium, nativa
sua naturalis juris libeitate,
originaliter et perpetuo gau-
dens ; nuUis unquam hominis,
servituti aut reoognitioni sub-
ditum. Dumoulin (give Moli-
nEBUs), Consuet. Paris, tit. I.,
§1.1.
^ See : Dumoulin, In Consuet.
Parisien. tit. 1, § 67 ; Id. Opera,
torn. 1, p. 658.
* 2 BI. Com. 105.
See : Wallace v. Harmstead, 44
Pa. St. 499.
' No private property in land among
early Germans. — We learn from
C»sar and Tacitus that the
individual German had no
private property in land ; that
it was liis nation or tribe vrhich
allovsred liim annually a por-
tion of ground for his support ;
that the ultimate property, or
dominium verum of the lands,
was vested in the tribe ; and
that the portions dealt out to
individuals returned to the
public, after they had reaped
the fruits of them (Caesar de
Bello Gal., lib. 6, c. 21 ; Tacitus,
De Mor. Germ., c. 26). Thus
Tacitus says : Agri pro numero
cultorum ab universis per vices
occupantur, quos mox inter se
secundum dignationem par-
tiuntur. Facilitatem partiendi
.camporum spatia prsestant ;
arva per annos mutant, et su-
perest ager. Tacitus, De Mor.
Germ., o. 26.
Chap. II. § 160.] FEUDAL CUSTOMS— ORIGIN.
15(
of the expedition, and to his inferiors were given por-
tions corresponding to their respective merits and im-
portance. The lands thus given became the permanent
property of the occupiers. ^
Sec. 160. Same — Origin and growth of feudal customs. —
The situation of the German tribes in conquered prov-
inces being at first extremely precarious, the necessity
of defense induced the chiefs to annex to each grant or
allotment of land a condition of military service, for the
mutual protection of the tribe in the conquered province.^
This allotment of land was originally made to in-
dividuals of the German tribe on their first establishment
in a conquered country, as mere beneficia or feuds, and
many have thence derived the origin of the feudal
law. Whether this be correct or not we will not stop
to inquire, but may remark that it is universally ad-
mitted that feuds were originally voluntary and gratu-
itous donations to be held at the mere will of the giver,
who could resume them at pleasure.^ When the Ger-
mans first settled in the southern parts of Europe, they
enjoyed a very great degree of liberty ; and upon the
distribution of the lands in a conquered province, each
individual claimed that portion of them to which his
rank and services entitled him, not as a favor, but as a
right, being the just reward of his toils. Nor can it be
supposed that a people who did not conquer for their
' See : 1 Cruise on Real Prop. (4th
ed.) 4, §§ 16, 17.
' See : 1 Robertson's Hist. Scot.
(17th ed.) 215,254.
' Spence on benefices. — Although
this declaration is found in the
Book of Feuds, Mr. Spence, in
his "Equable Jurisdiction of
Courts of Chancery," vol. I.,
pp.44 to 46, maintains that it is
contradicted by Anglo-Saxon
history, as far as any authentic
records extend, and is not con-
firmed by the early documents
or history of any other nations.
He admits that the Anglo-
Saxon lords, like those on the
continent of Europe, did in
some cases grant benefices re-
vocable at pleasure, or for a
term short of the hfe of the
beneficiary, or only for his Ufe ;
but lie declares that nothing is
found in any early documents
to show that they did not, from
the very first, make grants of
transmissible or hereditary ben-
efices. He cites document-
ary instances of such grants,
in the times of the Saxon
princes, in England, Scotland,
and France, which he declares
did not countenance tlie opinion
of the Master of Rolls in Bur-
gess V. "Wheate, 1 Eden 193,
where it is said that the intro-
duction of the power of aliena-
tion was an era in the history
of benefices.
158
MILITARY SERVICES.
[Book II.
chiefs only, but also for themselves, should submit to
hold their acquisitions as the voluntary and gratuitous
donations of their leader, and on so precarious a tenure
as his will and pleasure.^
Sec. 161. Same— Military-services. — The feudal system
was not generally established till some centuries after
the settlement of the German tribes in Italy and France ;
nor did the circumstances of annexing a condition of
military service to a grant of lands imply that they
were held by a feudal tenure, for the possessors of
allodial property, who were in France called Libeii
Homines, were bound to the performance of military
service.^ The original idea of feuds appears to have
' See : 1 Robertson's Hist. Char. V.
(11th ed., 8vo) 254.
Conquests and booty of German tribes
common property. — Robertson
says that the German tribes
considered their conquests as a
common property, in which all
had a title to share, as all had
contributed to acquire them.
1 Hist. Char. V. (Uth ed.) 14.
He gives as an illustration a
remarkable instance in the
history of the Franks, which
shows that the king himself
had no part of the booty gained
by the army, except that which
he acquired by lot. The army
of Clovis, the founder of the
French monarchy, having
plundered a church, carried
off, among other sacred uten-
sUs, a vase of extraordinary
size and beauty. The bishop
sent deputies to Clovis, be-
seeching him to restore the
vase, that it might be again
employed in the sacred services
to whicli it had been conse-
crated. Clovis desired the dep-
uties to follow him to Sois-
sons, as the booty was to be
divided in that place, and prom-
ised, that if the lot should
give him the disposal of the
vase, he would grant what the
bishop desired. When he came
to Soissons, and all the booty
was placed in one great heap
in the middle of the army,
Clovis entreated, that before
making the division, they
would give him that vase over
and above his sliare. All ap-
peared willing to gratify the
king, and to comply with his
request, when a fierce and
haughty soldier lifted up his
battle-ax, and sti'iking the
vase with the utmost violence,
cried out with a loud voice,
" You shall receive nothing
here but that to which the lot
gives you aright."
See : Greg. Turon. Hist. Fran-
corum, Ub. 11, c. 37, p. 70, par.
IGIO.
^Deriving "allodium" from "los." —
Some of the French writers, and
among them M. Bouquet the
historian, derive the word allo-
dium from los, wliich signifies
lot, and from this etymology
conclude tliat allodial property
was that which was acquired
by lot upon the distribution of
lands among the Fi'anks.
See: Bouquet, Droit Pub. ;
Sismondi, Hist, des Francais,
torn 3, 319.
Division of conquested land. —
Robertson says in his History of
Charles V. (17th ed.), pp. 256-
258, that "upon settling in
the countries which they
had subdued, the victorious
troops divided the conquered
lands. Whatever portion of
them feU to a soldier, he
seized as the recompense due
to his valor, as a settlement
acquired by his own sword.
He took possession of it as a
Chap. II. § 161.]
THE COMITES.
159
grown up from the necessity of concerted action in
defending themselves and the allotment of lands in
conquered provinces,^ as heretofore set out.^
freeman in full propertj'. He
enjoyed it during his own life,
and could dispose of it at pleas-
ure, or transmit it as an inher-
itance to his children. Thus
property in land became fixed.
It was at the same time allo-
dial, i. e., the possessor had the
entire right of property and
dominion ; he held of no sov-
ereign or superior lord, to whom
he was bound to do homage
and perform service. But as
these new proprietors were in
some danger of being dis-
turbed by the remainder of the
ancient inhabitants, and in
still greater danger of being
attacked by successive colonies
of barbarians as fierce and ra-
pacious as themselves, they saw
the necessity of coming under
obligations to defend the com-
munity, more explicit than
those to whicli they had been
subject in their original habita-
tions. On this account, imme-
diately upon their fixing in
their new settlements, every
freeman became bound to take
arms in defense of the com-
munity, and, if he refused or
neglected to do so, he was
liable to a considerable penalty.
I do not mean that any con-
tract of this kind was formally
concluded, or mutually by any
legal solemnity. It was estab-
lished by tacit consent, like the
other compacts which hold
society together. Their mut-
ual security and preservation
made it the interest of all to
recognize its authority, and to
' Tacitns on the Comites. — Tacitus
tells us that the chief men
among the Germans endeavor-
ed to attach to their persons
and interests certain adherents
whom they called Comites,
Insignis nobilitas, aut magna
patrum merita, principis digna-
tionem etiam adolescentibus
adsignant. Caeteri robustiori-
bus ac jampridem probatis
aggregantur ; nee rubor inter
enforce the observation of it.
We can trace back this new
obligation on the proprietors of
land to a very early period in
the history of the Franks.
Chilperic, who began his reign
A. D. 562, exacted a fine ban-
nos jussit exigi, from certain
persons who had refused to
accompany him in an expedi-
tion. Greg. Turon., lib. V., c.
26, p. 211. Ghildebert, who
began his reign A. D. 576, pro-
ceeded in the same manner
against others who had been
guilty of a like crime. Id.,
lib. VII., c. 42, p. D43. Such a
fine could not have been exact-
ed while property continued
in its first state, and the mili-
tary service was entirely
voluntary. Charlemagne or-
dained, that every freeman
who possessed five mansi, i. e.,
acres of land, in property, sixty
should march in person against
the enemy. Capiful., A. D.
.807. Louis le Debonnaire, A.D.
815, granted lands to certain
Spaniards who fied from the
Saracens, and allowed them to
settle in his territories, on the
condition that they should
serve in the army like other
freemen. Capitul., vol. I., p.
500. By land possessed in prop-
erty, which is mentioned in the
law of Charlemagne, we are to
understand, according to the
style of that age, allodial land ;
alodes and proprietas, aloduin
and proprium, being words per-
fectly synonymous. DuCange
voce Alodis. The clearest
comites aspici. Gradus quin-
etiam et ipse comitus habet,
judicio ejus, quem sectantur ;
magnaque et comitum semula-
tio, quibus primus apud prinoi-
pem suum locus ; et principum
cui plurimi et acerrimi comites.
Hsec dignitas, haa vires, magno
semper electorum juvenum
globo circumdari ; in pace
decus, in bello presidium.
'See -.Ante, §153.
160
THE GERMAN COMITES.
[Book II.
Sec. 162. Same— The German Comites.— The custom
that grew up among the northern hordes of attaching
adherents to their persons and interests, was continued
by the German princes in their new settlements made in
France and elsewhere. These comites or attendants
were called Vassi, Antrustiones, Lendes, Homines in
truste regis. These persons were all of much more
exalted position than the ordinary freemen, so that we
find that the composition paid for the murder of a person
of this description was triple that paid for the murder
of a common freeman.^ While the German tribes re-
proof of the distinction between
allodial and benefioiarjr pos-
session is contained in two
charters published by Muratori,
by which it appears that a per-
son might possess one part of
his estate as aUodial, which he
could dispose of at pleasure,
the other as beneficium, of
which he had only the usufruct,
the property returning to the
superior lord on his demise.
Antiq. Ital. Medii ^vi, vol. I.,
pp. 559, 565. The same dis-
tinction is pointed out in a
Capitularia of Charlemagne,
A. D. 813, edit. Baluz. toI. I.,
p. 491. Count Everard, who
married a daughter of Louis le
Debonnaire, in the curious
testament by which he dis-
poses of his vast estate among
liis children, distinguishes be-
tween what he possessed pro-
prietate, and what he held
beneficio ; and it appears that
the greater part was allodial.
A. D. 837. Aub. Mir»ri Opera
Diplomatica, Lovan. 1733. Vol.
I., p. 19.
Liber homo and Vassus — Obliga-
tion to serve superior. — In the
same manner Liber homo is
commonly opposed to Vassus
or Vassalus ; the former denotes
an allodial proprietor, the lat-
ter one who held of a superior.
These freemen were under an
obligation to serve the state ;
and this duty was considered
as so sacred, that freemen were
prohibited from entering into
holy orders, unless they had
obtained the consent of the
sovereign. The reason gi^'en
for this in the statute is re-
markable, " For we are in-
formed that some do so not so
much out of devotion, as in
order to avoid that military
service which they are bound
to perform." Capitul. lib. I., §
114. If, upon being summoned
into the field, any man refused
to obey, a full herebannum,i.e.,
a fine of sixty crowns, was to
be exacted from him according
to the law of the Franks.
Capit. Car. Magn. ap. Leg.
Longob., lib. I., tit. 14, § 13, p.
639. This expression, accord-
ing to the law of the Franks,
seems to imply that both the
obligation to serve, and the
penalty on those who disre-
garded it, were coeval with the
laws made by the Franks at
their first settlement in Gaul.
This fine was levied with such
rigor, "that if any perecn
convicted of this crime was
insolvent, he was reduced to
servitude, and continued in
that state until such time as
his labor should amount to the
value of the herebannum." Ibid.
The Emperor Lotharius render-
ed the penalty still more severe ;
and if any person, possessing
such an extent of property as
made it incumbent on him to
take the field in person, refused
to obey the summons, all his
goods were declared to be for-
feited, and he himself might
be punished with banishment.
Murat. Script. Ital., vol. I., pars,
ii., p. 153.
3 Baluzius, capit. Reg. Francor.
898, 936, 938.
Chap. II. § 162.]
ORIGIN OF FEUDS.
IGl
mained in their northern home, the leaders or generals
courted and preserved the favor of their comites by
presents of arms and horses, and by hospitality.^ When
they settled in other countries which they had conquered,
portions of lands known by the name of Fiscus Regis,,
or Domanium Regis, were allotted to the comites as a
reward for their fidelity. These donations were origi-
nally called benejicia, because they were gratuitous. In
course of time they acquired the name of feud a. The
persons to whom this kind of property was given were
thereby subject to fidelity, and the performance of
miltary services, to those from whom they had received
the lands. ^
Montesquieu, Spirit L. (lOth ed.,
Edinburgh), lib. 30, c. 19, p.337.
'Tacitus says: "Exigunt (com-
ites) prinoipis sui liberalitate
ilium bellatorum equum, illam
cruentam victricemque Tra-
meam ; nam epulae, et quam-
quam incompti, largi tamen
apparatus pro stipendio ce-
dunt." Tacitus, DeMor. Germ.,
c. 14.
See : Du Cange, Gloss, voc.
Fisous ;
1 Baluz. Capit. Reg. Francor. 453 ;
2 Id. 875.
« See : 1 Cruise, Real Prop. 6, § 23.
M. Bignon says in his notes on
the "Formulae of Marcul-
phus," that the "Proprietate
et Fisco duae notanturbonorum
species et velut maxima rerum
divisio quae eo seculo recepta
erat, omnia namque prcedia aut
propria erant, aut fiscalia. Pro-
pria seu proprietates dicebantur
quae nullius juri obnoxia erant,
sed Optimo maximo jure pos-
sidebantur ; ideoque ad liKre-
des transibant. Fiscalia vero,
benetioia sive fisci vocabantur,
quae a rege ut plurimum, post-
caque ab .iliis, ita concede--
bantur, ut certis legibus ser-
vitiisque obnoxia, cum vita
accipientis finirentur."
See : 2 Baluz. Capit. Reg. Fran-
cor. 875.
Huratori, the learned author of
' • Antiquitates Italioa Medii
^vi," gives us a dissertation
on "Allodial and Feudal
Tenures." He says that feuds
11
derived their origin from the
Germans, and were oxiginally
called hcnej'icia ; that the an-
cient ras.si et Vunftali were
l^ersons who attached them-
selves to kings and princes in
order to acquire the privileges
which tliose who formed a part
of their families were entitled
tc, and also in the hope of ob-
taining, from the liberality of
their lords, heneficia ; tliat is,
the usufruct of a portion of
their royal demesnes, during
the lives of their lords. That
whenever a person of noble
birth attached himself in this
manner to a prince, ho then
took an oath of fidelity to him
and was afterwards called
Vassus or VassaJus, which
words occur in a Capitularium
of Louis the Pious, enacted in
the year 823 (See : Capit.
Regum. Francor., lib. II., cc.
IV., IX., XaIV., in Leges Bar-
baror. antiquae, vol. 8, pp. 174,
175, 178). Tliat to constitute a
vassus it was not necessary that
he should have a benejichan ;
that an allodium was an in-
heritance which might be
alienated at the pleasure of the
possessor, and thattlie words by
which it was granted usually
were, " ut proprietario jure
teneat atque possideat ; seu
faciat inde quicquid voluerit,
tam ipse quamque hasredes
ipsius. See : Muratori, Antiq.
Ital. Medii, lib. I., p. 345,
Dissert. XL
162 ALLODIAL TENURES. [Book II.
Sec. 163. Same— Allodial tenures.— Feuds were origin-
ally granted by kings and princes only, yet in a short
time the great lords to whom the kings had alloted ex-
tensive tracts of land, partly from a disposition to imitate
their superiors, and partly for the purpose of attaching
persons to their particular fortunes, bestowed a portion
of their demesnes as benefices or feuds. The greater part
of the lands in Italy and France were, however, held by
an allodial tenure, till the beginning of the tenth century,
when the feudal system appears to have been generally
adopted in those countries. Allodial property being
much more desirable than feudal, such a change appears
surprising ; especially when we know that allodial prop-
erty was frequently converted into feudal by the volun-
tary deed of the possessor.
The reason which induced the proprietors of allodial
lands to convert them into feuds has been thus explained:
Those who held feuds were entitled to great privileges.
The composition or fine for the commission of a crime
against a feudatory was much greater than where against
a person who held his lands by an allodial tenure. But
the chief motive for this alteration was, to acquire the
protection of some powerful lord, without which, in those
times of anarchy and confusion, it was scarce possible
for an individual to preserve either his liberty or his
property. These, and probably other reasons with which
we are unacquainted, produced an extension of the
feudal tenure over the whole western world. ^
Sec. 164. Same — Consuetudines feudorem.— These ten-
ures gave way to feuds, which, upon their first introduc-
tion were regulated by unwritten customs. About the
year llYO Emperor Frederick Barbarossa directed the
code of the feudal law to be compiled, which was accord-
ingly done and subsequently published at Milan. This
compilation was called ' ' Consuetudines Feudorem, " and
was divided into five books, of which the first two and
some fragments of the last two are still in existence, and
to be found at the end of the modern editions of the.
1 Herve, lib. I., p. 102. (10th ed., Edinburgh), lib.
See : 3 Montesqu. Spirit of L. XXXI., c. 8, p. 330, et seq.
Chap. II. §§ 165, 166.] DEFINITION OF FEUDS. 163
" Corpus Juris Civilis." This work is thought to be no
more than a collection of the customs which prevailed
most generally among the German tribes, and which
were generally adhered to in feudal matters, together
with the constitutions of the Emperors Lotharius, Conrad,
and Frederick, respecting feuds. ^
Sec. 165. Definition of feuds.— A feud has been defined
to be a tract of land held by a voluntary and gratuitous
donation, on condition of fidelity, and certain services
being rendered to a superior, from whom it was received.^
It was a benevolent or liberal concession or gift, supposed
to have been originally granted from motives of mere
benevolence, and not for any sum of money or other
valuable consideration.^
Sec. 166. Kinds of feuds — Proper and improper. — The
most general division of feuds is into proper and improper
ones. A proper feud was such an one as was purely
military, given militice gratia, without price, to persons
duly qualified for military service. An improper feud
was one which did not, in point of acquisition or service,
strictly conform to the nature of a mere military feud ;
such as those that were sold or bartered for any equiv-
alent, or granted free of all service, or any consideration
of any certain returns of service. A feud, was, however,
always considered as a proper one unless the contrary ap-
peared. That a feud was an improper one could only be
shown by a reference to the original investiture. From
this arose the maxim of the feudal law, tenor investitures
' See: Giannone, dell' Istor, part I., 3, who derives it from
Regn. Nap.,lib. XIII.,c. 3, §3. earlier feudists. See Zasii,
2 2 Bl. Com. 105. Opera, torn. IV., p. 77.
See : Wallace v. Harmstead, 44 ^ Feudum enim non sub prajtextu
Pa. St. 499. " pecuniae, sed amore et honore
Craig defines a feud as follows : Domini adquirendum est. Con-
'• Est feudum benefioium, seu suet. Feud. lib. I., tit. 27.
benevola et libera rei immo- Nothing but immovable prop-
bills, aut sequipollentis, con- erty could be granted as a
cessio, cum utUisdominii trans- feud. Sciendum est autem
latione ; retenta proprietate, Feudum, sive Beneficium,
seu dominio directo ; sub fide- nonnisi in rebus soli, aut solo
litate et exhibitione servi- oohserentibus. aut in iis qui
tiorum honestorum. See : Jus. inter immobilia connumeran-
Feudale, lib. I., Dieg. 9, 5. tur — posse consistere. Zasii,
This definition is copied by Opera, lib. II., tit. 1.
Zasius, in Usus Feud. Epit.,
164
KINDS OF FEUDS.
[Book II.
inspiciendus. Improper feuds were distinguished from
proper ones, however, by those qualities only in which
they varied ; in all other respects they were considered
proper feuds. ^
Sec. 167. Same — Ligium and non-ligium.— Feuds were
also divided iuto feudum ligium and feudum non-ligium.
A feudum ligium was one for which the vassal owed
fealty to his lord, against all persons whomsoever, with-
out any exception or distinction. A feudum non-ligium
was one for which the vassal owed fealty to his immediate
lord, but with an exception in favor of some superior
lord.2
Sec. 168. Same— Feudum. antiquum and feudum novum. —
The third division of feuds was into feudum antiquum
and feudum novum. A feudum antiquum was that
which had descended to the vassal from his father, or
some more remote ancestor. A feudum novum was one
wliich the vassal had originally acquired for himself.
The service in each was the same ; the distinction was
merely the method by which the vassal came into jdos-
session of the feud.^
Sec. 169. Same — Feudum nobile and feudum. dignitatis. —
The fourth division of feuds was into feudum nobile
and feudum dignitatis. The feud granted by a sovereign-
prince, to be holden immediately of himself, with a juris-
diction, was called feudum nobile, and conferred, nobility
on the grantee ; where a title of honor was annexed to
the lands so granted, it was called a feudum dic/nitatis.^
' 1 Cruise, Eeal Prop. (4tli ed.) 9, §§
32, 33.
« 1 Bl. Com. 367 ;
Spelman's Gloss.
2 3 Bl. Com. 212 ;
Spelman's Gloss.
■> Craig, lib. I., tit. 10, §§ 11, 13 ;
Spelman's Gloss.
In Bouvier's Law Diet. (15th ed.)
655, the following additional
feuds are mentioned :
Fendum apertum, or a fee which
the lord might enter upon and
resume either through failure
of issue of the tenant, or any
part. 2 Bl. Com. 245 ; Spel-
man, Gloss.
Feudum francum, or a free feud.
One which was noble and free
from talliage, and other sub-
sidies, to which the plebeia
feiida, or vulgar feuds, were
subject. See: Spelman , Gloss.
Feudum haulierticum, or a fee held
on the military service of ap-
pearing fully armed at the han
and arriere ban. Spelman,
Gloss.
Feudum improprium, or a derivative
fee.
crime or legal cause on his Feudum individuum, or a fee which
Chap. Ii. §§ 170, 171.] INVESTITURE OF FEUDS. igg
Sec. 170. investiture of feuds.— Feuds were originally
granted by a solemn and public delivery of the very land
itself by the lord to the vassal, in the presence of the
other vassals of the lord, which ceremony was called
investiture.^ This ceremony was so essentially necessary
to the creation of a feud, that one could not be constituted
without it.^ The only persons who could be witnesses to
the investiture were the other vassals of the lord, convas-
salli or pares, and their presence was required as much
for the advantage of the lord as of the tenant. Of the
lord, so that if the tenant was a secret enemy, or in any
other manner unqualified, the lord might be apprised of
it ; and that they might also bear testimony of the obliga-
tions which the tenant contracted. Of the tenant, that
they might testify the grant of the lord, and for what
services it was made. And lastly for their own advan-
tage, that they might know who was the tenant, and
what land he held.^
Sec. l7l. Same — Improper or symbolical vestiture. — It
was frequently inconvenient for the lord to go to the
lands which he intended to grant, and for his convenience,
what is known as improper vestiture was introduced,
which was a symbolical transfer of the lands, by the
delivery of a staff, a sword, or a robe ; the last being the
most common method among the immediate vassals of
kings and princes, gave rise to the designation inves-
could descend to the eldest son military person. 2 Bl. Com.
alone. 3 Bl. Com. 215. 57.
Feudum matemTim, or a fee de- Feudum talliatum, or a restricted
scending from the mother's fee ; that is, one limited to de-
side. 2 Bl. Com. 212. soend to certain classes of heirs.
Peudnm novum ut antiqnnm, or a 2 Bl. Com. 113, n. ; Spelman,
new fee held with the qualities Gloss. See : Le Grand Coutu-
and incidents of an ancient mier ; Dalrymple, Feuds ; Du
one. 2 Bl. Com. 213. Cange ; Calvinus, Lex. ; Mer-
Fendnm patemum, or a fee which lin, Repert. Feodalite ; Pothier,
the paternal ancestors had held des Fiefs ; Spelman, Feuds.
for four generations. Cal- ' This ceremony is thus described
vinus. Lex. ; Spelman, Gloss. by Corvinus : "Investitura ab
This was a fee which was de- investiendo dicta, quod per earn
Bcendable to heirs on the pater- vassahis possessione quasi veste
nal side only (2 Bl. Com. 223), induatur."
and which might be held by ° Sciendum est feudum sine Inves-
males only. See : Du Cange. titura nullo modo constitui
Fendnm propriiun, or a genuine posse. Consuet. Feud., lib. I.,
original feud or fee, of a mili- tit. 25.
tary nature, in the hands of a ' Consuet. Feud., hb. II., tit. 32.
166 BKEVE TESTATUM— FEALTY. [Book II.
titure.^ A proper investiture and possession were syn-
onymous terms. Whenever investiture was distinguished
from possession, it was an improper one.^
Sec. 1T2. Same— Breve testatum.— The services which
the vassal was bound to perform were declared by the
lord at the time of the investiture, in the presence of the
other vassals or convassalli. At first this declaration was
merely, made verbally, but as the terms on which the feud
was to be held might be forgotten or mistaken, it ulti-
mately became usual for the tenant to procure a writing
from the lord containing the terms upon which the dona-
tion was made, witnessed by the other vassals, which
writing was called a hreve testatum. In those cases
where the lord could not conveniently go to the land, he
delivered to the vassal a hreve testatum, as an improper
investiture, with a direction to some person to give him
actual possession of the land.^ A hreve testatum being a
much better security than a verbal declaration, those
who acquired feuds preferred the improper investiture,
with a subsequent delivery of the possession, to the proper
investiture.*
Sec. 1Y3. Fealty— Oath of.— Upon the creation of a feud,
a connection and union arose between the lord and his
vassal which has been declared by feudal writers to have
been stronger than any natural tie whatever, and which
the tenant was obliged to acknowledge by taking the
oath of fidelity to the lord.^ The idea of this oath
appears to have been taken from the obhgation which
existed, between the German princes and their com^Yes.®
1 Investitura quidem proprie dioi- * The feudal writers divide an
tur poBsessio ; abusivo autem improper investiture into three
modo dicitur investitura, parts, — a breve testatum, a proe-
quando hasta aut aliud corpo- ceptum seisimoe, and a posses-
reum quidlibet porrigitur a sionis tradition.
domino, se iuvestituram facere ' The oath was as follows : "Ego
dioente. Quae si quidem ab illo Titius (vassallus) juro super
fiat, qui alios habet vassallos, base sancta Dei Evangelia, quod
saltern coram duobus, ex illis ab hac hora in antea usque ad
solemniter fieri debet ; alioqui, ultimum diem vitas meae, ero
licet alii intersint testes, inves- fldelis tibi Caio Domino meo
titura minime valeat. contra omnem hominem, ex-
» Craig, lib. II., tit. 2, § 4; cepto Imperatore, vel Regs."
Consuet. Feud., lib. II., tit. 2. Consuet. Feud., lib. II., tit. 7.
2 Craig, lib. II., tit. 2, 17. « Tacitus says : "lUum defendere.
Chap. II. §§ 174, 175.] HOMAdJE-DUTlSS OF LORDS. 167
Fealty was so essentially requisite to the nature of a
feud, whether it was a proper or an improper one, that
such feud could not exist without fealty ; for if lands
were given without a reservation of fealty, the tenure
was considered as allodial. The oath of fealty, however,
was frequently dispensed with.^
Sec. 174. Homage— Ceremony of.— When feuds became
military, another ceremony was added called homagium
or Jiominium, which was performed by the vassal kneel-
ing before his lord, uncovered and ungirt, and putting his
hands in those of his lord, and saying : "I become your
man from this day forth for life, for member, and for
worldly honor, and will owe you faith for the lands
that I hold of you, saving the faith that I owe unto our
lord the king."^ The lord then embraced the tenant,
and this completed the ceremony of homage.^ Fealty
and homage are frequently confounded by the feudal
writers. A fealty was a solemn oath made by the vassal
of fidelity and attachment to his lord ; but homage was
merely an acknowledgment of tenure.*
Sec. 175. Duties of lord and vassal.— In consequence of
the feudal relation of lord and vassal several duties arose,
bpth on the part of the lord and on the part of the vassal.
The vassal took the oath of fealty and did, homage to his
lord, but the lord, on account of his dignity, did nothing ;
yet he was as firmly bound as though he had taken a
feudal oath to do and forbear everything with respect to
the vassal, which the vassal was bound to do and forbear
toward the lord. Their obligations and duties were in
most respects reciprocal.^ The duties which the vassal
owed to the lord ^ were to counsel and aid. Under counsel
tueri, sua quoque fortia glorise ' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 11,
ejus assignare, prsecipuum g 43.
sacramentum est." * Craig, lib. I., tit. 11, § 11; Id.
1 1 Cruise on Real Prop. (4th ed.) lib. II., tit. 13, 8 30.
11, 8 41. " Wright, Ten. 43, 44.
* 3 Reeves' Hist, Eng. L. (3d ed.) ' These duties are described in the
311. "Devenio homo vester, Consuetudines Feudorum as
de tenemento quod de vobii follows: "Qui domino suo
teneo, et tenere debeo, et fidem fidelitatem jurat, ista sex in
vobis portabo contra omnes memoria semper habere debet,
gentes." Incolume, tutum, honestum,
utile, facile, possibile."
1G8 AIDS— ESTATE OF VASSAL. [Book II.
was included not only giving faithful advice to the lord,
but also keeping his secrets, and attending his courts, to
enable him to distribute justice to the rest of his attend-
ants.^ To aid the lord might be either in supporting his
reputation and dignity, or in defending his person or
property. By aid to his person, the vassal was not orjly
obliged to defend his lord against his private enemies,
but also to assist him on his wars ; and feuds were in
general originally granted on condition of military
service, to be done in the vassal's proper person and at his
own expense.^
Sec. 176. Feudal aids.— Under the feudal law the vassal
was not originally required to contribute to the lord's
private necessities. The first feudal aids were purely
military. In course of tirae, however, the lords claimed
and estabhshed a right to several other aids, the principal
of which were : 1. To make the lord's eldest son a knight.
2. To marry the lord's eldest daughter. 3. To ransom
the lord's person when taken prisoner.^
Sec. 177. Estate of vassal.— The estate of the vassal was
originally a donation made by the king or lords to their
followers or fideles and feuds, and was of a temporary
nature, nothing more than the usufruct being given.
The proprietas remained in the lord, and the vassal had
only the us%fructus or domimumi utile ; that is, a right
to take and enjoy the profits of the land, as long as he
performed the services due to the lord. The duration of
feuds was originally precarious ; they might be resumed
at the lord's pleasure. They were afterward granted for
a year, then for years, and finally for life. In the course
of time it became usual to retain the heir of the last
tenant, if he was able to perform the services, and thus
feuds became hereditary, and descended to the posterity
of the vassal.*
' See : Craig, lib. II., tit. 6. This notion of the original char-
' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 13, aoter of feudal property and
§ 46. the gradual evolution of an
' See : Du Cange, Gloss, voc. hereditary estate by slow de-
Auxilium . grees, after a long lapse of time,
• * See : Consuet. Feud. I., tit. 1. is vigoriously combated by Mr.
Chap. II. §§ 178, 179, 180.] SUBINFEUDATION. 169
Sec. 178. Alienation of feuds.— In the first ages of the
feudal law the vassal could not alien the feud without
the consent of the lord ; neither could he subject it to the
payment of his debts. ^ The consent of the lord was
seldom given without receiving a present. From this
practice of giving a present on alienating arose the
custom of paying the lord a sum of money for permission
to alien the feud.^
Sec. 179. Same— Subinfeudation.— A practice arose, how-
ever, of disposing of a part of the feud by a grant from
the vassal to a stranger, to be held of himself by the
same services as those which he owed to his lord, which
was called subinfeudation.^ Subinfeudation became ex-
tremely common in France during the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, but was prevented by an ordinance of
Philip Augustus in 1210, which directed that where any
estate was dismembered from a feud, it should be held of
the chief lord.*
Sec. 180. Estate of the lord.— The estate or interest of
the lord in the lands granted as a feud consisted in the
proprietas together with a feudal dominium or seigniory,
and a right to fealty and homage, and all the other
services reserved upon the grant. In case of failure in
any of these the lord might enter upon and take posses-
sion of the feud. The feudatory was not able to alien
the feud without the consent of the lord, and neither
could the lord alien or transfer his seigniory to another
without the consent of his feudatory, because the obliga-
tions of the lord and vassal being mutual, the vassal was
Spence in his work orf the military services which were
Equitable Jurisdiction of the due from the vassals, the
Court of Chancery, vol. I., pp. tenants were absolutely pro-
44_4g. liibited from alienating their
' It appears, however, from the feuds without the consent of
Consuetudines Feudorum, to their lords; which was con-
which constant reference is firmed by a law of the Emperor
made in this chapter, that feuds Frederic II. See: Consuet.
were frequently aliened. By Feud. lib. II., tit. 55.
a constitution of the Emperor ' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.,) 13, §
Lotharius, reciting that the 51.
alienation of feuds had proved ' Consuet. Feud., lib. II., tit. 34, § 2.
extremely detrimental to the * Herve, lib. I., p. 101.
lYO DESCENT OF FEUDS. [Book 1L
as rauch interested in the personal qualities of his lord, as
the lord was in those of the vassal.-'
Sec. 181. The lord's obligation on vassal's eviction. — The
vassal was bound to give aid and counsel to his lord, and
defend his person and possessions ; and in return for this
duty and obligation on the part of the vassal the lord,
among other things, was under obligation to defend the
vassal in the possession of his feud. In case the vassal
was evicted out of the feud granted him by his lord, the
lord was obliged to give him another feud of equal
extent, or else to pay him the value of that which he
had lost.^ This doctrine of the feudal law is the foun-
dation of the wide diversity of opinion at the present day
in regard to the proper rule of damages in actions for
breach of covenant of warranty.^
Sec. 182. Descent of feuds.— According to the feudal
law, after feuds became inheritable, the descendants only
of the person to whom the feud was originally granted,
were entitled to inherit. The reason for this was because
the personal ability of the first acquirer to perform the
military duties and services reserved was the motive of
the donation, and for that reason it could only be
transmitted by him to his lineal descendants.* In con-
sequence of this rule the ascending line was in all cases
excluded.^ At first the sons all succeeded equally, even
respecting the succession to the crown ; but the frequent
wars occasioned by these partitions caused a regulation
that kingdoms should be considered as impartible inherit-
ances, and descend to the eldest son.^ The rule, that
1 Consuet. Feudonim, lib. II., tit. sucoedunt." And a modern
34, g 1 ; feudist has said : " Justamen
Wright, Ten. 30. feudale, ascendentium ordine
- Consuet. Feud. II., tit. 35 ; neglecto, solos descendentes et
Craig, lib. II., tit. 4, §§ 1 and 2. collaterales admittit. Quoniam
Compare : Wright, Ten. 38. qui feudum acoipit, sibi et
' See : Post (Damages on failure of liberis suis, non parentibus
warranty of title). prospicit." In allodial property
* Craig, lib. I., tit. 10, § 11 ; Id. lib. the ascending line was capable
II., tit. 18, g§ 46, 47 ; Id. tit. 15, of inheriting. Craig, lib. II.,
§ 10. tit. 13, 8§ 46, 47 ; Id. lib. II., tit.
' Hence it is laid down in the Con- 18 ; Id. lib. II., tit. 50.
suetudines Feudorum, that : « 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 14,
" Successionis feudi talis est §62.
natura, quod ascendentes non Honorary feud Indivisiljle. — By a
Chap. II. §§ 183, 184.] FEUDUM TALLIATXJM. I7l
none but the descendants of the first feudatory could
inherit, was so strictly adhered to, that in the case of a
feudum novum, the brother of the first acquirer could
not succeed to his brother because he was not descended
from the person who first acquired the feud. In the case
ot a feudum antiquum, however, a brother or other
collateral relation who was descended from the first
acquirer might inherit the estate. ^ Afterwards collateral
relations of the first acquirer of the feud were admitted
by granting a feudum novum to be held ut antiquum,
that is, with all the qualities of an ancient feud derived
from a remote ancestor, in which case the collateral
relations were admitted, however distinct from the
person who last possessed the feud.^
Sec. 1S3. Same — Feudum talliatum. — To restrain the
general right of inheritance in all the collateral relations
of the last possessor of the feud, a new kind of feud was
invented, called a feudum talliatum, or restricted feud,
which was limited to descend to certain classes of heirs.^
Sec. 184. Same — Distinguished from succession under
Roman law.— The descent of a feud under the feudal law
differed entirely from the succession established by the
constitution of the Emperor Du Cange ;
Frederic, honorary feuds Le Grand Coutumier ;
became indivisible, and they, Merlin, Repert. Poedalite ;
with the military feuds, began Pothier, des Fiefs ;
to descend to the eldest son, Spelman, Feuds,
because he was sooner capable Dn Cange's description. — This
of performing the military species of feud is thus described
service required of his ancestor. by Du Cange : — Feudum tallia-
Consuet. Feud., lib. I., tit. 55. turn dicitur, verbis forensibus.
Females were excluded from inher- haereditas in quamdam certitu-
iting feuds, originally, because dinem limitata ; seu feudum
of their inability to perform the certis conditionibus concessum,
military services required, and verbi gratia, alicui et liberis
also because of their liability to ex legitime matrimonio nasci-
carry the feud by marriage to turis. Unde si is cui feudum
strangers or enemies. Con- datum est moriatur absque
suet. Feud. , lib. I. , tit. 8 ; liberis, feudum ad donatorem
Struvius, Syntag. Jur. Feud., c. redit. Talliare enim est in
IV. , § 8. quamdam certitudinem ponere,
' Consiiet. Feud., lib. I., tit. 1,8 2. vel ad quoddam certum hsered-
' See • Craie lib. I., tit. 10, Ss 11, itamentum limitare. See:
13,14,15. Craig, lib. I., tit. 10, §§17, 35.
' 3 Bl,' Com. 113, note ; Spelman, Talliare, Dividere, Partiri, Dis-
Qloss. ponere. Vide Carpentier, Gloss.
See : Calvinus Lex. ; voc. Talliare, 3.
Dali-ymple, Feuds ;
172 INVESTITURE AND ESCHEAT. [Book H.
Eoman law. In the former, the heir was a person
instituted by the ancestor, or appointed by the law, to
represent the ancestor in all his civil rights and obliga-
tions ; but in the feudal law the heir succeeded not under
any supposed representation to the ancestor, but as
related to him in blood, and designated, in consequence
of that relation, by the terms of the investiture to suc-
ceed to the feud.^
Sec. 185. Investiture upon descent.— After feuds became
inheritable, the lord, upon the death of the tenant,
claimed the right of granting a new investiture to the
successor, without which he could not enter into legal
possession of the feud. This right on the part of the
lord showed that the right of inheriting was originally
derived from the bounty and acquiescence of the lord ;
and the investiture was evidence of the tenure, as well
as of the services that were to be rendered for the feud.^
Sec. 186. Same— Relevlum.— It was customary for the
lord on such occasion to demand some present from the
heir, upon granting him investiture ; and this custom of
receiving presents from the heir who succeeded to the
feud in time became a part of the profits of the feud, and
was technically known as a relevium.^
Sec. 187. Escheat of feuds. — Feuds being originally
granted on condition of military or other services, when
there was no person capable of performing such services,
it was deemed but just that the feud should return to
the lord ; consequently, where a vassal died without
heirs, the lord became entitled to the feud by escheat.*
Sec. 188. Forfeiture of feuds.— Feuds being originally
considered as voluntary donations, it soon became the
' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 17, ducam et incertam haeredita-
§ 68. tem relevabant ; solutS. summa
'1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 15, vel pecuniae, velaliarumrerum,
§69. pro diversitate feudorum.
° Eelevium est prsestatio hgeredum, Scliilt. Cod., § 52.
qui cum veteri jure feudalinon ■* 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 16,
poterantsucoederein feudis, ca- § 71.
Chap. U. §§.189, 190.] FOEFEITURE OF FEUDS. I73
established rule that every act of the vassal which was
contrary to the connection that subsisted between him
and his lord, and to the fidelity which the former owed
the latter, or by which the vassal disabled himself from
performing the services due to the lord, should operate
as a forfeiture of the feud.^ Should the vassal omit to
require an investiture from the heir of his lord, on the
latter's decease, for a year and a day, and to take the
oath of fealty to him, he thereby lost the feud ; and in
case of the vassal's death, if his heir neglected to require
investiture from the lord within a year and a day, he
forfeited his feud.^ If the vassal refused to perform the
services reserved upon such reinvestiture, he forfeited
the feud.^ And if the vassal aliened the feud, or by any
act of his considerably diminished the value thereof, he
forfeited it.* Where the vassal denied that he held his
feud of the lord, declaring that he held it of some other
person, or denied that the land was held by a feudal
tenure, he forfeited the feud.^ And every species of
felony operated as a forfeiture of the feud, being regarded
as the highest breach of the vassal's oath of fealty.^
Sec. 189. rorfeiture of seigniory.— The lord being equally
bound to observe the terms of relation on his part to the
vassal that the vassal was bound to observe to his feudal
lord, if he neglected to protect and defend his tenant, or
do anything that was prejudicial to him, or injurious to
the feudal connection, he forfeited his seigniory.''
Sec. 190. Feudal jurisdiction.— The feudal lord had a
right to the services of his vassals to defend his person
and his property in time of war ; and the privilege also
of adjusting their differences and determining their dis-
putes in time of peace.^ The origin of the feudal juris-
• 1 Cruise, Real. Prop. (4th ed.) 16, * Si vassallus feudum dissiparet,
^73 , aut insigni detrimento detejius
« Consuet. Feud., lib. II., tits. 23,24. faceret, privabitur. Consuet.
' Non est alia justior causa benefi- Feud., lib. I., tit. 2 ; Zasius, In
cii auferendi, quae si id, prop- Usus Feud., pars. 10, § 54.
ter quod benefioium datum ' Craig, lib. III., tit. 5, § 2.
fuerit, hoc servitium facere « 1 Cruise on Eeal Prop. (4th ed.) 17,
recusaverit; quia beneficium §''"''•„, ,., „ ^.^ „„ ,_
amittit. Consuet. Feud.- Ub. ' Consuet. Feud., lib. XL, tits. 26,47
II. tit. 24, § 2. * Si inter duos vassaUos de feudo
174; FEUDAL JURISDICTION. [BOOK II,
diction is accounted for thus : — By the laws of all
northern nations every crime, including murder, was
punished by a pecuniary fine, called fredum. ^ In the
infancy of the northern governments, the chief occupa-
tion of the judge consisted in ascertaining and levying
those fines which constituted a considerable part of the
public revenue. When extensive tracts of lands were
granted as feuds, the privilege of levying those fines was
always included in the reservation in the grant, with a
right to hold a court for the purpose of ascertaining
them ; and from this followed the jurisdiction over
vassals, both in civil and criminal matters.^ In all those
nations descended from the Germans, justice was origin-
ally administered in their general assemblies. The king
or chieftain did fiot pronounce sentence till he had con-
sulted those persons who were of the same rank with the
accused, and without their -consent no judgment could
be given. Out of this custom grew the feudal jurisdic-
tion by which each lord held a court in which he dis-
tributed justice to his vassals ; every freeman who held
lands from the lord was bound, under pain of forfeiting
his feud, to attend his court, there to assist his lord in
determining all disputes arising between his vassals.
These tenants, being all of the same rank and holding of
the same lord, were called pares curice.^
sit controversia, domini sit ^ 2 Bl. Com. 54 ;
cognito, et per eum contro- Craig, lib. II. , tit. 2, § 4; Id. lib.
versia terminetur. Si vero II., tit. 11, §18;
inter dominum et vassallum lis Herve, vol. I. , § 263.
oriatur, per pares curi», a This practice is said to have been
domino sub fldelitatia debito established as early as the reign
conjuratos terminetur. Con- of Emperor Conrad, 920, who
suet. Feud., Ub. I., tit. 18; Id., left the following law:
lib. II., tit. 55. Statuimus, ut nullus miles
'When it was not determined by episooporum, abbatum, etc.)
law, it was generally the third vel hominum, qui beneficium
of what was given for the com- de nostris publicis bonis, aut
position, as appears in the law de ecclesiarum prsediis, etc.,
of the Riparians, c. 89, which tenent, etc., sine certa et con-
is explained by the third capit- victa culpa, suum beneficium
ulary of the year 813, edition perdat, nisi secundum con-
of Balufius, torn. I., p. 512. suetudiuera antecessorum nos-
' See : 2 Monte-sque, Spirit L. (10th trorum, et judicium parium
ed., Edinburgh), bk. 80, c. 20,. suorum. Consuet. Feud., lib,
p. 343. v., tit. 1.
«2 Montesque, Spirit L. (10th ed.,
Edinburgh), p. 342.
CHAPTEE III.
ANCIENT ENGLISH TENURES.
Sec. 191. Introduction of feuds.
Sec. 192. Doctrine that lands held of king.
Sec. 193. Consequences of establishment of feudal tenures.
Sec. 194. Same — Effect on Booland and Folcland.
Sec. 195. Nature of the tenures.
Sec. 196. Same — Escheat and forfeiture.
Sec. 197. Kinds of tenures.
Sec. 198. Same — Regarding free tenures.
Sec. 199. Villeinage and copyholds.
Sec. 200. Tenure in capite.
Sec. 201. Tenure de honore.
Sec. 202. Tenure by knight-service.
Sec. 203. Same — Duties imposed.
Sec. 204. Same — Scutagium.
Sec. 205. Same — Fruits of tenure by knight-service.
Sec. 206. Tenure by escuage.
Sec. 207. Tenures by grand serjeanty.
Sec. 208. Consequences of tenure.
Sec. 209. Statute Quia Emptores.
Sec. 210. Homage — Ceremony and importance of.
Sec. 211. Fealty — An incident of feudal tenure.
Sec. 212. Aids of the ancient English tenures.
Sec. 213. Reliefs — Sums paid on investiture.
Sec. 214. Primer seisin — Definition.
Sec. 215. Wardship— Distinction between male and female wards.
Sec. 216. Marriage— Male and female wards.
Sec. 317. Abolition of military tenures.
Section 191. introduction of feuds.— Our institutions
being derived from the English, and the English finding
their root and foundation in the old feudal institutions, in
the study of our institutions, and particularly our laws
relating to and regulating real property, it becomes im-
portant to know something regarding the ancient Eng-
lish tenures. It is now universally admitted that the
feudal system, as established in Normandy, with all its
■' 175
176
INTEODUCTION OF FEUDS.
[Book II.
fruits and services, was first introduced into England by
William the Conqueror, and established in those posses-
sions of the Saxon Thanes which were granted by him to
his followers. About the twentieth year of his reign
the feudal system was formally and generally adopted
tliroughout the entire kingdom.^ All owners of land
were required to engage and swear, that they became
vassals or tenants, and as such would be faithful to Wil-
liam, as lord, in respect to the dominium residing in a
feudal lord ; ^ that they would swear, everywhere faith-
fully to maintain and defend their lord's territories and
titles as well as his person ; and give him all possible
1 See : Spelman, Feuds, per tot ;
Wright Ten. 63.
The most remarkable of the laws
of William the Conqueror estab-
lishing the feudal . system
in England were chapters 53
and 58. The tenor of the 53d
was Eis follows: " Statuimus,
ut omnes liberi hominies fsedere
et Sacramento aifirment, quod
intra et extra universum reg-
num Angliee (quod olim voca-
batur regnum Britlaniae), Wil-
helmo fuo domino fideles esse
velint ; terras et honores iUius
fideUtate ubique fervare cum
eo, et contra inimicos et alien-
igenas defendere."
Same — The terms of this law are
very general ; and probably it
was purposely so conceived, in
order to conceal the conse-
quences that were intended to
be founded thereon. The people
of the country received with
content a law which they
looked upon in no other hght
than as compelling them to
swear allegiance to William.
The nation in general, by
complying with it, probably
meant no more than the terms
apparently imported; namely,
that they obliged themselves to
submit, and be faithful to Wil-
liam, as their lord, or king ; to
maintain his title and defend
his territory (Wright, Ten. 79).
But the persons who penned .
that law, and William who
promoted it, had deeper views,
which were a little more ex-
plained in his 58th law. This
enactment was in these words :
Same — 58th Law. — " Statuimus
etiam, et firmiter prsecipimus,
ut omnes comites et barones, et
milites, et servientes, et uni-
versi liberi homines totius regni
nostri predicti habeant et tene-
ant fe semper bene in armis et
in equis, ut decet, et oportet;
et quod fint semper prompti, et
bene parati ad servitiumi fuum
integrum nobis explendum, et
peragendum, cum semper opus
fuerit, secundum quod nobis
de feodis debent et tenementis
fuis de jure facere, et ficut illis
statuimus per commune con-
cilium totius regni nostri prae-
dicti, et illis dedimus et con-
cessimus in fsedo, jure hseredi-
tario. "
Kind of service required. — By
this law the nature of the
service to be performed is ex-
pressly mentioned, namely,
knight-service on horseback ;
and the term of each feudal
grant was declared to be jure
hsereditario. This latter cir-
cumstance must have had a
very considerable effect in
quieting the minds of men, re-
specting the nature of this new
establishment. The Saxon
feuds, being perhaps benefici-
ary, and only for life, were at
once converted into inherit-
ances ; and the Normans ob-
tained a more permanent in-
terest in their new property,
than probably they had before
enjoyed in their ancieiit feuds.
1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d
ed.) 35, 36.
2 Wright, Ten. 68.
Chap. III. §§ 192, 193.] LANDS HELD^OF KING. 177
assistance against his enemies, whether foreign or
domestic.^ These engagements and obhgations being the
fundamental principles of the feudal state, when such
were required from every freeman to the king, that
policy was in effect established.^
Sec. 192. Doctrine that lands held of king.— As a con-
sequence of this establishment of the feudal system it
became a fiction of the English law, which finally ripened
into a maxim, that all the lands in the kingdom were
originally granted and held of the king, either mediately
or immediatel}^, in consideration of certain services ren-
dered or to be rendered by the tenant. The thing held
was called a tenement, the possessor thereof was called
a tenant, and the manner of his possession a tenure.
Whether the feuds thus held by the tenants were origin-
ally hereditary or not, in those countries where the feudal
law was first established, it is not of importance here to
discuss ; but we find that feuds were from the beginning
hereditary where lands were held by an allodial tenure,
and voluntarily converted into feuds. ^ And when
"William the Conqueror established himself in England,
he granted to his followers an inheritance of all the
estates which he distributed among them ; and when he
persuaded the Anglo-Saxon proprietors to hold their
lands by a feudal teniire, he allowed them to retain the
inheritance.*
Sec. 193. Consequences of establishment of feudal tenures.
— From the statutes of William the Conqueror, referred to
above, are to be derived the consequences of the ancient
English tenure. From them a new system of law sprung
up, by which the landed property of England was entirely
' Wright, Ten. 68. feuds. That he also recalled a
^ 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) number of the ancient inhahit-
35^ 36. ants who had held their estates
' Basnagei in his commentary on by hereditary right, and ro-
the customs of Normandy, torn. stored them to their p( )ssei: sions
l(ed. 1778),p.l53,savsthatwlien in as full and ample a manner
KoUo became master of that as they Imd held them under
province, he granted a consid- the kings of France,
erable portion of it to his com- ■• 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 20,
panions, and to the gentlemen g 4.
of Brittany, as .hereditary
12
178 NATUEE OF TENURES: [Bock II.
governed to the middle of the last century, and is, in a
greater or less degree, influenced even at this day. The
i^ormandy lawyers, who were versed in this kind of learn-
ing, exercised their talents in explaining its doctrines,
its rules, and its maxims ; and at length established,
upon artificial reasoning, most of the refinements of
feudal jurisprudence.^
Sec. 194. Same— Effect on Boeland and Folcland.— By the
operation of the statutes above referred to, the Saxon
distinction between Boeland and Folcland, charter-land
and allodial, with the trinoda necessitas, and other inci-
dents, was abolished ; and all the liheri homines of the
kingdom, on a sudden, became possessed of their lands
under a tenure which bound them, in a feudal light,
mediately or immediately to the king. Thus, if A had
received his land of the king, and B had received his of
A ; B now held his land of A on the same terms, and
under the same obligations, that A held his of the king ;
each considering himself under the reciprocal obligations
of lord and tenant. In this manner it became a maxim
of our law, that all land was held mediately or immedi-
ately of the king, in whom resided dominium directum ;
while the subject enjoyed only the dominium utile, or
the present cultivation and fruits of it.^
Sec. 195. Nature of the tenures.— The position of affairs
above described led to consequences of the greatest impor-
tance. Military service being required by an express
statute, the other effects of tenure were deductions from
the effect of that establishment. The king's tenants
being supposed to have received their lands by the gift
of the king, it seemed not unreasonable, that upon the
death of the ancestor, the heir should purchase a con-
tinuance of the king's favor by the payment of a sum of
money called a relief,^ for entering into the estate.
Such heir being bound to the same service for which his
ancestor was liable, which was the only return that
>1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) » 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.l
36. 36,37.
^ See : Ante, § 186.
Chap. III. §§ 196, 197.] ESCHEAT AND FORFEITURE. I79
could be made in consideration of his enjoying the prop-
erty, it was thought reasonable that the king should
judge, whether the heir was capable, by his years, of
performing the services required ; if not, that he, as
lord, should have the custody of the land during the
infancy of the heir ; that by the produce of it he might
provide himself with a sufficient substitute, and in the
mean time have the care or wardship of the infant's per-
son, in order that he might educate him in a manner
becoming the character he was to support as his tenant.
If the heir was a female, it was equally material to the
lord that she should connect herself in marriage with a
proper person, and hence the disposal of her in marriage
was thought naturally to belong to the lord.^
Sec. 196. Same— Escheat and forfeiture.— On the first in-
troduction of feuds into England, the obligations sub-
sisting between lord and tenant were similar to the
feudal ties that bound lord and vassal in Normandy, and
their mutual duties and obligations were the same.^
The obligations between the lord and his tenant so
united their interests that the tenant was bound to
afford aid and counsel to his lord, by payment of money
on certain emergent calls respecting himself or his
family ; such as when he married his daughter, or when
he made his son a knight, or when he was taken pris-
oner.^ Besides these incidents, it was held the land fell
back into the hands of the lord for want of heirs of the
tenant, or for commission of certain crimes ; and in case
of treason or felony it came into the hands of the king
by the way of forfeiture. *
Sec. 197. Kinds of tenures.— Ancient English tenures
were, according to the nature of the services, either free
or base ; and, in respect to their quantity and time of
execution, were either certain or uncertain. Free serv-
ices were such as were not unbecoming the character of
a soldier or a freeman to perform ; such as to serve under
> See : 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. » See : Ante, §§ 148, 149.
(3d ed.) 37 ; 3 Id. 297. * See : Ante, S 161 ;
« See : Ante, §§ 148, 150-154. 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 38.
180 KINDS OF TENUEES. [BOOK H.
the lord in wars, to pay a sum of money, and the Kke.
Base services were such as were fit only for peasants and
persons of servile rank ; such as to plow the lord's land,
to make his hedges, to carry out his dung, or other
mean employments. The certain services, either free or
base, were such as were stinted in quantity and could
not be exceeded on any pretense ; such as to pay a stated
annual rent or to plow such a field for three days. The
uncertain services depended on unknown contingencies,
such as to do military service in person, or pay an as-
sessment in lieu of it, when called upon, which were free
services ; or to do whatever the lord should command,
which was a base or villein service.^ From the vairious
combinations of these services arose the four kinds of lay
tenures which subsisted in England up to the middle of
the sixteenth century, and three of which have been con-
tinued to the present day. First, where the services
were free, but uncertain, as military services ; which
tenure was called chivalry, servitium militare, or
knight-service. Secondly, where the service was not
only free but also certain, as by "fealty only, by rent and
fealty and the like ; which tenure was called liherum
socagium, or free socage. These were the only free
holdings or tenements ; the others were villeinous, or
servile. The third was where the services were base in
their nature, and uncertain as to both time and quantity,
and the tenure being purum villenagium, absolute or
pure villeinage. And lastly, where the service was base
in its nature, but reduced to a certainty, which, though
still villeinage, was distinguished from the other by the
name of privileged villeinage ; ^ or it might be still called
socage, from the certainty of its service, but degraded
by the baseness of such services into the inferior title of
villein socage.^
Sec. 198. Same— Regarding free tenures.— Free tenures
were of two kinds : tenure by the knight-service,* and
1 See : 2 Bl. Com. 60 ; » 2 Bl. Com. 60.
1 Cruise on Real Prop. (4th ed.) * In knight-serviee, where the tenant
20, § 5. died leaving a male heir under
' Villenaqium privilegiatum. 1 twenty-one years, the lord held
Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 30, the land until the heir arrived
§ 6. at full age ; and if he was not
Chap. III. § 198.]
FEEE TENURES.
181
tenure in socage.^ The tenure by a knight-service was
in its institution purely military, and the legitimate
outgrowth of the feudal establishment in England.^
The services of this tenure were occasional, though not
altogether uncertain, each service being confined to forty
days. This tenure was subject to relief, aid, escheat,
wardship, and marriage. Socage was a tenure by any
conventional service not military. Knight-service con-
tained two species of military tenure : grand ^ and
petit serjeanty.* Under a socage may be ranked two
married, the lord also had the
marriage. If it was an heir
female, and she was of the age
of fourteen or more, the lord
had neither the land nor body
in ward, because she. might
marry one who was sufficient
to do the service. If she waa
under fourteen years and un-
married, then he might have
the wardship of the land till
she was sixteen years old.
Concerning this, pi-ovisions
were made by the statute of
"Westminster I. and the statute
Merton.
See: 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d
ed.) 280 ; 2 Id. 103 ; 3 Id. 297.
> See : 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d
ed.) 296.
' Wright, Ten. 140.
3 See : Post, § 207.
Grand seijeanty w^as a holding of
the king, and of him only, by
such services as ought to be
done in proper person to the
king : as to carry the king's
banner or lance ; to lead his
army, to be his marshal, carry
his sword before him at the
coronation, to be his carver,
his butler, one of his chamber-
lains of the receipt of the ex-
chequer, or other service ; to
find a man for the war was also
a grand serjeanty. The same
service made the tenure differ-
ent, accordingly as the land was
held of a private person, or of
the king. Thus land held by
the service of comage, to wind
a horn when the Scots came
into the country, was grand
serjeanty, if held of the kmg ;
yet if held of a private person,
it was not grand serjeanty, but
knight-service, and drew to it
ward and marriage ; for none
could hold by grand serjeanty
but of the king. 3 Reeves'
Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 302.
Grand serjeanty again differed from
eacuage, inasmuch as those who
held by escuage ought to do
their service out of the realm ;
but those who held by grand
serjeanty were to perform their
service within the realm, as
appears by most of the above
instances. One who held by
grand ' serjeanty was consid-
ered as a tenant by knight-
service ; for he was liable to
ward, marriage, and relief;
but no escuage could be de-
manded of him, unless it was
also a tenure in escuage. 3
Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.)
302.
* Tenure ty petit serjeanty was now,
like grand serjeanty, always a
holding of the king, and him
only ; to yield to him a bow, a
sword, a dagger, knife, lance,
a pair of gloves, an arrow, or
other small things belonging to
the war. This service was con-
sidered in effect but as socage ;
for the tenant was not obliged
to go, or do anything in person
touching the war, but merely
to pay yearly certain things to
the king. Such were the nat-
ures of grand and petit ser-
jeanty at the period of which
we are now writing : there are
several marks of difference be-
tween this description and that
given by Bracton ; the princi-
pal of which is, that both were
now required to be held of the
king. 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L.
(2d ed.) 302, 303.
182
VILLEINAGE AND COPYHOLDS.
[Book II.
species of tenure : burgage and even gavelkind, though
the latter had many qualities different from common
socage. Besides these there was a tenure called frankal-
moigne. This was the tenure by which religious houses
and religious persons held their lands, and was so called
because lands became thereby exempt from all service
except that of prayer and religious duties. Persons
holding by this tenure were said to hold in libera elee-
mosyna, or in free alms.
Sec. 199. Villeinage and copyholds.— It was by th^se
tenures that the liberi homines of the kingdom became
either tenants by knight-service or in common socage.
It is thought that the condition of the lower order of
ceorls, who among the Saxons were in a state of bond-
age, received an improvement under this new polity, by
being enfranchised and permitted to do fealty for the
scanty subsidies which they were allowed to raise on
their precarious possessions.^ They were permitted to
retain their possessions on performing the ancient serv-
ices ; but, by doing fealty, the nature of their posses-
sion was, in construction of the feudal law, altered for
the better. They were by that advanced in the character
of tenants ; and the improved state in which they were
placed was called the tenure of villeinage.^ Elevated to.
' Wright, Ten. 216.
' From the time of Henry HI. little
was said of villeinage, consid-
ered either as a condition of
society or as a tenure. 1 Reeves'
Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 268, 269,
270 ; 3 Id. 308.
For an interesting account of the
character and history of " Vil-
lein Tenure, "see Annals Ameri-
can Academy of Political and
Social Science, vol. I. , pp. 412-
425.
The proper and primary notion of
Yilleinage was, when a person,
being villein to a lord, held
also of that lord certain lands
or tenements at the wiU of the
lord, to do viUein services ; as
to carry the lord's dung out of
the city, or off the manor, to
put it upon the land, and sim-
ilar predial labors. But such
have been the revolutions in so-
ciety, and the changes in prop-
erty, it now very commonly
happened that some persons
who were free had become
possessed of lands burdened
with such services ; and such
tenure was still called villein-
age, though the persons them-
selves were no villeins. Others,
on the contrary, who were vil-
leins, had yet no land at all to
hold in lieu of such services,
which they were, nevertheless,
still bound to perform. An-
other change that had taken
place was, that the vUlein-serv-
ices were no longer indeter-
minate, and wholly at the wiU
of the lord, as in the time of
Braoton, but were universally
limited (as even in his time they
were in the case of one sort of
villeins, called viUein-sockmen)
by the custom that had imme-
Chap. III. § 199.] ADVANCEMENT OF THE CEORLS.
183
this condition and consideration, they were treated with
less wantonness by their lords, who, after receiving their
fealty, could not in honor and conscience deprive them
of their possessions while they performed their services.
But the conscience and honor of their lord was their only
support. However, the acquiescence of the lord, in suf-
fering the descendants of such persons to possess the
land, in the course of years, advanced the pretensions of
the tenant in opposition to the absolute right of the lord ;
till at length this forbearance grew into a permanent
and legal interest, which in after-times was called copy-
hold tenure.^
moriaUy prevailed in the ma-
nor. Tlius the universal char-
acter of tenure in villeinage was
a holding according to the cus-
tom of a manor, or otherwise at
the will of the lord. With this
qualification, the law of villein-
age stood mostly on the footing
it was on in the age of Brao-
ton. 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L.
(2d ed.) 308, 309.
As to the persons of villeins, they
were either such by prescrip-
tion, so that a villein and his
ancestors had been villeins time
out of mind of man, or by ac-
knowledgment and confession
in a court of record. Again, vil-
leins were said to be regardant,
or in gross. The former were
in the nature of the original
and proper villeins, namely,
such as had belonged, they and
theu' ancestors, to a manor,
time out of the memory of man.
The latter were such as had
been granted by deed from one
to another, in consequence of
which they became villeins in
gross, and not regardant. A
man and his ancestors might
perhaps have been fiefed of a
villeia and his ancestors, who
were such in gross, beyond the
memory of man. A man who
confessed himself a villein in a
court of record was a villein in
gross. A female villein was
called a niece. 3 Reeves' Hist.
Eng. L. (3d ed.) 309.
Consequences of villeinage. — These
were the divisions and species
of villeins. Some points of
law, as now understood, con-
cerning this sort of persons,
were as follow. If a villein
took a free woman to wife, and
had issue, the children were
considered by the law as vil-
leins ; on the other hand, if a
niece married a freeman, the
issue were free. In this an
analogy seems to have been
preserved towards our law of
descents, which gave a prefer-
ence to the male line, in direct
contradiction to the civil law,
which in a similar case pro-
nounced, that partus sequitur
ventrem. 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng.
L. 308-310.
1 Wright, Ten. 220 ; 1 Reeves' Hist.
Eng. L. (2d ed.) 39.
Villeins could not hold property. —
According to the ancient law
of England, a villein being him-
self a subject of property, what-
ever property he himself ac-
quired might be taken and held'
by his owner as an incident or
perquisite of his right of prop-
erty in such villein. Conse-
quently, if an executor had a
villein for years, and the vil-
lein purchased lands in fee,
upon which the executor en-
tered, he should have the whole
fee-simple ; but because he bad
the villein in autre droit, that
is, an executor, it was regarded
as assets in his hands (1 Co. Litt.
117, 124). ChanceUor Bland
says in Coombs v. Jordan, 3.
Bland Ch. (Md.) 284; s.c. 32
Am. Dec. 236, 250, that '• this is
a singular instance in which
184 TENURE IN CAPITE. [Book II,
Sec. 200. Tenure in capita.— In the first instance all
lands in England are supposed to have been held imme-
diately of the king, but in consequence of the practice of
subinfeudation, which soon grew up and prevailed
throughout the kingdom, the king's chief tenants
granted out a considerable part of their estates to in-
ferior persons to hold of themselves, by which mesne or
middle tenures were created. From this source arose
several distinctions as to the manner in which lands
were held. Estates might be held of the king or of a
subject in two ways, either as of his person or as of the
honor or manor of which he was seized. Every hold-
ing of the person was, strictly speaking, a tenure in
capite. Still, that expression was always confined to a
holding of the king in right of his crown and dignity,
for where lands were held of the person of the subject
they were called tenure in gross. ^ This class of tenure
was in general so inseparable from a holding of the per-
son of the king, that if lands were granted by the king,
without reserving any tenure, the lands, by operation of
law, were held of the king in capite, because that tenure
was the most advantageous to the crowu.^
Sec. 201. Tenure de honore.—Where'an honor or barony,
originally created by the crown, returned to the king by
forfeiture or escheat, the persons who held their lands of
such honor or barony became tenants to the crown, and
were said to hold of the king ut de honore. This distinc-
tion of tenure was important to those who held of such
owners or baronies. By an article of the Magna Charta
lands held in fee-simple might master, who held him as an
become assets in the hands of executor or administrator."
an executor ; and as such lia- Citing : Hall v. Mullin, 5 Har. &
ble by the common law to be J. Md. 190 ;
taken and sold for the payment Cunningham v. Cunningham,
of the debts of the deceased to Cam. & N. (N. C.) 353 ;
whose estate the perquisite had Bynum v. Bostick, 4 Desau. 366.
accrued. But as the -v-illeinage ' 1 Co. Inst. lOfJa ;
has long since ceased in Eng- Estvick's Case, 13 Co. 135 ;
land, this law has certainly be- , Fitz. N. B. 5.
come obsolete there ; yet, I ^ Lowe's Case, 9 Co. , 133 ;
Can see no reason why the same 1 Co. Inst. 108a ;
law might not be applied in 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 21,
Maryland as to any real estate §§ 7-9 ;
which might be conveyed to a Statutes 1 Edw. VI., o. 4.
slave with the consent of his
Chap. III. § 204.] TENURE BY KNIGHT-SERVICE. 135
of King Henry III. it was declared that persons holding
of honors escheated, and in the king's hands, should pay-
no more relief nor perform any more services to the
king, than they should to the baron if it were in his
hands. ^ It follows that where lands which were held of
the king as of the honor or manor, and escheated to the
crown, the tenure was not in capite ; and where lands
were granted by the king to hold of him, as of his
manor, this was not a tenure in capite.^
Sec. 202. Temire by kniglit-service.— The first and most
honorable kind of tenure was by knight-service, or
servitium militare. To constitute this class of tenure, a
determined quantity of land was necessary, which was
called knight's fee, or feudum militare, the measure of
which has been estimated at eight hundred acres of land
by some, and by others at six hundred and eighty acres. ^
Sec. 203 Same— Duties imposed.— Every person holding
by knight-service was obliged to attend his lord to the
wars, if called upon, on horseback, armed as a knight,
for forty days in every year, at his own expense. This
attendance was his redditus, or return for the land he
held. If he had only half a knight's fee, he was only
bound to attend for twenty days, and so on, in propor-
tion.*
Sec. 204. Same— Scutagium.— The personal attendance
in knight's service growing troublesome and incon-
venient, the tenants found means of compounding for
it ; first by sending others in their stead, and afterwards
by making a pecuniary satisfaction to their lords in lieu
of it. At last this pecuniary satisfaction was levied by
assessments, at so much for every knight's fee ; from
whence it acquired the name of scutagium, or servitum
' See • 2 Co Inst. 64. not the quantity of the land ;
« 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 33, § that but twenty pounds a year
^^ was the qualification of a
« Lord'Coke was of the opinion that knight. 1 Co. Inst. 69a.
a knight's fee was estimated * 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 33, §
according to the quality and 14.
186 TENURE BY ESCUAGE AND SERJEANTY. [Book II.
scuti ; scutum being then a well-known name for money,
and in Norman French it was called escuage.^
Sec. 205. Same— Fruits of tenure by knight-service. —
The tenure by knight service, being the most honorable,
was also the most favorable to the lord, for it drew after
it these five fruits or consequences, as inseparably inci-
dent to it ; namely, aids, relief, primer seisin, wardship,
and marriage.^
Sec. 206. Tenure by eseuage.— Military service due from
tenants underwent an alteration in the reign of Henry II.
The attendance of the knight for only forty days was
inadequate to the purposes of war, and the short service
was highly inconvenient to the tenant, who perhaps
came from the northern parts of the kingdom to perform
his service in a province of France. Sensible of these
inconveniences, in the fourth year of his reign, Henry II.
devised a commutation for- these services, to which was
given the name of eseuage or scutage. He published an
order, that such of his tenants as would pay a certain
sum, should be exempted from service, either in person
or by deputy, in the expedition he then meditated against
Tholouse. This sort of compromise was afterwards con-
tinued ; and tenure by eseuage became a new species of
military tenure, springing from the advantage some
tenants by knight-service had taken of this proposition
made by the king.^
Sec. 20T. Tenures by grand seijeanty.— The species of
tenure called grand serjeanty, heretofore referred to,*
was considered superior to knight-service ; whereby the
tenant was bound, instead of , serving the king generally
in his wars, to do him some special honorary service in
person. Thus where the king gave lands to a man to
hold of him by the service of being marshal of his host,
or marshal of England, or high steward of England, or
' Mad. Exch. 653 ; » 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. r4th ed )
1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 23, 40 ; & v '
§15- Spelm. Cod. inWilk. Leg.,p. 331.
* 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 34, * See : Ante, 8 198.
§33.
Chap. III. §§ 208, 209.] STATUTE QUIA EMPTORES. 187
the like, these were grand serjeanties. So if the lands
■were given to a man to hold by the service of carrying
the king's sword at his coronation, or being his carver or
butler, these were called services of honor, held by grand
serjeanty.^
Sec. 208. Consequeneesoftenure.— The polity of tenures
tended to restrict men in the use of that which, to all
outward appearance, was their own. When the land of
the Saxons was conv^erted from allodial to feudal, as
above described, it could no longer be aliened without
the consent of the lord, nor could it be disposed of by will.
These, with other shackles, sat heavy upon the possessors
of land ; nor were at last removed, except by frequent
and gradual alterations, during a course of several cent-
uries. The history of these alterations in the descent,
alienation, and other properties of feuds, is wrapped in
obscurity during this early period.^
Sec. 209. statute Quia Emptores.— In the first years of
the feudal law a private individual might, by grant of
land, have created a tenure as of his person, or as of any
honor or manor whereof he was seized ; and if no tenure
was reserved, the feoffee would hold of the feoffor by the
same services by which the feoffor held over. From this
doctrine there sprang several attendant inconveniences,
to remedy which, in the reign of King Edward I., the
statute Quia Emptores terrarum was passed, which
directs that upon all sales or feoffments of lands, the
feoffee shall hold the same, not of his immediate feoffor,
but of the chief lord of the fee of whom such feoffor himself
held. These provisions did not extend to the king's tenants
in capite, and the law respecting them was regulated by
the statute of Prcerogativa Regis, ^ by which all sub-
infeudations previous to the reign of Edward I. were
confirmed, and all subsequent to that date left open to
the king's prerogative.*
' Fleta, lib. I., c. 10 ; » 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng.L.(2d ed.) 40.
1 Co. Inst. 106a, 107a ; » 17 Edw. II., c. 6, and 34 Edw. III.,
Dyer. 285b ; c. 13.
1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 37, * 1 Co. Inst. 98b; 2 Co. Inst. 501;
§ 34. 1 Cruise, Real. Prop. 23, § 13.
188 CEREMONY OF HOMAGE. [Book II.
Sec. 210. Homage— Ceremony and importance of. — Tenure
by knight-service had all the marks of a strict and
regular feud, as heretofore set out, including words of
pure donation,^ transfer by investiture,^ or delivering of
corporeal possession of the land, and was perfected by
homage ^ and fealty.* Secondly, every person holding a
feud by this tenure was bound to do homage to his lord,
which consisted in his kneeling before him and saying :
"I become your man from this day forward, of life and
limb, and of earthly worship ; and unto you shall be true
and faithful, and bear you faith for th'e tenements that I
claim to hold of you ; saving the faith that I owe unto
our sovereign lord the king. " And the lord being seated,
kissed him.^ Homage was incident to knight-service
because it concerned service in war. It had to be done
in person and not by proxy or substitute ; and the per-
formance of it, where it was due, materially concerned
the welfare both of the lord and the tenant. To the lord
it was of great consequence because until he had received
homage of the heir, he was not entitled to the wardship
of his person or estate. To the tenant homage was
equally important, because, when received, it bound the
lord to acquittal and warranty ; that is, to keep the
tenant free from distress, entry, or other molestation for
services due to the lord paramount, and to defend his
title to the land against all strangers.'^
Sec. 211. Pealty— An incident of feudal tenure.— Another
incident of feudal tenure was fealty, which has been
heretofore adverted to.' All tenants by knight service
1 See : Ante, 1 165. ive situations and duties of the
' See : Ante, § 185. lord and vassal; which, in con-
' See : Ante, 1 174. formity to the principle of the
* See : Ante. § 173. feudal law, were reciprocal.
' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 33, Thus Glanville says . Mutua
§ 1'''! quidem debet esse dominii et
Litt. § 85 ; homagii fidelitatls connexio, ita
1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) quod quantum homo debet do-
277; 8 Id. 306. mlno, ex homagio: tantum illi
See : Ante, ^ 174. debet dominus, prastar solam
« 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 24, reverentiam. Glanv., lib. IX.,
§18. c. 4.
The words homaginm and dominium ' See : Ante § 200.
are directly opposed to each 1 Reeves'' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.)
other, as expressing the respect- 277; 3 Id. 306.
Chap. III. §§ 212, 213.] FEALTY AND AIDS. 189
were subject to fealty, which is described by Littleton as
follows : ' ' When a freeholder doth fealty, he shall hold
his right hand upon a book and shall say thus : — Knew
you this, my lord, that I shall be faithful and true unto
you, and faith to you shall bear for the lands which I
claim to hold of you, and that I shall lawfully do to you
the customs and services which I ought to do at the
time assigned. So help me God and his saints." He
thereupon kissed the book.^ Fealty and homage were
perfectly distinct from each other. Although fealty was
an incident of homage, and usually accompanied it, yet
it might exist by itself, being something done when
homage would have been improper. Homage was in-
separable from fealty, but fealty was separable from
homage.^ Homage and fealty were the great bonds
between lord and tenant in feudal times, and when once
established, were too sacred to be altered in substance.^
Sec. 212. Aids of the ancient English tenure.— The aids
of the ancient English tenure were the same as those
established on the continent heretofore alluded to ; *
namely, to make the lord's eldest son a knight, to marry
the lord's eldest daughter, and to ransom the lord's per-
son when taken prisoner. Aids of this kind were origin-
ally uncertain ; but by the statute of Westminster I.
the aids of inferior lords were fixed at twenty shillings
for every knight's fee, for making the eldest son a
knight, or marrying his eldest daughter. The same
thing was done in regard to the king's tenants in capite
by a subsequent statute.^ The aid for the ransom of the
lord's person always remained uncertain from the very
nature of the ransom.^
Sec. 213. Beliefs— Sums paid on investiture.— The practice
of paying a sum of money by the heir of the deceased
tenant to the lord of his father on investiture upon
' Litt. S 91. " See : Aiite, § 176.
2 1 Co. Inst. 68a; ' Stat. 35 Edw. III., c. 11.
Wright, Ten. 55n. * 2 Inst. 231.
' 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) See : Aids to tlie King, 13 Co. 36;
306 1 Cruise, Real Prop. 24, §§ 23, 34.
190 PRIMER SEISIN— WARDSHIP. [Book II.
descent, heretofore alluded to,^ was adopted into the
early English tenures from the laws of Normandy,
where reliefs were reduced to a certainty at the time
when the customs of that province were collected, before
they were transplanted on to English soil by William
the Conqueror.^
Sec. 214. Primer seisin— Deflnition.— Under the ancient
English tenures, where the king's tenant died seized, the
crown was entitled to receive of the heir, if he were of
full age, an additional sum of money, called primer
seisin. When this right was first established is not
known ; but we find it mentioned in the statute of Marl-
bridge,^ and also in the statute De Prerogativa Begis,*
and it was finally settled that the king should receive on
this account one whole year's profit of the lands. ^ This
was incident only to the king's tenant in capite, and was
not levied against those who held of inferior or mesne
lords. Blackstone says that it seems to have been little
more than an additional relief, founded on the principle of
the ancient law of feuds, by which, immediately upon the
death of a vassal, the lord was 'entitled to enter, and
take seisin or possession of the land, by way of protec-
tion against intruders, till the heir appeared to claim
it, and receive investiture ; during which interval the
lord was entitled to the profits.®
Sec. 215. Wardship — Distinction between male and female
wards.— These payments were to be made only when the
heir of the tenant was of full age. Being male, if under
the age of twenty-one, or being a female under the age
of fourteen, the lord was entitled to have in custody the
body and lands of the heir, without being accountable
for the profits, till the male attained the age of twenty-
' See : Ante, §§ 158, 159. am, sicut prisus iade habere
^ 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 25, consuevit.
§ 25; ■• 17 Edw. II., c. 6, and34Edw. III.,
Grand Const., c. 24, fol. 56b. c. 13.
» 52 Hen. III., c. 16. A portion of ' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 25,
this statute reads as follows: 8 26;
De hseredibus autem qui de do- 2 Inst. 9, 134;
mino rege tenent in capite, sic Stat. 17 Edw. II., c. 3.
observandum est; quod domi- * 2 Bl. Com. 66.
nus primam hide habeat seisin-
Chap. III. § 215.] MALE AND FEMALE WARDS.
191
one and the female that of sixteen. This custody was
known as wardship.^ The doctrine of wardship was taken
' The writ of right of ward was
abolislieil by statutes 3 & 4
WiU. IV., 0.27, §36.
Heirs were considered in different
lights according as they were of
full age, or not. An heir of full
age might hold himself in pos-
ession of the inheritance imme-
diately upon the death of tlie
ancestor; and the lord, tliough
he might take the fee together
with the lieir into his hands,
was to do it with such modera-
tion as not to cause any dis-
seisin to the heir; for the heir
might resist any violence, pro-
vided he was ready to pay his
relief and do the otlier services.
Wliere the heir to a tenant hold-
ing by military service was
under age, he was to be in cus-
tody of liis lord till he attained
his full age, which, in such ten-
ure, was when he jiad complet-
ed the twenty-first year. The
son and heir of a sokeman was
considered as of age when he
had completed his fifteenth
year: the son of a burgess, or
one holding in burgage tenure,
was esteemed of age, says Glan-
ville, when he could count
money and measure cloth, and
do all his father's business with
skill and readiness. The lord,
when he had custody of the
son and his heir, and of his fee,
had thereby, to a certain degree,
the full disposal thereof; that
is, he might, during the cus-
tody, present to churches, have
the marriage of women, and
take all other profits and inci-
dents which belonged to the
minor and his estate, the same
as he might in his own; only
he could make no alienation
which would affect the inherit-
ance. The heir was, in the
mean time, to be maintained
witli a provision suitable to his
estate ; the debts of the de-
ceased were to be paid in pro-
portion to the estate and time it
was in custody of the lord, who
was not by sucli liens to be en-
tirely deprived of his benefit by
tlie custody: with that qualifi-
cation, however, lords were
bound de jure to answer for
debts of the ancestor. 1 Reeves'
Hist. Eng. L. (2ded.) 113, 114.
The age of female wards was con-
tended by some to be at fifteen
years complete, both in mili-
tary and socage tenure ; for, as
the former, they said, that she
might have a husband who was
equal to perform the military
service ; and therefore she
might, with propriety, be reck-
oned of age before she was
twenty-one years of age. But
this opinion is combated by
Bracton, who says that the
same principle might make her
of age at an earlier period ; and
he therefore lays it down, that
there is no distinction between
male and female wards, in the
respective tenures ; and that it
was only in the latter tliat
females (as we have before
seen of males) were to be con-
sidered as of age at fifteen years;
at which time, says Bracton, p.
86b, a woman is able to manage
her domestic concerns, whicli
is a similar description as that
given by Glanville, and adopted
by Bracton, of the qualifications
of an heir in burgage tenure;
and the latter author mentions
fifteen as the proper age for the
infancy of a tenant in socage to
cease, because he was then able
to attend to afl'airs of agricult-
ure. 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L.
(2d ed.) 284.
It is laid down positively by
Glanville. that if a person mar-
ried his daughter and heiress
without the assent of his lord,
he should forfeit his inherit-
ance; and that a widow who
married without her lord's as-
sent should in like manner for-
feit her dower. These two
points were recognized liy Brac-
ton as remnants of the old law,
which had gone out of use.
We have before seen what no-
tice was taken of this cruel piece
of law by Magna Charta ; and
it was now laid down by Brac-
ton, that in both cases the lord
was only entitled to a penalty;
the measure of which, however.
192
MAEEIAGE OF WARDS.
[Book II,
from the customs of Normandy, in which it was known
as garde noble.^ Among the hardships which arose
from the transplanting of the feudal law from Nor-
mandy into England, wardship was greatest. The first
chapters of Magna Charta regulated the conduct of the
lords in the exercise of their privilege of wardship, and
restrained them from wasting and destroying the estates
of their wards. ^
Sec. 216. Marriage— Male and female -wards.— Where the
heir of the deceased tenant was a female under the age
of fourteen, under the ancient English tenures such heir
was directed to be married with the advice and consent
of the lord and her relations, and to secure the consent of
the lord a sum of money was usually required.^ Soon
after the setting up of the feudal customs the king and
great lords established a right to consent to. the marriage
of their male wards as well as of the female ; and after-
wards the right of selling the ward in. marriage, or else
of receiving the price of such sale, was expressly declared
by the statute of Merton.*
he does not mention. Bract.
88; 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d
ed.) 284, 285.
' See : Basnage, vol. I., p. 326;
Grand Coust., c. 33, fol. 50.
' 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4tli ed.) 26,
i.^29 ;
1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.)
235; 2 Id. 110. .
' Magna, Charti on marriage. — In
the charter of King Henrv I.
that monarch engages to
waive that prerogative ; this
being disregarded, it was pro-
vided by the first draught of
tlie Magna Charta of King
Jolm, that lieirs should be
married without disparage-
ment, by the advice of their
relations. But in the Charter
of King Henry HI. the clause
is merely that heirs shall be
married without disparage-
ment. Grand Coust., c. 'S3, fol.
55,o.
*30Heu. m.,c. 6.
The statute of Merton contains
eleven chapters, which are ar-
ranged with as little order as
those of Magna Charta. To
secure lords in this valuable
casualty, it was now further
ordained, that when the heirs
were forcibly led away, or de-
tained by their parents or
others, in order to marry them,
every layman who should so
marry an heir should restore
to the lord who was a loser
thereby the value of the mar-
riage ; that his body should be
taken and imprisoned till he
had made such amends ; and
further, till he had satisfied tho
king for the trespass. This
provision related to heirs with-
in tJie age of fourteen : as to
those of fourteen, or above,
and under fuU age, if sucli an
heir married of his own accord
without his lord's license, to
defraud him of his marriage,
and his lord offered liim rea-
sonable and convenient mar-
riage without disparagement :
it was ordained that the lord
uhould hold the land beyond
the term of his age of twenty -
one years, till he had received
the double value of the
Chap. III. § 217.] MILITARY TENURES— ABOLITION.
193
Sec. 217. Abolition of miUtary tenures.— Military tenures,
and the consequences .dependent upon them, were discon-
tinued during the Civil Wars in the reign of King
Charles I., and during the time of the Commonwealth,
and were entirely removed at the Eestoration, but a
statute of Charles II., ^ which provided that the court of
wards and liveries, and all wardships, liveries, primer
seisins, and ousterlemains, values of forfeitures of
marriages, by reason of any tenure of the king, or
others, be totally taken away ; that all fines for alien
ations, tenures by homage, knight-service, and escuage,
and also aids for marrying the daughter, or knighting
the son, and all tenures of the king in capite, be
likewise taken away ; that all sorts of tenures held of
the king or others be turned into free and common
socage, save only tenures in frankalmoigne, copyholds,
and the honorary services of grand serjeanty ; and that
all tenures which should be created by the king, his heirs
or successors in future, should be in free and common
2
socage.
man-iage, according to the
estimation of lawful men, or
according to the value of any
marriage that might have been
hond fide offered, and proved
of a certain value in the king's
court. 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L.
(3d ed.) 260, 261.
Same — ^Protection of infants against
lords. — Thus far the interest
of lords was secured. The
following provision was to
protect infants against abuse of
this authority in their lords.
If any lord married his ward
to a villein or burgess where
she would be disparaged, the
ward being within the age of
fourteen, and so not able to
consent, then, upon the com-
plaint of friends, the lord was
to lose the wardship till the
heir came of age ; and the
profit thereof was to be con-
verted to the use of the heir,
under the direction of her
13
friends. But if the heir was
fourteen years old and above,
so as to be by law of capacity
to consent to the marriage,
then no penalty was to ensue.
Again, if an heir, of whatever
age, would not consent to
marry at the request of his
lord, he was not to be com-
pelled ; but when he came of
age, and before he received his
land, he was to pay his lord as
much as any would have given
for the marriage and that,
whether he would marry or
not ; for as the marriage of an
heir within age was a lawful
profit to the lord, he was not
to be wholly deprived of it,
but was to be recompensed in
one way or another. Magna
Charta, c. 6; 1 Beeves' Hist..
Eng. L. (2d ed.) 261.
' 12 Charles IL, c. 24.
2 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) p. 28,.
§35.
CHAPTEE IV.
TENURE IN THE UNITED STATES.
8ec. 218. Allodial tenures.
Sec. 319. Doctrine of tenure in the United States — Socage tenures.
Sec. 330. Same — Discovery foundation of title.
Sec. 331. Same — Indian titles.
Sec. 333. Eight of eminent domain.
Sec. 233. Restriction as to use.
Sec. 334. Same — Foundation of tlie doctrine.
Sec. 325. Same — Application of maxim.
Section 218. AUodial tenures. — Although lands in the
United States are held unencumbered by any feud.al
burden/ yet the idea of tenure pervades, to a consider-
able degree, the law of real property in this country.
Although land is essentially allodial, and every tenant in
fee-simple has an absolute and unqualified title and
dominion over it, yet in technical language his estate is
said to be in fee-simple, and the tenure free and common
socage, — words which imply a feudal relation, although
such a relation has ceased to exist in any form in this
country, and in several of the states the lands have been
See : Matthews v. Ward, 10 Gill.
& J. (Md.) 443 ;
Lorman v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18 ;
B.C. 77 Am. Dec. 435 ;
Van Rensselaer v. Hays, 10 N. Y,
68, 81 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 278 ;
Morgan v. King, 30 Barb. (N. Y.)
9, reversed on another point in
35 N. Y. 454 ;
CorneU v. Lamb, 2 Cow. (N. Y.)
652;
Bradley v. Dwight, 62 How. (N.
Y.) Pr. 300 ;
Cook V. Hammond, 4 Mas. C. C.
478;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 24 ;
1 Story, Const. (4th ed.) 160.
"Fealty is not, in fact, dne upon
194
any tenure in New York. It is
altogether fictitious. It is re-
tained by statute as to lands
holden in socage, and abolished
as to all grants made directly
from the state, but the right to
distrain is not impaired by the
statute. It remains as at com-
mon law, by which fealty was
incident to every tenure, and
the right of distress incident to
fealty ; and even if the latter
be taken away, yet, where it
would have existed at common
law, distress may be made."
Cornell v. Lamb. 2 Cow. (N. Y.)
652.
Chap. IV. § 219.] TENUEES IN THIS COUNTRY. 195
declared by statute to be allodial.^ In England there is
no allodial tenure, because all the land is held mediately
or immediately of the king. The words tenancy in fee-
simple are there very properly used to express the most
absolute dominion which a man can have over his real
property.^ In this country, in theory at least, all valid
individual title to land is to be traced to a grant from
the crown ; ^ because, prior to the Eevolution, every acre
of land in this country was held mediately or immediately
by the grants from the crown.* Since the Eevolution,
lands in this country are held either from a state govern-
ment or from the government of the United States.^
Sec. 219. Doctrine of tenure in the United States — Socage
tenures.— In the United States the tenure of lands has
always been free socage tenure, in which the lands were
held by a fixed and determined service, which was
neither military nor in the power of the lord to vary at
his pleasure. It was the certainty and pacific nature of
the service or Awij which made this species of tenure
such a safeguard against the wanton exactions of the
feudal lords, and rendered it of such inestimable value
to the ancient English. They regarded it as of the
utmost importance that their tenures be changed by a
knight-service into tenure by socage. Socage tenures
were, as we have heretofore seen," of feudal origin ; and
they retain some of the leading properties of feuds. But
most of the feudal incidents and consequences of socage
' Matthews v. Ward, 10 GUI. & J. Commonwealth v. Charleston, 18
(Md.) 443 ; Mass. (1 Pick.) 180 ; s.o. 11 Am.
Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Deo. 161.
Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 92 ; = De Armas v. Mayor of New
Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. St. Orleans, 5 La. 133 ;
493 ; Johnson v. Hart, 13 John. (N. Y.)
Arriso'n v. Harmstad, 2 Pa. St. 77 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 280;
191 • Jackson v. Ingraham, 4 John.
Barker v. Dayton, 28 Wis. 367. (N. Y.) 163 ;
' 2 Bl Com. 45 ; Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. (3
SKent Com. (13th ed.) 390. Dall.) 419, 470; bk. 1 L. ed.
3 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. (2 440, 462.
Dall.) 419, 470; bk. 1 L. ed. See: Barlow u. Lambert, 28 Ala.
440, 462. 704 ; s.c. 65 Am. Dec. 374 ;
* Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. (2 People v. Van Rensselaer, 8
DaU.) 419, 470 ; bk. 1 L. ed. Barb. (N. Y.) 180, 189 ; s.c. 9
440, 462. N. Y. 291
See : Commonwealth v. Alger, " See : Ante, § 301.
61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 58, 68 ;
196 FOUNDATION OF TITLE— INDIAN TITLES. [BOOK XL
tenure have been expressly abolished by statute in this
country.^ The only feudal fictions and services which
are retained in any part of the United States systern is
the feudal principle that the lands are held of some
superior or lord to whom the obligation of fealty and to
pay a determined rent are due. Where this doctrine
prevails, the lord paramount of all socage land is none
other than the people of the state, to whom, and them
only, the duty of fealty was or is to be rendered.^
Sec. 220. Same— Discovery foundation of title.— We have
already seen,^ that the title to all the lands in America
was originally held by England and the other nations of
Europe by what was denominated title by discovery.*
The European nations, making conquests on the Ameri-
can continent, asserted the exclusive right of granting
the soil to individuals, subject only to the Indian right
of occupancy ; ^ and this principle was adopted by the
people of the United States after attaining their sovereign
independence.®
Sec. 221. Same— Indian titles.— From this theory of the
foundation of the title to the lands in the United States,
it follows that the Indian title, being simply that of
occupation, is subordinate to the absolute ultimate title
of the government.^ The Indian inhabitants of this
' In Connecticut they were abol- Rogers v. Jones, 1 Wend. (N. Y.)
ished by statute in 1793, and 337 ; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 493 ;
the statutes as late as 1838, p. United States v. Cambuston, 61
389, declare that "Every pro- U. S. (30 How.) 59; bk. 15 L.
prietor in fee-simple of lands " ed. 838 ;
shall have an absolute and Martin v. Waddell's Lessee, 41
direct dominion and property U. S. (16 Pet.) 367 ; bk. 10 L.
in the same ; and they are de- ed. 997 ;
declared to be " vested with an Johnson v. Mcintosh, 31 U. S. (8
allodial title." Wheat.) 543 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 681.
In New York they were abolish- ^ 4 Johnson ■;;. Mcintosh, 31 U. S.
ed by the act of 1787, and were (8 Wheat.) 543 ; bk. 5 L. ed,
entirely annihilated by the New 681.
York Revised Statutes. 4 Johnson v. Mcintosh, 31 U. S.
See : 3 Kent Com. (14th ed.) (8 Wheat.) 543 ; bk. 5 L. ed.
378. 681.
* 3 Kent Com. (14th ed.) 510. « See : Brashear v. Williams, 10
» See : Ante, § 13. Ala. 630 ;
* See : People v. Folsom, 5 Cal. Brown v. Wenham, 51 Mass. (10
373: , Met.) 495.
Jackson r. Ingraham, 4 John. ' Strong v. Waterman, 11 Paige
(N. Y.) 163 ; Ch. (N. Y.) 607 ;
Chap. IV. § 222.] EMINENT DOMAIN. 197
country, not having an absolute title in their possessions,
are of course incapable of transferring a fee-simple title
in land to another.^
Sec. 222. RigM of eminent domain.— Although the title
to lands in this country is absolute, and the owners there-
of possess the whole title, yet every person who holds
land in this country holds it subject to the right and
power of the sovereign state in which it is located, or of
the federal government, to appropriate it to particular
uses, for the purpose of promoting the general welfare ; ^
that is, the land must be surrendered to the government,
either in whole or in part, when public necessities,
evinced according to the established forms of law, shall
demand such surrender.^ This right upon the part of the
government, to require a surrender of individual property
for the common welfare, is founded upon the principle
that individual interests must be subservient to those of the
public, and must yield when the public exigency requires ; *
and all grants of land made by a state or by an indi-
vidual are subject to the right of eminent domain, unless
that right is specially relinquished.^ The question of the
right of the state to the exercise of the power of eminent
domain will be hereafter fully discussed.
Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U. S. (1 Otto) 367; bk. 23 L. ed.
(8 Wheat.) 543 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 449.
681. » People ■;;. Mayor of New York, 33
See : Stephens v. Westwood, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 103.
Ala. 375 ; * See : Enfield Toll Bridge Co. v.
FeUows V. Lee, 5 Den. (N. Y.) Hartford R. Co., 17 Conn. 454;
638. s.c. 44 Am. Dec. 556 ;
• See : Clark v. WiUiams, 36 Mass. Walker v. Gatlin, 13 Fla. 15 ;
(19 Pick.) 500 ; Weir v. St. Paul, S. & T. F. R.
Goodell V. Jackson, 20 John. (N. Co., 18 Min. 155, 163 ;
Y.) 693 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. Ash v. Cummings, 50 N. H.
351 ; 591 ;
Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U. S. Heyward v. New York, 7 N. Y.
(8 Wheat.) 543 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 314, 335 ;
681. Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige Ch. (N.
« See : Gilmer v. Limepoint, 18 Cal. Y.) 137 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec.
239 ; 417 ;
Crosby v. Hanover, 36 N. H. Beekman w. Saratoga &S. R. Co.,
404 • 3 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 45 ; s.c. 33
People V. Smith, 21 N. Y. 595 ; Am. Dec. 679.
Taylor v. Porter, 4 HUl. (N. Y.) » See : Illinois & Mich. Canal Co. v.
140 ; s.c. 40 Am. Deo. 374 ; Chicago, 14 111. 314, 334 ;
Bailey v. Miltenberger, 31 Pa. St. California Tel. Co. v. Alta Tel.
ST- Co., 33 Cal. 398;
Kohl'u United States, 91 U. S. Matter of N. Y. & H. E. R. Co.,
77N. Y. 348.
198
USE OF PROPERTY— RESTRICTION ON. [Book H
Sec. 223. Restriction as to use.— Although the owner of
land is supposed to have the whole title, yet it is held
subject, not only to the power of eminent domain, but
also on the condition, and occupied with the tacit under-
standing, that the owner shall so deal with it as not to
cause injury to the person or property of another, or to
the rights or interests of the community. ^ This is on
the well-known maxim of the common law, sic utere tuo
ut alienum non Isedas, so use your own as not to injure
another's property.^
1 Commonwealth v. Tewksbury,
53 Mass. (11 Met.) 55 ;
Commonwealth v. Alger, 61
Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 86.
" Kerr's " Adjudicated Words,
Phrases, and AppUed Max-
ims."
See : Rouse ■;;. Martin, 75 Ala.
515 : s.c. 51 Am. Rep. 463 ;
Bannon v. State, 49 Ark. 167 ; s.c.
4 S. W. Rep. 655 ;
Martia v. Ogden, 41 Ark. 193 ;
St. Louis, I. M. & G. R. Co. •;;.
Hecht. 38 Ark. 367 ;
Ex parte Koser, 60 Cal. 214 ;
Union Pac. Co. v. De Bush, 12
Colo. 294 ; s.c. 20 Pac. Rep. 753;
3 L. R. A. 350 ;
Fallon V. SchUling, 29 Kan. 293,
395 ; s.c. 4 Am. Rep. 643 ;
Branson v. Labrot, 81 Ky. 641 ;
Mayor of Baltimore v. Warren
Mfg. Co., 59 Md. 106 ;
Boyd V. Conklin, 54 Mich. 583 ;
s.c. 53 Am. Rep. 831 ; 20 N. W.
Rep. 595 ;
Paterson v. Wabash, St. L. &
Pac. R. Co., 54 Mich. 91 ; s.c.
19 N. W. Rep. 761 ;
People's Ice Co. v. Steamer
Excelsior, 44 Mich. 239 ; s.c. 6
N. W. Rep. 636 ;
Kruegert). Farrant, 39 Minn. 385,
388 ; s.c. 43 Am. Rep. 223 ; 13
N. W. Rep. 158 ;
Keofe V. Milwaukee & St. P. R.
Co., 31 Minn. 307 ; s.c. 18 Am.
Rep. 393 ; 3 Cent L. J. 170 ;
Morgan v. Cox, 33 Mo. 373 ; s.c.
66 Am. Deo. 623 ; 1 Thomp. on
Neg. 238 ;
Boynton v. Longley, 19 Nev. 69 ;
s.c. 6 Pac. Rep. 437 ;
Garland v. Towne, 55 N. H. 55 ;
s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 164 ; 1 Thomp.
on Neg. 333, 336 ;
Lord V. Carbon Iron Co. , 38 N. J.
Eq. (11 Stew.) 453, 458 ;
Demarest v. Hardham, 34 N. J.
Eq. (7 Stew.) 469, 474 ;
Gawtry v. Leland, 81 N. J. Eq.
(4 Stew.) 385, 390 ;
Thomas Iron Co. v. AUenton
Mining Co., 38 N. J. Eq. (1
Stew.) 77, 85 ;
Ross V. Butler, 19 N. J. Eq. (4 C.
E. Gr.) 394, 398 ; s.c. 97 Am.
Dec. 654 ;
Davidson v. Isham, 9 N. J. Eq. (1
Stock.) 186, 189 ;
State V. Wheeler, 44 N. J. L. (15
Vr.) 88, 91 ;
Weller v. Snover, 43 N. J. L. (13
Vr.) 341, 344 ;
McGuire v. Grant, 35 N. J. L. (1
Dutch.) 356, 361 ; s.c. 62 Am.
Dec. 49 ;
Delaware & R. Canal Co. v. Lee,
33 N. J. L. (2 Zab.) 243, 347 ;
Sinnickson v. Johnson, 17 N. J.
L. (3 Harr.) 139, 144; s.c. 34
Am. Dec. 184 ;
Buffalo East Side R. Co. v. Bufifalo
St. R. Co., Ill N. Y. 133, 141 ;
s.c. 19 N. Y. S. R. 574 ;
Edwards v. N. Y. & H. R. Co.,
98 N.Y.345;s.c.50 Am.Rep.659;
Losee v. Buchanan, 51 N. Y.
476 ; s.c. 10 Am. Rep. 623 ; 1
Thomp. on Neg. 47, 51, aflf'g 43
How. Prao. (N. Y.) 385 ; rev'g
61 Barb. (N. Y.) 86 ;
Hay V. echoes Co., 3 N. Y, 159 ;
s.c. 51 Am. Dec. 279; 1 Thomp.
on Neg. 72 ;
Tillinghast v. Troy & Boston R.
Co., 48 Hun (N. Y.) 420, 425 ;
Panton v. Holland, 17 John. (N.
Y.) 92 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 869 ; 1
Thomp. on Neg. 249 ;
Worthington v. Parker, 11 Daly
(N. Y.) 545, 551 ;
Chap. IV. § 224.] FOUNDATION OF DOCTRINE.
199
Sec. 224. Same— Foundation of doctrine.— This condition
grows out of tlie nature of well-ordered civil society. All
property, no matter how absolute and unqualified may
be the title, is held under the implied condition that its
use is to be so regulated that it shall not be injurious to
an equal enjoyment of others, having an equal right to
the enjoyment of their property, nor injurious to the
rights of the community. Rights of property, like all
other social and conventional rights, are subject to such
reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as shall pre-
vent them from being injurious, and to such reasonable
restraints and regulations established by law as the Leg-
islature, under the governing and controlling power
vested in them by the constitution, may think necessary
and expedient.^ This is very different from the right
of eminent domain, — the right of a government to take
and appropriate private property to public use, whenever
BeU T. Norfolk S. R. Co., 101 N.
C. 31 ; s.o. 7 S. E. Rep. 467 ;
State I'. Yopp, 97 N. C. 477 ; s.c.
2 Am. St. Rep. 305 ; 3 S. E.
Rep. 458 ;
Lawton V. Giles, 90 N. C. 381 ;
Fulmer v. WiUiams, 123 Pa. St.
191 ; s.c. 15 Atl. Rep. 736 ; 1 L.
R. A. 603 ; 33 W. N. C. 369 ; 46
Leg. Int. 37 ;
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v.
Saunders, 113 Pa. St. 136 ; s.c.
57 Am. Rep. 445 ; 6 Atl. Rep.
453 ; 4 Cent. Rep. 481 ;
Pennsylvania Lead Co.'s Appeal,
96 Pa. St. 127 ; s.c. 43 Am. Rep.
534;
Hydraulic Works Co. v. Orr, 83
Pa. St. 333 ;
Stephens v. Martins (Pa.), 17 Atl.
Rep. 243 ; s.c. 23 W. N. C. 475 ;
46 Leg. Int 311 ;
Hudson V. DLsmukes, 77 Va. 243 ;
Davis V. Central Vt. R. Co., 55
Vt. 93 ; s.o. 45 Am. Rep. 590 ;
Brunswick-Balke CoUender Co. v.
Rees, 69 Wis. 443 ; s.c. 34N. W.
Rep. 733 ;
Donnelly v. Decker, 58 Wis. 461,
469 ; s.c. 46 Am. Rep. 637 ; 17
N. W. Rep. 389 ;
Woodruff V. North Bloomfield
Gravel Mining Co. , 18 Fed. Rep.
753, 809 :
Dean v. McCarthy, 3 Upp. Can.
Q. B. 448; s.c. 1 Thomp. on
. Neg. 116 ;
Grocers' Co. r. Donne, 3 Bing. N.
C. 34, 41 ; s.c. 33 Eng. C. L. 25,
29;
Humphries v. Brogden, 13 Q. B.
739: s.o. 64 Eng. C. L. 738; 1
Thomp. on Neg. 263, 266 ;
Nichols V. Marshland, L. R. 10
Exch. 3.W ; s.c. 44 L. J. (Exch.)
134 ; 23 W. R. 6D3 ; 33 L. T.
N. S. 265 ; 14 Moak's Eng.
Rep. 538 ; 3 Cent. L. J. 523 ; 1
Thomp. on Neg. 186, § 4 ; s.c.
on App. 2 Exch. Div. 1 ; 46 L.
J. 174; 19 Moak's Eng. Rep.
335 ; 4 Cent. L. J. 319 ;
Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial
Board, 4 Ex. D. 5 ; s.c. 48 L. J.
C. L. 109 ; 39 L. T. N. S. 355 ;
27 W. R. 95 ;
Fletcher v. Rylands, 3 Hurl. &
Colt. 774 ; s.c. L. R. 1 Exch.
265 ; 1 Thomp. on Neg. 2 ; sub
noni. Rylands v. Fletcher, L.
R. 3 H. L. 330 ;
Cooley, Const. Lim. (.jth ed.), §
708;
Pollock on Torts, 93, 109 ;
Pom. Mun. L. (3d ed.), § 915 ;
1 Smith's Lead. Cas. (9th Am. ed.,
499, n.
• Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass,
(7 Cush.) 53, 85.
200 APPLICATION OF MAXIM. [BOOK II.
the public exigency requires it ; which can be done only
on condition of providing a reasonable compensation
therefor. The power we allude to is rather the public
power, the power vested in the Legislature by the consti-
tution, to make, ordain, and establish all manner of
wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances,
either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the
constitution, as they shall judge to be good for the wel-
fare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the
Sec. 225. Same— Application of maxim.— This maxim
restrains a man from using his own property to the prej-
udice of his neighbor, and is not usually applicable to a
mere omission to act, but rather to some affirmative act
or course of conduct which amounts to, or results in, an
invasion of another's rights.^ Where this maxim is ap-
plied to landed property, it is subject to a certain modi-
fication, it being necessary for the plaintiff to show, not
only that he has sustained damage, but that the de-
fendant has caused it by going beyond what is neces-
sary in order to enable him to have the natural use of
his own land.^
' Commonwealth v. Alger ,61 Mass. This maxim was once unceremoni-
(7 Cush.) 53, 85. ously discarded by Justice Erle.
'Krueger v. Farrant, 39 Minn. 385; He said : "The maxim is mere
s.o. 13 N. W. Rep. 158. verbiage. A party may damage
' West Cumberland Iron Co. v. property where the law per-
Kenyon, 11 L. R. 6 Ch. Div. mits, and may not where the
773 ; s.c. 33 Moak's Eng. Rep. law prohibits, so that the
821. maxim can never be applied
Cited in Pennsylvania Coal Co. till the law is ascertained, and
V. Sanderson, 113 Pa. St. 136 ; when it has been, the maxim
s.c. 57 Am. Rep. 445 ; 6 Atl. is superfluous."
Rep. 453 ; 4 Cent. Rep. 481 ; 103 Bonomi v. Backhouse, 36 L. J.
Pa. St. 307 ; 94 Pa. St. 302 ; 86 Q. B. 388.
Pa. St. 401.
BOOK III.
CORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS.
CHAPTER I.
ESTATES IN GENERAL.
Sec. 326. Definition of estate.
Sec. 227. The origin of estates.
Sec. 238. Estate in land — Definition.
Sec. 229. Same— Division of.
Sec. 230. Freehold estates in land — Definition.
Sec. 231. Same — Qualities of freehold estate.
Sec. 233. Same— Seisin.
Sec. 333. Same— Entry.
Sec. 334. Same — Livery of seisin.
Sec. 335. Same — Disseisin.
Sec. 336. Same — Same — Kinds of disseisin.
Sec. 337. Same — Same — What constitutes disseisin.
Sec. 338. Abatement— Eflfect of.
Sec. 239. Abeyance of freehold.
Sec. 240. Who may be freeholders.
Sec. 341. Same — Aliens.
Sec. 242. Same — Same — Federal and state statutes.
Sec. 243. Same — Corporations.
Sec. 344. Division of estates.
Section 226. Definition of estate.— In its popular and
most comprehensive meaning, the word " estate" is genus
generaUssimum, and includes, not only real and personal
property,^ but also the interest a person may have in
' Thornton v. Mulquinne, 12 Iowa Weatherhead's Lessee v. Basker-
549 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 548, 551 ; ville, 52 U. S. (11 How.) 329 ;
Mably v. Stainback, 1 Mart. (N. bk. 13 L. ed. 717 ;
C.) 75 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 545 ; Archer v. Deneale, 36 U. S. (1
Turbett v. Turbett's Ex'rs, 8 Pet.) 585 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 272 ;
Yeates (Pa.) 187 ; s.c. 3 Am. Lambert v. Pajne, 7 U. S. (8 Cr.)
Dec. 369, 371 ; 97, 130 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 377.
201
202
DEFINITION OF ESTATE.
[Book III.
such property, ■^ as owner or otherwise,^ from absolute
ownership down to a naked possession.^ The term
not only comprehends property of every descrip-
tion,* but includes a person's condition in respect to
property,^ and the very thing itself of which a person is
the owner, whether personal or real,^ are so construed
by courts in interpreting wills. ^ In its more restricted
' Lamar v. Sheffield, 66 Ga. 711 ;
Kutter V. Smith, 69 U. S. (3 Wall.)
491 ; hk. 17 L. ed. 830 ;
2 Bl. Com. 103.
* He need not have the fee or even
a freehold.
See : Inhabitants of Sudbury v.
Inhabitants of Stow, 13 Mass.
463, 364.
3 See : Moody v. Farr, 83 Miss. 193,
195;
Jackson v. Parker, 9 Cow. (N. Y.)
73, 81.
It includes every possible estate in
land except a mere chattel
interest.
Jackson v. Parker, 9 Cow. (N. Y.)
73, 81.
The possession of land is an in-
terest which may be sold on an
execution against the person
having the possession.
See : Jackson v. Graham, 3 Cai.
(N. Y.) 188, 189 ;
Jackson v. Garnsey, 16 John. (N.
Y.) 189, 193.
* See : Archer v. Deneal, 36 U. S.
(1 Pet.) 5S5 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 373.
' Indebtedness as well as owner-
ship.— Thus we speak of the
"estate" of a deceased or an
insolvent person. In these
cases indebtedness as well as
ownei-ship is a part of the idea,
the debts and assets together
constituting the estate.
Davis V. Elkins, 9 La. 143.
s See : SeUers v. Sellers, 35 Ala. 335,
341.
' See : Thornton v. Mulquinne, 13
Iowa 549 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 548,
551;
Laing v. Barbour, 119 Mass.
Kf)Q 535 •
KeUo'g V. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met.)
333 335 *
BuUard v.' Goffe, 37 Mass. 353,
256-257 ;
Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass.
(18 Pick.) 537; s.c. 39 Am.
Dec. 631.
Jackson v. Delancy, 13 John.
(N. Y.) 536 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec.
403;
Mably v. Stainback. 1 Mart. (N.
C.) 75 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 545 ;
Turbett v. Turbett's Ex'rs, 8
Yeates (Pa.) 187 ; s.c. 3 Am.
Deo. 369, 371 ;
Lambert's Lessee v. Paine, 7 U.S.
(3 Or.) 97-130 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 377,
390;
Busby V. Busby, 1 TJ. S. (1 DaU.)
336; bk. 1 L. ed. Ill;
Blagge V. Miles, 1 Story C.C. 436,
438;
Lloyd V. Lloyd, L. R. 7 Eq. Cas.
458;
Doe ex d. Evans v. Evans, 9
Ad. & E. 719 ; s.c. 36 Eiig. C.
L. 378 ;
Rideaut v. Paine, 3 Atk. 486 ;
Hawksworth v. Hawksworth, 37
Beav. 1 ;
Voev. Chapman, 1 H. Bl. 333;
s.c. 2 Rev. Rep. 755 ;
Rae V. Harvey, 5 Burr. 3638 ;
Sanderson v. Dobson, 7 C. B. 81 ;
s.c. 63 Eng. C. L. 80 ;
Hogan V. Jackson, 1 Cowp. 306 ;
Jongsma v. Jongsma, 1 Cox Eq.
363;
O'Toole V. Browne, 3 El. & Bl.
573 ; B.C. 77 Eng. C. L. 571 ;
Bridgewater v. Bolton, 6 Mod.
106;
Mayor of Hamilton v. Hodson, 6
Moore P. C. C. 76 ;
Popham V. Banfield, 1 Salk. 336 ;
Tilley v. Simpson, 3 T. R. 659
note (b).
Holdfast V. Morten, 1 T. R. 411 ;
S.C. 1 Rev. Rep. 243 ;
Barry v. Edgenorth, 3 Pr. Wms.
534;
Walker v. Denne, 3 Ves. 179 ;
S.C. 3 Rev. Rep. 185 ;
Caloraft v. Roebuck. 1 Ves. 336.
Land held without color of title. —
It is held in Austin ■;;. Rutland
R. Co., 45 Vt. 815, that a be-
quest of a testator's " estate.
Chap. I. § 226.] RESTRICTED MEANING OF ESTATE.
203
sense the word estate is used to denote land.^ The cur-
rent use of the word is to denote the end, extent, degree,
real or personal," does not ap-
ply to laud of which he is in
possession without color of
title. Under the North Caro-
lina Revised Code this term
does not embrace land.
Smithdeal v. Smith, 64 N. C. 52.
Tlie word " estate " is the most
general, significant, and opera-
tive that can be used in a will,
and, according to all the cases,
may embrace every degree and
species of interest. If the word
" estate " stand by itself , as if
a man devise " all his estate- to
A," it carries a fee from its
established and legal import
and operation. Standing thus
per se, it marks the intention
of the testator, passes the in-
heritance to the devisee, and
controls the rule in favor of
the heir at law. It is true that
this word, when coupled with
things that are personal only,
shall be restrained to the per-
sonalty : Noscitur a sociis.
The word " estate" may also,
from the particular phrase-
ology connected with the ap-
parent intent of the testator,
assume a local form and habi-
tation, so as to Umit its sense
to the laud itself. Here un-
common particularity of de-
scription is requisite, so as to
leave the mind perfectly
satisfied that the thing only
was in contemplation, and
nothing more. A description
merely local cannot be ex-
tended beyond locality, with-
out departing from the obvious
import of the words, and thus
making, instead of construing,
the will of the testator. But
when no words are made use
of to manifest the intention of
the testator that the term
"estate" should be taken, not
in a general, but in a limited
signification, then it will pass
a fee ; because, the law de-
clares that it designates and
comprehends both the subject
and the interest. Nay, such is
the legal import and operation
of the word "estate," that it
carries a fee, even when ex-
pressions of locality are
annexed. To illustrate this
position by apposite and ad-
judged cases : If a man in his
will, says, "I give all my
estate to A," it has been held
that the whole of the testator's
interest in such particular lands
passed to the devisee, though
no words of limitation are
added. 3 Pr. Wms. 524. So
the word " estate " was held to
carry a fee, though it denoted
locality, "as my estate at
Kirby Hall."
Tuflfnel^. Page, 3 Atk. 37; s.c.
Barn. Cha. Rep. 9.
On which Lord Hardwicke ob-
served, that though this is a
locaUty, yet the question is,
whether it is such a locality as
is sufficient to show the testa-
tor's intention merely to be to
convey the lands to themselves,
and not the interest in them.
He was of opinion that the
words were descriptive both of
the local situation, and the
quantity of interest.
Same — Lord Talljot observed, in
Ibbetson v. Beckwith, that the
word "estate," in its proper,
legal sense, means the inherit-
ance, and carries a fee. Why,
indeed, may not locality and
interest be connected, and the
same words express and convey
both? To exclude interest
in the subject, the expres-
sions coupled with the word
"estate" must be so restrict-
ive and local in their nature,
as to convey solely the idea of
locality, and not to comprehend
the quantum of interest, with-
out doing violence to the words
and intentions of the testator.
Besides, it is a just remark,
repeatedly made by Lord Hard-
wicke and Lord Mansfield, that
where a general devise of land
I See : Sellers v. Sellers, 35 Ala.
235, 241 ;
Van Rensselaer v. Boucher, 5
Den. (N. Y.)40;
Lambert v. Paine, 7 U. S. (3 Cr.)
97 ; bk. 2 L. ed. 377.
204 ORIGIN OF ESTATES. [Book III.
and quality of interest which a person has in real
property.^
Sec. 227. The origin of estates.— The distinction between
absolute dominion, or absolute ownership, such .as the law
permits to be had in chattels, and an estate, to which the
English law restricts the ownership of land, is no doubt
referable to the universal existence in England of tenure.
But the existence of estates of inheritance was suggested,
and made possible, by the indestructibility of their com-
monest and earliest known subject. There are three
ancient sources of lawful rights of property in England —
(1) the common law ; (2) the statute law ; and (3) customs
allowed by the law.^ To these must, for many practical
purposes, be added — (4) the course of equity, as devised
and consolidated by the Court of Chancery. This last is
the origin of equitable estates, which seem now to have
a good claim to be also styled lawful. But the circum-
stances of their origin have impressed upon them some
important characteristics, which they still in a great
measure retain, by which they are distinguished from
legal estates, commonly so called, and which make it
improper to apply to them the epithet ' ' legal. " All lawful
estates must be traced to one or another of these sources.
The first is the source of common-law estates ; the second
is the source of entails ; the third is the source of copy-
hold and customary estates ; and the fourth is the source
of equitable estates.
is narrowed down to an estate bear on this subject. They are
for life, the intention of the collected in a note by the editor
testator is commonly defeated, of Willes's Rep. 396.
because people do not dis- See : Lambert's Lessee v. Paine, 7
tinguish between real and per- U. S. (3 Cr.) 97, 134 ; bk. 3 L.
sonal property ; and, indeed, ed. 377, 390.
"common sense would never > See : Estate of Coleman, 31 N. Y.
teach a man the difference ; " Daily Reg. 505, No. 63 ;
and, therefore, judges have Walsingham's Case, 3 Plowd.
endeavored to make the word 555 ;
" estate," in a wUl, amount to 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 435 ;
a devise of the whole interest, 1 Prest. Est. 7, 30.
unless unequivocal and strong '^ " Conauetudo is one of the main
expressions are added to restrict triangles of the laws of Eng-
it(< general signification. It land, those laws being divided
would be a laborious and use- into common law, statute law,
less task to enter into a minute and custom."
and critical investigation of the 1 Co. litt. (19th ed.) 110b.
great variety of cases which
Chap. I. §§ 228, 229, 230.] DIVISION OF ESTATES. 205
Sec. 22S. Estate in land— Definition.— An estate in land
is such an interest as the owner ^ or tenant has therein.
It is called in Latin status, because it signifies the con-
dition or circumstance in which the owner stands with
regard to his property.^
Sec. 229. Same— Division of.— To ascertain the owner-
ship of property with precision and accuracy, estates in
land may be regarded in a threefold view, to wit :
(1) with regard to the quantity and quality of interest
which the tenant has in the tenement ; * (2) vsdth regard
to the time at which the quantity of interest is to be
enjoyed ; and (3) with regard to the number and connec-
tion of the tenants.* The quantity of interest or estate
signifies the time of continuance, or degree of interest,
which the tenant has in the tenement ; ^ and the quality
of the estate has reference to the manner of its enjoy-
ment, as whether it be absolute, solely common, in co-
parceny, or in joint tenancy.^ The quantity of interest
which a tenant has in the tenement is measured by its
duration and extent, and this occasions the primary divi-
sion of estates into such as are a freehold and such as are
less than a freehold.''
Sec. 230. Freehold estate in lands— Definition.— An estate
of freehold is an interest in lands, or other real property,
held by a free tenure, for the life of the tenant,^ or that
of seme other person, or for some uncertain period. It is
called liberum tenementum, frank tenement, or freehold ;
and was formerly described to be such an estate as could
only be created by livery of seisin,^ a ceremony similar to
the investiture of the feudal law, and one which a freeman
1 Van Rensselaer v. Pouclier, 5 " Prest. Est. 31.
Den. (N. Y.) 40. See : Post, " Joint Estates. "
See : 3 Bl. Com. 103 ; ' See : Van Rensselaer v. Poucher,
3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 345, 5 Den. (N. Y.) 35, 40 ;
2 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lb ; 3 Bl. Com. 103 ;
1 Prest. Est. 430. 3 Crab. R. Prop. 2.
' See • 3 Bl Com. 103 ; * See : Roseboom i;.Vechten, 5 Den.
3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 345 ; (N. Y.) 414 ;
1 Prest. Est. 30. 3 Bl. Com. 104 ;
« Walsingham's Casfe, 2 Plowd. 555 ; 4 Kent. Com. (13th ed.) 33.
3 Bl. Com. 103 ; '2 Bl. Com, 104 ;
1 Inst. 345a. 1 Prest. Est. 309.
5 1 Prest. Est. 31.
206 FREEHOLD ESTATES. [Book III.
might constitutionally hold in reference to its tenure,
and of course excluded all lands held in villeinage, even
though held for the term of a life.^ This term is used in
two senses ; first as indicating the quantity of interest,
and second as indicating the quality of the tenure.^ But
since the introduction of certain modern conveyances, by
which an estate of freehold may be created without livery
of seisin, this description is not sufficient.^
Sec. 231. Same— Qualities of freehold estate.— There are
two qualities essentially requisite to the existence of every
freehold estate. First, immobility, — that is, the subject-
matter must either be land, or some interest issuing out
of or annexed to land ; second, a sufficient legal indeter-
minate duration, for if the utmost period of time to
which an estate can last is fixed and determined, it is not
an estate of freehold.* Thus if lands are conveyed to a
man and his heirs forever, or for the term of his natural
life, or for the term of the life of another, or until he is
married, or goes to Eome, or the like, the estate created
will be a freehold estate ; but if lands are limited to a
man for five hundred years, or for ninety-nine years, if
he shall live so long, he has not an estate of freehold.^
Sec. 232. Same— Seisin.— The term "seisin" is applied
to the possession of an estate of freehold,^ and the pos-
sessor of such an estate is said to be "seized" thereto.^
1 1 Prest. Est. 209, 213. did alicujus quod quis tenet ad
* 2 Wood Lect. 5. certum numerum annorum,
^ Britt. , c. 32 ; mensium, vel diorum ; licet ad
1 Inst. 48a. terminum centum annorum,
•* 2 Bl. Com. 886. quae excedit vitas hominum.
' The law is precisely the same now Bract. 207a ; 1 Inst. 42a.
as when Braoton wrote : " Et * Bearoe v. Jackson, 4 Mass. 408 ;
sciendum quod Uberum tene- Durando v. Durando, 82 Barb.
mentum est id quod quis tenet (N. Y.) 529 ;
sibi et haeredibus suis, in feodo, 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 153a.
et haereditate, vel in feodo See : Fitzhugh v. Croghan, 3 J.
tantum, sibi et haeredibus suis. J. Marsh (Ky.) 429 ; s.o. 19 Am.
Item ut Uberum tenementum, Deo. 139 ;
sicut ad vitam tantum, vel Slater v. Eawson, 47 Mass. (6
eodem modo ad tempus inde- Met.) 439 :
terminatum, absque aliqua Towle v. Ayer, 8 N. H. 57, 58 ;
certa temporis prsefinitione ; Van Rensselaer v. Boucher, 5
sc. Donee quid fiat vel non Den. (N. Y.) 85.
fiat ; ut si dicatur. Do tali ' Barr v. Gratz, 7 U. S. (4 Wheat.)
donee ei providero. Liberum 213 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 553 ;
autem tenementum non potest Fitzhugh v. Croghan, 2 JJ.Marsh.
Chap. I. § 233.] SEISIN AND ENTRY. 207
Anciently the possession of a feud was called seisin,
which denoted the completion of the investiture by which
the tenant was admitted to the land. Upon the intro-
duction of the feudal law into England, the word seisin
was only applied to the possession of an estate of freehold,
in contradistinction to that precarious kind of possession
by which tenants in villeinage held their land, which
was considered to be the possession of their lords, in whom
the freehold continued.^ Where a freehold estate is
conveyed to a person by feoffment, with livery of seisin,
or by any of those conveyances which derive their effect
from the statute of uses, he acquires a seisin in deed, and
a freehold in deed. But where a freehold estate is de-
volved upon a person by act of law, as by descent, he
only acquires a seisin in law, that is, a right to the pos-
session, and his estate is called a freehold in law ; for he
must make an actual entry on the land to acquire a
seisin and a freehold in deed.^ The prevailing doctrine
in the United States is that no actual entry is necessary,
either by an heir or a grantee, in order to give him a
seisin in deed ; provided the ancestor or grantor was seized
at the time, or the possession was vacant, and the ancestor
or grantor had the right. ^
Sec. 233. Same^Bntry.— According to the common-law
rule, entry must be made by the person having right, or
some one authorized by him.* The mere act of going on
429 ; S.C. 19 Am. Dec. 139 ; Barr v. Gratz, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.)
Warren v. Childs, 11 Mass. 232, 313, 331 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 553 ;
325 ; Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.)
Wells V. Prince, 4 Mass. 68 ; 239 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545 ;
Englishbe v. Helmuth, 3 N. Y. 394. 4 Kent. Com. (13th ed.) 385-389.
1 Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burr. 107 ; •* Authority to enter may be given Tiy
Grendon v. Bishop of Lincoln, 3 parol, and if entry is made by
Plowd. 503 ; a stranger in the name and on
Dissert. , c. 1 ; behalf of the owner, who af ter-
1 Inst. i53a, 200b. ward ratifies the act, this is
' See : 1 Inst. 266b. sufficient.
' Green v. Chelsea, 41 Mass. (2 Pick.) Richards v. Folsom, 11 Me. 70 ;
rji . Tolman v. Emerson, 21 Mass. (4
Maffoun v. Lapham, 38 Mass. (31 Pick.) 160.
Kck.) 135 ; When part of the heirs enter on lands
Bates V. No'rcross, 31 Mass. (14 that descends to them, their
Pick.) 334 ; entry is presumed to be accord-
Wells V. Prince, 4 Mass. 64 ; ing to their legal title, and it
Jackson V. Howe, 14 John. (N. Y.) inures to the benefit of all, so
405 ■ that aU are seized unless those
20B LIVERY OF SEISIN. [Book III,
the land was not a legal entry, sufficient to vest the
actual seisin in the person who had the right, but, in
order to constitute a legal entry, the person was required
to enter with that intent and to do some act and show
some intention.^ The act was required to be such an one
that, in a stranger, would have been trespass.^ In those
states where the common-law doctrine has been adopted,
the same rules prevail. Where the lands all lie in one
county the entry of the heir upon any part of the estate
will give him a seisin in deed of all the lands lying in
that county, but where the lands lie in different counties
there must be an entry in each county.^
Sec. 234. Same— Livery of seisin.— At common law the
ceremony of livery of seisin was necessary to vest title.*
This custom was never adopted in this country ; ^ or if
it was, it has been wholly superseded by the use of deeds
acknowledged and recorded, "^ which are equivalent to
livery of seisin.^ The deed acknowledged and recorded
gives to the grantee legal investiture of the land con-
veyed, and has the same effect as if the grantor entered
upon the land and gave actual seisin by the formal
delivery of the accustomed turf and twig in the ancient
ceremony.^ In this country actual entry on the land by
who enter claim adversely, and , to be tried by the pares comi-
oust the others. tatus.
Means v. Vf ells, 53 Mass. (13 Met.) See : ■ Gilbert's Ten. 39-40 ;
356. Stearns' Real Act. 3.
1 Ford V. Grey, 6 Mod. 44 ; < 3 Bl. Com. 315, 316. This was abol-
PoUard v. Jekyl, 1 Plowd. 93 ; ished by statutes 8 & 9 Vict., o.
1" Inst. 345b. 106, § 3.
2 Holly V. Brown, 14 Conn. 255, = Bryan v. Bradley, 16 Conn. 474,
369, 370 ; 488 ;
Robison v. Swett, 3 Me. 316 ; Davis v. Mason, 36 U. S. (1 Pet.)
Altemas v. Campbell, 9 Watts 503 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 339 ;
(Pa.) 38 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 84.
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 345b. « Higbee u.'Eice, 5 Mass. 353 ; s.c.
3 1 Inst. 15a, 353b. 4 Am. Dec. 63 ;
Feoffments were anciently made Pidge v. Tyler, 4 Mass. 541.
on tie land, before the j}ares ' Higbee v: Rice, 5 Mass. 344, 353 ;
curioe; and the entry of the s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 63 ;
feoffee was recorded in the Bradstreet v. Clarke, 13 "Wend.
records of the lord's court. Af- (N. Y.) 603, 677.
tertvards, when the attestation » See : Ward v. FuUer, 33 Mass. (15
of the 2Mres curice was not held Pick.) 165 ;
necessary, that of the pares Goodwin v. Hubbard, 15 Mass.
comitatus was ; and hence an 314 ;
entry in each county was still McKee v. Pf out, 3 U. S. (3 Dall.)
held necessary, because it was 486, 489 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 690.
Chap. I. §§ 235, 236.] SEISIN AND DISSEISIN.
209
an heir or a grantee is not generally necessary to con-
summate his title and give him a seisin in deed, where
the ancestor or grantor was, at the time, seized of the
property, or the possession was vacant, the ancestor or
grantor having the right to the possession,^ gives the
legal presumption in this country that the seisin follows
the title and that they correspond with each other. ^
Sec. 235. Same— Disseisin.— Disseisin has been defined
by Lord Littleton as " where a man entereth into lands
or tenements, where his entry is not congeable, and
ousteth him which hath the freehold." ^ According to its
accepted and general meaning, a disseisin is said to be
an entry into the lands and tenements of another, accom-
panied with expulsion or ouster of such other from the
freehold,* either by first taking the profits, or secondly,
by claiming the inheritance.^
Sec. 236. Same— Same— Kinds of disseisia.— There are two
kinds of disseisin recognized ; first, a disseisin in spite of
> Green v. Chelsea, 41 Mass. (3 Pick.)
71;
Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.)
239 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545.
Compare : Jackson v. Woodman,
29 Me. 266 ;
Jackson V. Howe, 14 John. (N. Y.)
405;
Hinman v. Cranmer, 9 Pa. St. 40.
2 FarweU v. Eogere, 99 Mass. 33 ;
Barr v. Gratz, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.)
213 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 553.
Presnlnptioii of seisin from deed.—
In the absence of evidence to
the contrary the deed itself af-
fords a presumption that the
grantor had sufficient seisin for
the purposes of the conveyance,
and operates to vest the legal
seisin in the grantee.
Ward V. FuUer, 32 Mass. (15 Pick.)
185.
s Definition of disseisin — lord Mans-
field has observed justly that
" the precise definition of what
constituted a disseisin, which
made the disseisor the tenant
to the demandant's praecipe,
though the right owner's entry
was not taken away, was once
well known, but it is not now
to be found. The more we
read, imless we are very care-
14
ful to distinguish, the more we
shaU be confounded ; for after
the assize of novel disseisin wa:^
introduced, the Legislature by
many acts of Parliament, and
the courts of law, by Uberal
constructions, in furtherance of
justice, extended this remedy,
for the sake of the owner, to
every trespass or injury done
to his real property, if by bring-
ing his assize he thought fit to
admit himself disseised."
Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burr. 110.
•• Towle V. Ayer, 8 N. H. 57, 60 ;
People V. Van Rensselaer, 8 Barb.
(N. Y.) 180, 189, 194 ; s.c. 9 N.
Y 291 ■
Smith V. Burtis, 6 Johns. (N. Y.)
197 ; s.c. 5 Am. Deo. 218 ;
Jackson v. Rogers, 1 Johns. Cas.
(N. Y.) 33 ;
Clarke i;. McClure, lOGratt. (Va.)
305;
Ewing's Lessee v. Burnet, 86 U.
S. (11 Pet.) 41 ; bk. 9 L. ed. 624 ;
Williajn v. Thomas. 12 East 141.
2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 181a, 257a.
* Possession of disseisor must be
open, notorious, exclusive, and
adverse to the title of the
ownei'.
Taylor r. Horde, 1 Burr. 110.
210 KINDS OF DISSEISI^'. [Book m.
the owner, which is termed a disseisin, iri fact ; and second,,
a disseisia by the election of the owner, which is termed
a disseisin by construction of law. The effect of the first
is to give the disseisor an absolute title in fee, against all
the world, if he is suffered to remain in undisturbed pos-
session of the land until the statute of limitations has
run. The latter disseisin is created by acts without
actual entrance, and in this is equivocal and not neces-
sarily amounting to an entire immediate ouster of the
freehold, but which the owner may, if he pleases, treat as
usurpation of his freehold, for the sake of vindicating
his title by an action at law. Such as where a tenant
for life or years makes a feoffment ; ^ or where a tenant
at will makes a lease for years ; ^ or where a stranger
makes a lease and the lessee enters under it without
reference.^ In this and like cases the entry is equivocal,
and may be either trespass or a disseisin, according to
the intent. The law wUl not permit the wrongdoer to
classify his own wrong and explain it to be a mere tres-
pass unless the owner likes to so consider it.* To con-
stitute a disseisin of the first class the act must be an
unequivocal act of ownership, open, avowed, exclusive,
adverse, and uninterrupted,^ and can be made only by
actually and forcibly turning the owner out of posses-
sion ; ® or by entering under a conveyance from one
' Miller v. Shackleford, 3 Dana Little v. Libby, 2 Me. (2 Greenl.)
(Ky.) 389 ; 213 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 68 ;
Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burr. 60. , Johnson v. Bean, 119 Mass. 271 :
- See : Blunden v. Baugh, Cro. Car. Slater v. Jepherson, 60 Mass. (6
302. Cush.) 129 ;
' Jerritt v. Weare, 3 Price 575. Cobum v. Hollas, 44 Mass. (3
* Prescott V. Nevers, 4 Mas. C. C. Met.) 125 ;
326-329. Lane v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
See : Rogei-s v. Joyce, 4 Me. (4 2.54 ;
Greenl.) 93 ; Jackson v. Schoonmaker, 2 John.
Robison v. Swett, 3 Me. (3 (N. Y.) 230 ;
Greenl.) 316 ; Calhoun v. Cook, 9 Pa. St. 236 ;
Allen V. Holten, 87 Mass. (20 Pick.) Clarke v. McClure, 10 Gratt. (Va.)
458,467; 305;
"White V. Eeid, 2 Nott. & Mc. (S. Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burr, 110.
C.) 534 ; 6 Wiggins v. Holley, 11 Ind. 3 ;
Ricard v. Williams, 20 U. S. (7 Magee v. Magee, 37 Miss. 152 ;
Wheat.) 60 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 898. Grant v. Fowler, 39 N. H. 101 ;
» French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439, McGregor v. Comstock, 17 N. Y.
440 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 680 ; 172.
Jones V. Chiles, 2 Dana (Ky.) SmithuBurtis, 6 John.(N.Y.)197;
25 ; See : Varick v. Jackson, 2 Wend.
Winthrop v. Benson, 31 Me. 381 ; (N. Y.) 166; s.c.l9 Am.Dec.571.
Chap, I. § 237.] WHAT CONSTITUTES DISSEISIN.
211
who has no title ; ^ or by entry under claim or color of
title, ^ or under parol agreement;^ by occupying and
cultivating the land under the claim of title/ without it
be not a rightful title/ such as a defective levy/ or by
merely a claim of the exclusive right to the possession.^
Sec. 237. Same— Same— What constitutes a disseisin. — To
constitute a disseisin the entry must be adverse to the title
of the true owner, utterly inconsistent therewith, together
with an express and tacit denial of it ; ^ and must consist
of an occupancy of the lands in good faith and under the
belief that the claimant has a good title.^ The intention
to claim in opposition to the title of another must be
clear, ^^ otherwise it will be presumed to be in submission
' Jackson ex. d. Bradsiireet v.
Huntington, 30 U. S. (5 Pet.)
402 ; bk. 8 L. ed. 170.
* Herbert v. Hanrick, 16 Ala. 581 ;
Aberorombie v. Baldwin, 15 Ala.
363.
See : Comins v. Comins, 21 Conn.
413;
House V. Palmer, 9 Ga. 497 ;
Melvin v. Proprietor of Locks, 46
Mass. (5 Met.) 15 ; s.c. 38 Am.
Dec. 384;
Hoag V. Wallace, 28 N. H. (8
Post.) 547 ;
Thomas' Adm'r v. Kelly, 13 Ired.
(N. C.) L. 269 ;
Clarke v. McClure, 10 Gratt. (Va.)
305;
Whitney v. French, 25 Vt. 663 ;
Ewing's Lessee v. IJurnet, 36 U.
S. (11 Pet.) 41; bk. 9 L.ed.624.
« Pope V. Henry, 24 Vt. 560.
* Robinson v. Douglass, 2 Aik. (Vt.)
364.
"Warren v. ChUds, 11 Mass. 222,
225 *
Wendell v. Moulton, 26 N. H.
(6 Post.) 41 ;
Jackson v. Newton, 18 John.
(N. Y.) 355 ;
Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4
Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 633.
« Bigelow V. Jones, 27 Mass. (10
Pick.) 161 ;
Allen V. Thayer, 17 Mass. 299.
'AUyn V. Mather, 9 Conn. 114;
Towle V. Ayer, 8 N. H. 60.
'French v. Pearoe, 8 Conn. 439,
440;
Little V. Libby, 2 Me. (3 Greenl.)
242.
See : Armstrong v. Eisteau, 5 Md.
256;
s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 115 :
Hoye V. Swan, 5 Md. 237 ;
Small V. Proctor, 15 Mass. 495 ;
Takeway v. Barrett, 38 Vt. 310 :
Clarke v. McClure, 10 Gratt.
(Va.) 11.
° Woodward v. McReynolds, 1
Chand. (Wis.) 244.
'•" Wiggins V. Holley, 11 Ind. 2 ;
Magee v. Magee, 37 Miss. 153 ;
Grant v. Fowler, 39 N. H. 101 ;
McGregor v. Comstock, 17 N. Y.
173-
Smith V. Burtis, 6 John. (N. Y.)
197.
See : Varick v. Jackson, 3 Wend.
(N. Y.) 166 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec.
571.
Occupancy ty mistake and througli
misapprehension. — Whether an
occupancy by mistake, and
through misapprehension of
the dividing line, amounts to a
disseisin, is a point the court
are not perfectly agreed upon.
Same. — In Blaine and in Tennessee it
has been held no disseisin.
Lincoln v. Edgeeomb, 31 Me. 345 ;
Ross V. Gould, 5 Me. (5 Greenl.)
204;
Brown v. Gay, 3 Me. (3 Greenl.)
126;
Gates V. Butler, 3 Humph. (Tenn.)
447.
Same. — In Connecticut and in Penn-
sylvania it is held otherwise.
French v. Pearce, 8 Conn. 439,
440, 445, 446 ;
Jones V. Porter, 3 Pa. St. 133.
212
ABATEMENT.
[Book IIL
to the title of the true owner. ^ The question of intent
of the party, in taking and holding possession, is one of
fact for the jury,^ and may under some circumstances
be imputed to those who by a general rule of law are in
ordinary cases incapable of willing, or are not bound by
an exercise of the will.^
Sec. 238. Abatement— Effect of.— The seisin in law which
an heir acquires on the death of his ancestor may be
divided by the entry of a stranger, claiming a right to
the land, which entry is called an abatement ; and in
See:Takeway v. Barrett, 38 Vt.
816.
This is on the ground that, in
order to be an adverse posses-
sion, it is sufficient that the
party intended to claim the
land as exclusively and abso-
lutely his own estate, and actu-
ally and visibly occupied it as
such, receiving the profits to
his own use, without any sup-
posed or assumed accounta-
iDility ; and that this may well
be the case without any knowl-
edge or suspicion of any other
title or claim.
See : Melvin v. Proprietors of
Locks, etc., 46 Mass. (5 Met.)
15, 31, 33 ; s,c. 38 Am. Dec. 384;
Parker v. Proprietors of Looks,
etc., 44 Mass. (3 Met.) 91, 100,
101 ; s.c. 37 Am. Deo. 121 ;
Hale V. GUdden, 10 N. H. 397.
Same — Conveying larger tract than
owner. — In Maine, if the grant-
or, by mistake, conveys a larger
tract than he owns, and the
grantee enters and actually
occupies according to his deed,
it is held that the grantee there-
by disseises the true owner ,
though the rule that occupa-
tion by mistake is no disseisin
is in such case applicable to
the grantor.
Otis K. Moulton, 31 Me. (3 Applet.)
205.
Same — ^Wheu disseisin. — But to
constitute a disseisin by the
grantee, in such case of occu-
pancy by mistake, the occu-
pancy must be actual and vis-
ible ; for his entry will not be
extended by mere construction
beyond the limits of his title.
Hale V. Glidden, 10 N. H. 397 ;
Enfield v. Day, 7 N. H. 457, 467.
' Pierson v. Turner, 2 Ind. 123 ;
Gwynn v. Jones, 2 Gill. &
(Md.) 173 ;
Lund V. Parker, 3 N. H. 49 ;
Lane v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
254;
Jackson v. Sharp, 9 John. (N. Y.)
163 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 267 ;
Smith V. Burtis, 6 John. (N. Y.)
197 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 218.
= Herbert v. Henrick, 16 Ala. 581 ;
Beverly ■;;. Burke, 9 Ga. 440 ; s.c.
54 Am. Dec. 351 ;
Dennett v. Crocker, 8 Me. (8
Greenl.) 239 ;
Atherton v. Johnson, 3 N. H. 31 ;
Jackson v. Joy, 9 John. (N. Y.)
103;
Woodward v. McReynolds, 1
Chand. (Wis.) 244.
Declarations made ty the party
taking possession, oven though
made to a stranger, are admis-
sible in evidence in disparage-
ment of his claim, but not in
his favor.
Crane v. Marshall, 16 Me. (4
Shep.) 37; s.c. 33 Am. Dec.
631;
Alden v. Gilmore, 13 Me. (1
Shep.) 178 ;
Little V. Libby, 2 Me. (2 Greenl.)
242;
Church V. Burghardt, 25 Mass.
(8 Pick.) 327 ;
Carter v. Gregory, 25 Mass. (8
Pick.) 168 ;
West Cambridge v. Lexington,
19 Mass. (2 Pick.) 536.
^ Jackson ex d. Bradstreet v. Hrmt-
ington, 30 U. S. (5 Pet.) 402 ;
bk. 8 L. ed. 170.
Chap. I. § 239.] ABEYANCE OF FREEHOLDER. 213
such a case the only mode of regaining tlie seisin is by an
entry of the legal owner, which will restore him to the
legal possession.^ If the abator die seized the lands will
descend to his heir.'-' At common law where the younger
brother entered upon the death of his ancestor, such entry
was not an abatement ; for it should be intended that
the younger brother did not set up a new title, but only
entered to preserve the possession of the ancestor in the
family, that no one else should abate. And if the
younger son die in possession, still the elder son might
enter ; for the law would not intend the entry of the
younger son to be a wrongful act, therefore his possession
became that of the elder. ^
Sec. 239. Abeyance of freeholder.— In those cases where
there is no person in esse in whom the freehold is vested,
it is said to be in abeyance ; that is, to exist only in ex-
pectation, remembrance, and contem])lation of law ; * in
other words, is under the care and protection of the law.^
Abeyances are of two kinds : first, of the fee-simple, as
where there is an actual estate of freehold in esse, but
the right to the fee-simple is suspended until the happen-
ing of a designated event ; ^ and, second, of the freehold
estate. The latter species of abeyance occurs on the death
of an incumbent and lasts until the appointment of his
successor, at which event the estate revives.'' There is
also an abeyance of the freeholder where it is sought to
' In most if not in all of the states either in expressed terms or by
of the Union, it has been pro- broad and general language,
Yided by statute that no seisin give to the heir, and by de-
shall take away the riglit of scent, the ancestor's right to
entry. real property witlaout regard
See: Stinson's Stat. L., vol. I., to the que.stion whether or not
passim. he die actually seized.
« See : 1 Co. Inst. 377a ; See : Chirac v. Reinecker, 37 U.
Litt., S 385 ; 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) S. (3 Pet.) 613, 625 ; bk. 7 L. ed.
337a"; 538, 543 ;
' Gill. Tenn. 38. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 338, 389.
Litt., § 396. " And. L. Diet. 6 ;
The doctrine of the possession in 1 Bouv. L. Diet. (15th ed.) 74 ;
fratris, in the law of descents, 2.B1. Com. 107, 216, 318 ;
is generally abrogated in the 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 342b.
United States, possibly with ' In gremlo legis, say the court in
the exception of Maryland and Carter v. Barnardiston, 1 Pr.
North Carolina, and perhaps Wms. 516.
others, by the statutes of de- « 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 343b.
scents and distributions, which, ' 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 343b.
214 WHO MAY BE FREEHOLDERS. [BOOK III.
make it commence to pass in futuro ; ^ but this does not
apply to estates in remainder or reversion, which are es-
tates in expectancy.^ It is a maxim of the common law
that a fee cannot be in abeyance. The reasons for this
rule are found in the feudal system, and were for the pur-
poses of enabling the superior lord to know upon whom
to call for the military services that were due for the
feud ; and also to enable strangers who claimed the right
to any particular lands to know against whom they
should bring their _prcec-ipe for the recovery of them, such
actions not being maintainable against any other than
the actual freeholder.^ The reasons upon which this
rule rests no longer exist, and the rule itself is not of
universal application.*
Sec. 240. Who may be freeholders.— At common law all
natural persons born within the dominion of the crown
of England were capable of holding freehold estates ;
unless they were attainted of treason or felony, or had
incurred the penalty of the prc&munire, for in these cases
they were considered as civilly dead, and for that reason
incapable of possessing any real property.^ In this
country there is no exception to the right to hold real
estate except that arising from alienage in some states.''
At common law even an alien may take an estate by the
act of the parties, as by purchase or devise,'^ and hold the
' 1 Prest. Est. 220. Hileman v. Bouslaugh, 13 Pa. St.
^ 1 Atk. Con. 11. 344 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 474 ;
Conveyance of freehold in reversion.— Harmon v. James, 7 Smed. & M.
It has been said that wliere one (Miss.) Ill; s.c. 45 Am. Dec.
who holds a freehold in revex-- 296 ;
sion conveys it in terms from Parker v. Stuckert, 3 Miles (Pa.)
the expiration of the intermedi- 278.
ate estate, courts will construe ^ See : Apthorp v. Backus, 1 Kirby
it a present conveyance and of (Conn.) 407 : s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 26 ;
thepvesent freehold, the enjoy- Fox v. Southack, 12 Mass.
ment of which will be post- 143 :
]-)oned until the expiration of Montgomery v. Dorion, 7 N. H.
tlie intermediate or prior estate. 475, 480.
Wealde v. Lower, Pollex 60 ; ' See : Wadsworth v. Wadsworth,
1 Prest. Est. 325. 13 N. Y. 37G :
2 1 Co. Inst. 342b. Doe ex d. Gouverneur's Heirs v.
■• Wallach v. Van Biswick, 92 U. Robertson, 24 U. S. (11 Wheat )
S. 303, 313 ; bk. 23 L. ed. 473, 333 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 488 ;
^'I'T. Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's
^ See : Bancroft u. Consen, 95 Mass. Lessee, 11 U. S. (7 Cr.) 603 619 ;
(13 Allen) 50 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 453, 458 ;
Huss V. Stephens, 51 Pa. St. 282 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 2.
Chap. J. § 240.] TENURE OF ALIEN-HOLDER.
215
same against all the world except the state ; ^ nor can he
be divested of his estate in the land by the state, until
after a formal proceeding on information filed for that
purpose ; ^ and until this is done he may take, hold, sell,
and convey, — and some courts even go so far as to hold
that he may devise, — the land he has possession of and pass
a good title thereto ; ^ but the general rule is that upon
Alien cannot take by law. — Black-
stone says, that though an
alien may take real estate by
purchase, yet he cannot by
descent, by dower, or by the
curtesy, which are the acts of
the law (2 Bl. Com. 249), for
the law giveth the alien noth-
ing. Though an alien may pur-
chase land or take it by devise,
yet he is exposed to the danger
of being divested of the fee and
of having the land forfeited to
the state upon an inquest of
ofiBce found.
2 Kent. Com. (13th ed). 53.
' Goodrich v. Russel, 42 N. Y. 87G ;
Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 12 N.
Y. 376.
See : Fox v. Southaok, 12 Mass.
143;
Doe ex d. Gouverneur's Heirs v.
Robertson, 24 U. S. (11 Wheat.)
332 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 488 ;
Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's
Lessee, 11 U. S. (7 Cr.) 603, 619 ;
bk. 3 L. ed. 453, 458.
= Nonis V. Hoyt, 18 Cal. 217 ;
People V. Folsom, 4 Cal. 373 ;
Halstead v. Board of Commis-
sioners of Lake, 56 Ind. 363 ;
Elmondorff v. Carmichael, 3 Litt.
(Ky.) 472 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 86 ;
Goodrich v. Russel, 42 N.Y. 177 :
Heeney v. Brooklyn Society, 33
Barb. (N. Y.) 360 ;
Jackson v. Adams, 7 Wend. (N.
Y.) 367.
" Office fonud " is the technical name
of the formal proceedings re-
ferred to.
Moaers v. White, 6 John. Ch. (N.
Y.) 360, 365 ;
State V. Boston, C. & M. R. Co.,
25 Vt. 433 ;
Cross V. De Valle, 68 U. S. (1
Wall.) 5 ; s.c. bk. 17 L. ed. 515;
3 Bl. Com. 258.
Alien can hold until "office found." —
It is said by the Supreme Court
of the United States in the case
Gouverneur's Heirs v. Robert-
son,24U. S. (11 Wheat.) 322,356;
bk. 6 L. ed. 488, "that an alien
can take by deed and can hold
until office found must be re-
garded as a positive rule of law,
so well established that the
reason of the rule is little more
than a subject for the anti-
quary. It no doubt owes its
present authority, if not its
origin, to regard to the peace
of society and a desire to pro-
tect the individual from arbi-
trary aggression."
Kon-resident aliens holding land
— State regulation. — The ques-
tion as. to the rights of anon-
resident alien to hold property,,
both at common law and under
the civil law, is a matter be^
tweenthe alien and the govern-
ment, and cannot be called in
question in a collateral proceed-
ing between individuals.
Racouillat i\ Sansevain, 32 Cal..
376.
Common-law disahilities. attached,
to alienage in respect to> acquir-
ing, holding, and inheriting
lands have been removed by
statute to a great extent in the'
various states.
See : Post, §
' See : Ramires v. Kent, 2 Cal. 558,.
560:
Murray v. KeUy, 27 Ind. 42 ;
State V. Beackmo, 8 Blackf . (Ind.)'
246;
Greenhold v. Stanforth, 21 Iowa
595;
Purczell V. Smidt, 21 Iowa 540 ;
McCreery v. AUender, 4 Harr. &
McH. (Md.) 409, 412 ;
Soanlan v. Wright, 30 Mass. (13.
Pick.) 523, 529 ; s.c. 25 Am.
Dec. 344 ;
Fox V. Southack, 12 Mass. 143 ;
Sheafe v. O'Neil, 1 Mass. 256 ;
• Montgomery v. Doxion, 7 N. H..
475, 480.
210
ALIENS' RIGHTS TO HOLD LANDS. [Book HI.
the death, of an alien in possession of real property,
although he may leave heirs who -would be capable of
taking it if he were a citizen, the land escheats.-^ This
was according to the common-law rule preventing aliens
from taking real estate by descent, or by operation of law
in any respect.^
Sec. 241. Same— Aliens.— At common law all persons
born in a strange country, under obedience to a strange
prince, and out of the lineage of the king, were incapable
of taking or holding freehold estate for their own benefit,
unless they were naturalized by act of Parliament or
made citizens by letters patent.^ In this country an
alien cannot take lands by act of law or by descent, nor
transmit them to others as his heirs, by the common law,*
' Slater V. Nason, 33 Mass. (15 Pick.)
345, 349 ;
Maynard v. Maynard, 36 Hun (N.
Y.) 227, 230 ;
Moaers v. White, 6 John. Ch. (N.
Y.) 360, 365 ;
Rubeck v. Gardner, 7 Watts (Pa.)
455, 458.
' Montgomery v. Doxion, 7 N. H.
475, 480 ;
People V. ConkUn, 2 Hill (N. Y.)
67, 69 ;
Moaers v. Wliite, 6 John. Ch. (N.
Y.)360, 365;
Marshall v. Conrad, 5 Call. (Va.)
364, 403 ;
Blight's Lessee v. Rochester, 20
U. S. (7 Wheat.) 535, 544 ; bk.
5 L. ed. 516 :
Orr V. Hodgson, 17 U. S. (4
Wheat.) 453 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 613 ;
Dawson v. Godfrey. 8 U. S. (4
Cr.) 321, 322; bk. 2 L. ed. 634.
Compare: Rhien v. Robbins, 20
Iowa. 45.
' State V. Beackmo, 8 Blackf. (Ind.)
246;
1 Inst. 2b.
* Siemssen v. Bofer, 6 Cal. 250 ;
Huddleston v. Lazenby, 1 Ind.
334;
Doe V. Lazenby, 1 Smitli (Ind.)
203, 234 ;
Greenhold v. Stanforth, 21 Iowa
595;
PurczeU v. Smidt, 21 Iowa 540 ;
Bhien ■;;. Bobbins, 20 Iowa 45 ;
Stemple v. Herminghouser, 3
Iowa 408 ;
Yeaker's Heirs v. Yeaker's Heirs,
4 Met. (Ky.) 83 ; s.c. 81 Am.
Dec. 530;
White V. White, 2 Met. (Ky.)
185;
Farrar v. Dean, 24 Mo. 16 ;
Marx V. McGlynn, 88 N. Y. 358 ;
Heeney v. Brooklyn Society, 33
Barb. (N. Y.) 360 ;
Beck V. McGillis, 9 Barb. (N. Y.)
35;
Brown v. Sprague, 5 Den. (N. Y.)
Moaers v. White, 6 John. Ch. (N.
Y.) 360, 365 ;
Jackson v. Lunn, 3 John. Cas.
(N. Y.) 109 ;
Copeland v. Sauls, 1 Jones (N. C.)
L. 70 ;
Settegast r. Schrimpf, 35 Tex.
323;
Heirs of Clay v. Clay, 26 Tex. 24,
84;
Hardy v. DeLeon, 5 Tex. 211 ;
State V. Boston, C. M. R. Co., 25
Vt. 433 ;
Sullivan v. Burnett, 105 U. S.
334 ; bk. 26 L. ed. 1124 ;
Orr V. Hodgson, 17 U. S. (4
Wheat.) 453 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 013 ;
Cross V. DeValle, 1 Cliff. C. C.
282;
Hammekin v. Clayton, 2 Woods
C. C. 336.
Foreigners can hold property in
the territories, and may in-
lierit, in the absence of legisla-
tion upon this subject.
People V. Folsom, 5 Cal. 373.
Chap, I. § 241.] ALIENS AND NATURALIZATION.
2ir
for lie has no inheritable blood ; ^ but a great change
has taken place in recent years, both in England ^ and
See : Beard v. Federy, 70 U. S.
(3 Wall.) 478 ; bk. "iSL. ed.88.
The law existing at the time of
descent cast governs the right
of aliens to inherit realty.
Pilla V. German School Assoc,
23 Fed. Eep. 700 ;
Snlisequent naturalization does not
avail. — Where at the death of
one seized his heirs are aliens,
incapable of taking, the title
vests elsewhere, and is not
transferred to them by their
subsequent naturalization.
Heejiey v. Brooklyn Society, 33
Barb. (N. Y.) 360.
Who are aliens — Indiana doctrine. —
It is said in Indiana that the
term ' ' alien "applies to one not
a citizen of the state.
McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 330.
Same — Texas mle. — A different
rule, however, would seem to
prevail in Texas, for it is said
there, that upon the annexa-
tion of Texas to the Union, a
citizen of another state ceased
to be an alien ; and that a con-
veyance made to him while an
alien then became indefeasible.
Baker v. Westcot, 73 Tex. 123 ;
S.C. 11 8. W. 157.
Foreign bom child of a citizen
of the United States, it seems,
is subject to a double allegi-
ance, but that on reaching
maturity he has the right to
elect one and repudiate the
other, and that such election is
conclusive upon him.
Ludlam v. Ludlam, 20 N. Y. 356.
Thus where a citizen of the
United States, voluntarily, at
the age of eighteen years, went
to Peru, with the intention of
remaining there in trade an in-
definite time, but was not nat-
uralized there ; it was held,
that by the common law, in the
absence of any law of the
United States on the subject,
his child born in Peru, of a wife
a native of that countiy, was
capable of inheriting property
as a citizen of the United
States.
Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N. Y. 356.
A resident alien, widow of a
naturalized cltiaen of South
Carolina, who died intestate,
leaving a brother who was also
a naturalized citizen, is en-
titled to no share of her hus-
band's real estate ; the brother
being the sole distributee.
Keenan v. Keenan, 7 Rich. (S.
C.) L. 345.-
Same^Snbsequent naturalization. —
And that though the widow
subsequently becomes natural-
ized, her naturalization does
not retroact, so as to divestr
the brother, and vest a share
of the land in her.
Keenan v. Keenan, 7 Rich. (S. C.)
L. 345.
Curtesy. — A foreigner, not natural-
ized, cannot hold, by curtesy,
such an interest in land as may
be sold by a,fi. fa.
Copeland v. Sauls, 1 Jones (N.
C.) L. 70.
Alien children and widow — Hold-
ing by devise. — In New York,
aliens, and the children of
aliens, have been said to be
incapable of taking and hold-
ing real estate by devise ; but
a female, married to an alien,
and residing in a foreign coun-
try, is not thereby incapaci-
tated to take an interest in real
estate under a will.
Beck V. McGilHs, 9 Barb. (N. Y.)
35.
' Elmondorff v. Carmichael, 3 Litt.
(Ky.) 472; s.c. 14 Am. Dec.
86;
Monroe v. Merchant, 38 N. Y.
915 *
McCarthy v. Marsh, 5 N. Y. 263,
374;
McGregor v. Comstock, 3 N. Y.
408, 414 ;
Moaers v. Wliite, 6 John. Oh.
(N. Y.) 360, 365 ;
Orser v. Hoag, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 79 ;
People V. ConkUn, 3 Hill (N. Y.)
71;
Redpath v. Rich, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.)
79, 81 ;.
Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch.
(N. Y.) 583 ;
Jackson v. Fitzsimmons, 10
2 The naturalization act of 83 Vict., c. 14, § 3.
218
FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES.
[Book in.
America, in the direction of obliterating all distinction
between citizens and aliens in the ownership of property.
In the various territories ^ and in the District of Columbia,^
foreigners can hold property, and may inherit, in the
absence of legislation upon the subject.^ Where there
aire statutes existing at the time of the descent cast, these
statutes govern the right of aliens to inherit realty.*
Sec. 242. Same— Same— Federal and state statutes. — Con-
gress has exercised the power conferred by the federal
constitution and established a uniform rule of naturaliza-
tion which prevails throughout all the states and terri-
tories, yet each state has the undoubted right to enact
laws regulating the descent of, and successions to, prop-
erty within its limits, and consequently to permit or
prevent aliens from holding or inheriting lands.^ Such
statutes have been passed in Alabama,^ Arkansas,'
Wend. (N. Y.) 9 ; s.c. 24 Am.
Dec. 198 ;
Orr V. Hodgson, 17 V. S. (4
Wheat.) 453 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 613.
Alien bensflciaries of trust. —
V/herever the common-law
doctrine prevails forbidding
aliens from acquiring real
estate for an absolute right,
they can be made beneficiaries
and hold equitable interest in a
trust in their favor ; but this
does not extend to trusts in
personal property.
See : Atkins v. Kron, 5 Ired.
(N. C.) Eq. 207 ;
Leggett V. Dubois, 5 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 114 ; s.c. 28 Am. Dec.
413;
Hubbard v. Goodwin, 8 Leigh
(Va.) 492 ;
Taylor v. Benham, 46 U. S. (5
How.) 233 ; bk. 13 L. ed. 130.
Same — Bequest converted into
money. — Consequently a be-
quest of land to an alien con-
verted into money by sale is
valid, although a demise of the
land is void.
See : De Barante v. Gott, 6 Barb.
(N. Y.) 497 ;
Anstice v. Browne, 6 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 44-8 ;
Craig i;. Leslie, 16 U. S. (3 Wheat.)
563 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 460.
Same — Secret trust voidable. —
Where by the laws of a state
aliens are prohibited from ac-
quiring and holding real prop-
erty, a deed made by A to B
upon a secret trust for C, who
is a foreigner, A having no
knowledge of the trust, is not
void ; the trust only is void.
Hammekin v. Clayton, 2 Woods
C C 336
' People \;. Folsom, 5 Cal. 373.'
See: Beard v. Federy, 70 U. S.
(3 WaU.) 478 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 88.
•^ See : De Geofroy v. Riggs, 138 U.
8. 258 ; bk. 33 L. ed. 642 ; 10
Sup. Ct. Rep. 359 ; 17 Wash. L.
Rep. 438.
" People V. Folsom, 5 Cal. 873.
'' Pilla V. German School Assoc. , 33
Fed. Rep. 700.
' Ethridge iJ.Malempre, 18Ala. 565.
« Ala. Code, 1886, § 1914.
See: Harley v. State, 40 Ala. 689;
Ethridge v. Malempre, 18 Ala.
565;
Cong. Church v. Morris, 8 Ala.
103.
Defaasible estate of an alien. — In
Alabama, under the present
statute, the defeasible estate of
an alien, inlands purchased by
him, is perfected % his becom-
ing a naturalized citizen before
office found.
' Ark. Dig. 1884, § 232, et seq.
Chap. I. § 242.] STATUTES REGULATING DESCENT, ETC. 219
California,^ Colorado,^ Connecticut,^ Florida,* Geor-
gia, ^ Illinois,^ Indiana,'^ Iowa,* Kansas,^ Kentucky,^"
Harley v. State, 40 Ala. 689.
But the statute of AlabaBia, giv-
ing an alien woman the right
to inherit from her uncle, also
an alien, in the same manner as
if he, her mother, and lierself
were citizens, does not give the
capacity of inheritance to other
relatives, who are also aliens.
Congregational Church v. Morris,
8 Ala. 182.
1 Cal. Civ. Code, §§671, 672. Under
this statute property must be
claimed within five years or it
escheats
See : State v. Smith, 70 Cal. 153 ;
s.c. 12 Pac. Eep. 121.
California. Constitution does not
prohibit the Legislature from
conferring upon non-resident
foreigners the same rights witli
respect to the acquisition, pos-
session, enjoyment, transmis-
sion, and inheritance of prop-
erty, as are guaranteed by that
instrument to resident foreign-
ers.
State V. Smith, 70 Cal. 153; s.c.
12 Pac. Rep. 121.
California Constitution, art. 1, §
17, providing that "bona fide
residents of this state shall have
the same rights in respect
to the acquisition, possession,
enjoyment, transmission, and
inheritance of property as na-
tive-born citizens," has been
held not to prevent extending
the right of inheritance to non-
resident aliens.
Re BiUings, 65 Cal. 593 ; s.c. 4
Pac. Rep. 639.
California CivU Code, § 671, for
the succession to property by
foreigners who have never been
residents, provides a rule with
respect to property within the
state, and confers a right to be
enjoyed within its jurisdiction
is constitutional ; and under §
672, property claimed by suc-
cession escheats if the alien does
not appear within the state and
claim it within five years.
State V. Smith, 70 Cal. 153; s.c. 12
Pac. 121.
"Non-resident aliens," as used in
Cal. Civ. Code, § 672, requiring
a claim to property by succes-
sion to be made within five
years, mean those persons who
are neither citizens of the Unit-
ed States nor residents of the
state.
State V. Smith, 70 Cal. 153; s.c. 13
Pac. Rep. 121.
2 Col. Gen. St. 1883, p. 132, § 61.
8 Conn. Gen. St. 1888, § 15.
The IVench citizens — Land for min-
ing purposes. — An exception is
made in favor of French
citizens, who are classed as
resident aliens. Non-resident
aliens are permitted to acquire,
hold, and transmit real estate
used for mining purposes.
*Fla. Dig. 1881, p. 470, §7.
5 Ga. Code, 1882, § 1661.
Alien friends. — It is provided in
this statute that alien friends
"shall have the privilege of
purchasing, holding, and con-
veying real estate."
« Starr & Cur. Ann. St. 1885, p.
264, c. VL.pars. 1 & 2.
' Ind. Rev. St. 1881. § 2967.
See : Murray v. Kelley, 27 Ind.
42.
8 Iowa Rev. Code, 1886, § 1908.
See : Be Gill's Estate, 79 la. 296 ;
s. c. 44 N. W. Rep. 553; 9 L. R.
A. ;
Krogan v. Kinney, 15 Iowa 242.
Non-resident aliens — Iowa doctrine.
— Under the statutes of Iowa,
a non-resident alien can in-
herit real estate only when
devised to him by will, and
provided he will become a resi-
dent of the state subsequent
to the date of such devise.
Krogan v. Kinney, 15 Iowa 242.
A "non-resident alien" wliose
widow under Iowa Code, § 2442,
"shall be entitled to the same
rights in the property of her
husband as a resident, except
as against a purchaser," means
one who resides ' outside the
state.
iJeGiU's Estate, 79 Iowa 296; s.c.
44 N. W. Rep. 553; 9 L. R.
A.
' Kan. Const. 1859, Bill of Rights,
§ 17; Kans. Comp. L. 1885, p.
50, t^ 99.
'« Ky. Gen. St. 1883, p. 191, § 1.
By this statute aUens can inher-
220
STATUTES REGULATING DESCENT, ETC. [BOOK IH.
Maine, ^ Maryland,^ Massachusetts,^ Michigan,* Min-
nesota,^ Mississippi,® Missouri,^ Montana,^ Nebraska,^
it after declaring their inten-
tiQp to become citizens of the
United States.
See: Eustache v. Eodaquest, 11
Bush (Ky.) 42;
White V. White, 3 Met. (Ky.)
185.
Kentucky statutes — Act of 1800.
— An alien, to inherit land
under the act of 1800, must
have had two years' residence
in the state, and have resided
here at the time of decedent's
death.
White V. White, 3 Met. (Ky.)
185.
Same— Act of March 31, 1861, " to
allovf non-resident aliens who
are heirs and devisees to hold
and convey real estate," does
not repeal nor is it in conflict
with Rev. Stat., ch. 15, art. 3,
§ 1, but is merely cumulative.
Nor is that act repealed, either
in terms or effect, by that of
March 9, 1867.
Eustache v. Rodaquest, 11 Bush
(Ky.) 43.'
Where an alien becomes a citizen
of Kentucky and dies intestate
and childless, his sister, an alien
and resident of France, may
take by descent his real estate
under the limitations prescribed
in the act of March 21, 1861,
subject to the widow's right
to a homestead exemption or
dower.
Eustache v. Eodaquest, 11 Bush
(Ky.) 43.
Alienage of wife. — By the law
prior to the adoption of the Re-
vised Statutes, the alienage of
the wife rendered her incapable
of inheriting from her husband,
and also barired her right of
dower.
White V. White, 3 Met. (Ky.)
185.
' Me. Rev. St. 1883, p. 604, § 3.
^Md. Rev. Code, 1878, p. 393,
8 8
3 Mass." Pub. St. 1883, p. 744,
§1-
■•Mich. Const. 1850, art. XVIII., 8
13.
Bights and disabilities of aliens in
MicMgan to acquire and hold
lands in Michigan, under the
ordinance of 1787, the treaty
with Great Britain of 1794, and
the acts of Congress and of
Michigan ; also the doctrine of
escheats, — explained.
Crane v. Reeder, 21 Mich. 24 ; s.c.
4 Am. Rep. 430.
5 Minn. Gen. St. 1878, p. 820,
§41.
" Miss. Rev. Code, 1880, § 1330.
' Mo. Rev. St. 1879, § 325.
See : Harney v. Donohoe, 97
Mo. 141; s.c. 10 S. W. Rep.
191 ;
Burke v. Adams, 80 Mo. 504 ;
State V. Killian, 51 Mo. 80 ;
Greenia v. Greenia, 14 Mo.
536.
The Missouri statutes remove all
disabilities of alienage. An
alien, therefore, may take land
by descent from an ahen.
Burke v. Adams, 80 Mo. 504.
Under Missouri statutes, 1835, p.
66 (Rev. Stat. 1845, p. 113),
where the heirs to real estate
consisted of aliens, one of them
a resident, and the others non-
residents, of the United States,
the resident alien was the sole
heir, and those who were non-
residents took no interest what-
ever.
Harney v. Donohoe, 97 Mo. 141 ;
s. c. 10 S. W. Rep. 191.
Capacity to hold lands. — If a gen-
eral statute of the state allows
an alien to hold lands upon
certain conditions, as that he
shall declare his intention of
becoming a citizen, a petition
to enforce an escheat must show
affirmatively that the condi-
tions did not exist. The pre-
sumption is, that when lie ac-
quired the land, he was quali-
fied to hold it.
State V. Killian, 51 Mo. 80.
* The organic act of Montana Ter-
ritory, of May 36, 1864, does not
sanction the principle of the
common law, which prohibits
aliens from holding real prop-
erty. Aliens who have declar-
ed their intentions to become
citizens can hold lands in the
territory.
Territory v. Lee, 3 Mont. 134.
» Neb. Comp. L. 1885, c. 73, § 54.
Chap. I. § 242.] STATUTES REGULATING DESCENT, ETC. 221
Nevada,! New Hampshire,^ New Jersey,^ New York/
' Nev. L. 1879, p. 51 ; Nev. Gen. St.
1885, § 2655.
Chinese excepted. — An exception
is made in this statute a-gainst
subjects of the Chinese Em-
pire.
See : State v. Preble, 18 Nev.
351 ; s.c. 2Pao. Rep. 754;
Golden Fleece Co. v. Cable Con.
Co., 12 Nev. 312.
Hevada Constitution gives to for-
eigners becoming bona fide
residents the rights of citizens
as to property, etc. Under
this provision a subject of the
Chinese Empire, if a bona fide
resident, may locate and pur-
chase public lands of the
state.
State V. Preble, 18 Nev. 251.
Same — Locating mining claim. —
An alien who has never de-
clared his intention to become
a citizen is not a qualified
locator of mining ground, and
he cannot hold a mining claim,
either by actual possession or
by location, against one who
connects himself with the gov-
ernment title by compliance
with the mining law.
Golden Fleece Co. v. Cable, etc. ,
Co., 12 Nev. 312.
«N. H. Gen. L. 1878, p. 325, §
16.
3 N. J. Rev. 1877, p. 6, § 3.
See : Colgan v. PeUens, 48 N. J.
L. (19 Vr.) 27 : s.c. 2 Atl. Rep.
633 ; 2 Cent. Rep. 254.
< 4 N. Y. Rev. St. (8th ed.) 3420,
2425 ; 1 Rev. St. Codes
6 L. 861; 3 Id. 2516, 2525,
• 3342.
See : HaU v. HaU, 81 N. Y.
130;
Luhrsu. Eimer, 80 N. Y. 171 ;
Goodrich v. Russel, 42 N. Y.
376;
People V. Snyder, 41 N. Y.
397;
Van Cortland v. Laidley, 32 N.
Y S R 585 *
Re Beck's Estate, 31 N. Y. S. R.
965;
Wright V. Saddler, 20 N. Y.
330;
Duke of Cumberland v.- Graves,
7 N. Y. 305 ; s.c. 9 Barb. (N.
Y.) 595 ;
McCarthy v. March, 5 N. Y.
3S3;
Ettenheimer v. Hefferman, 66
Barb. (N. Y.) 374 ;
Heenev v. Brooklyn Society, 33
Barb. (N. Y.) 360 ;
Watson V. Donnelly, 38 Barb.
(N. Y.) 653 ;
Parish v. Ward, 28 Barb. (N. Y.)
328;
Brown v. Sprague, 5 Den. (N. Y.)
545;
Currin v.' Finn, 3 Den. (N. Y.)
229 •
Matter of Leefe, 4 Edw. Ch. (N.
Y.) 395 ;
Halsey v. Beer, 53 Hun (N. Y.)
366 ; s.c. 24 N. Y. S. Rep. 713 ;
5 N. Y. Supp. 334 ;
KuU V. Kuli, 37 Hun (N. Y.)
476;
Dusenberry v. Dawson, 9 Hun
(N. Y.) 511 ;
McCarty v. Terry, 7 Lans. (N. Y.)
233.
Ifew York statute— Act, 1825. —
Subsequently to the statute of
1825, in New York, alienscould
not take land by purchase,
without complying with the
provisions of that act.
CuiTin V. Finn, 3 Den. (N. Y.)
229.
Same — Children of resident alien
—Act, 1845.— By New York
Laws of 1845, c. 115, §g 1, 10,
the children of a resident aUen
inherit his land at his death,
although themselves non-resi-
dent aliens. The title of such of
them as are males of fuU age is
defeasible by the state unless,
before the consummation of
proceedings instituted for that
purpose, they file declai'ations
with the secretary of state of
their intention to become citi-
Goodri'ch v. Russel, 43 N. Y.
376.
Same — Revised Statutes. — Under
the Revised Statutes of New
York an alien can take land by
purcliase, and in case of lands
which under those statutes
would escheat to the state, the
attorney-general alone can take'
advantage of it.
Matter of Leefe, 4 Edw. Ch. (N.
Y.) 395.
Same — Devisee horn after death
of alien. — It is said by the
Supreme Court in the recent
222 STATUTES REGULATING DESCENT, ETC. [Book III.
North Carolina,^ Ohio,^ Oregon,^ Pennsylvania/ Ehode
case of Van Cortland v. Laid- tenev estate were held valid
case of Van Cortland v. Laid-
ley, 32 N. Y. S. R. 585, that
the disability created by 3 N.
Y. Rev. Stat. 57, § 4, providing
that every devise of any inter-
est in realty to one who is an
alien at the time of testator's
death shall be void, and the in-
terest so devised shall pass to
the heirs or residuary estate,
does not apply to alien devisees
born after the death of the tes-
tator ; and such devisees to
whom was devised the remain-
der of lands devised for hf e can
take under such devise and
hold as against the heirs at
law, independent of the provis-
ions of the statute.
Same — An alien womsn, who might
be lawfnlly naturalized under
the existing laws, by inter-
marrying with a naturalized
non-resident citizen of the
United States, acquires a right
to take real estate by de-
Halsey v. Beer, 53 Hun (N. Y.)
366 ; s.c. 34N. Y. S. R. 713 ; 5N.
Y. Supp. 334.
Treaties — With Great Britain, 1783.
— Although, under the 6th
article of the treaty of 1783,
lands held by British subjects
in New York might be trans-
mitted by descent to a citizen,
tliey could not, upon the death
of such British subjects,
previous to the treaty of 1794,
pass by descent to an ahen
born after July 4, 1776.
Brown v. Sprague, 5 Den. (N. Y.)
545.
Same— Treaty of 1794.— A British
subject holding lands within
the United States, and
coming within the provisions
of the ninth article of the
treaty with Great Britain of
1794, authorizing him to ' 'grant,
sell, and devise lands to whom
he pleased, in like manner as if
he had been a native-bom
citizen of the United States,"
had a right to convey and de-
vise lands to aliens as well as
citizens.
Watson V. Donnelly, 38 Barb.
(N. Y.) 653.
The titles derived from convey-
ance by the trustees of the Pul-
teney estate were held valid
under the provisions of this
treaty with Great Britain and
the New York act of 1798, as
to the capacity of British aliens
to hold and convey lands in the
United States.
People V. Snyder, 41 N. Y. 397.
Same— With Prussia, 1844. —Un-
der the treaty of March 38,
1844, article 3, between the
United States and Prussia,
providing that, on the death of
any person holding real prop-
erty in one of such countries, a
subject or citizen of the other
to whom the property would
'descend were he not disquali-
fied by alienage shall be al-
lowed a reasonable time to sell
the same and to withdraw the
proceeds, upon a foreclosure
sale of a decedent's lands from
which a surplus is realized.
Citizens of Germany who are
the heirs and next of kin are
entitled to withdraw their
shares of the surplus within a
reasonable time.
Re Beck's Estate, 31 N. Y. S. R.
965.
Same — With Wurtemberg. — The
treaty between the United
States and Wurtemberg pro-
vides that where the holder of
real property, which but for
alienage would descend to a
citizen of the other country,
dies, such citizen shall have
two years within which to sell
the property and withdraw the
proceeds. Held, that the alien
heir, for two years, has pre-
cisely the righte of a resident
heir.
KuU V. Kull, 37 Hun (N. Y.)
476.
' N. C. Code, 1883, § 7.
" Ohio Rev. St. 1880, § 4173.
« Oreg. Code, 1887, p. 1353, § 2988.
* Bright. Prud. Dig. 1883, p. 84, et
seq.
Alien friends by this statute may
hold real estate not exceeding
five thousand acres in extent.
Alien enemies having declared
their intention to become citi-
zens are allowed to hold lands
not exceeding two hundred
acres in quantity nor two thou-
sand dollars in value.
Chap. I. § 242.] STATUTES REGULATING DESCENT, ETC.
Island,^ South Carolina,^ Tennessee,^ Texas/ Virginia/
West Virginia/ and Wisconsin.'^
' R. I. Pub. St. 1883, p. 442, § 6.
' S. C. Gen. St. iy82. § 1847.
The South Carolina statnts of
1799, authorizing denizens, or
persons who have taken the
oath of allegiance, who are
residents of that state, to hold
real estate, does not render
such persons capable of inherit-
ing real estate. The effect of
that statute seems only to be,
to enable a denizen to hold real
estate during his life, and to
deprive the state of the right
of escheat during that time, but
not to remove the common-law
disability to inherit.
McClenaghan r. McClenaghan, 1
Strob. (S. C.) Eq. 295 ; s.c. 47
Am. Dec. 532.
' Tenn. Code, 1884, § 2804, et seq.
See : Starks v. Traynor, 11
Humph. (Tenn.) 292 ;
Emmett v. Emmett, 14 Lea
(Tenn.) 369.
The Tennessee act of 1809, c. 53,
provides that where any person
shall die intestate and without
issue, his estata shall descend
to the next of kin to the dece-
dent, resident in the United
States, to tne exclusion of
aliens related to the decedent
in a nearer degree. It results
from this statute, that, contrary
to the course of the common
law, the course of descent is
not broken or changed by the
alienage of the ancestor of the
next resident of kin, but that
such next of kin shall inherit
just as if such alien ancestor
had been a resident or natiu-al-
ized citizen, and had died.
Starks v. Traynor, 11 Humph.
(Tenn.) 293.
Dower of wife deserted in foreign
crantry. — In Tennessee the
widow of an alien who deserted
her abroad, and came to Tennes-
see, there acquired land, and
died, was entitled to dower in
such land.
Emmett v. Emmett, 14 Lea
(Tenn.) 369.
«Tex. Rev. St. 1887, art. 1658.
Under this statute property
must be claimed within nine
years.
See : Settegast v. Sohrimpf , 35
Tex. 323 ;
Hanrick v. Patrick, 119 U. S.
156 ; bk. 30 L. ed. 396.
Statutes — Act of Jan. 28, 1840, §
14, regulating descents, and its
re-enactment March 8, 1848
(Pasoh. Dig., art. 44), demon-
strate that the rule of the com-
mon law, which disables an
alien from casting descent on
an alien, has not been in force
in Texas.
Settegast v. Schrimpf, 35 Tex.
323.
Same— Act of 1848.— The defeas-
ible title of a British subject in
Texas, under the act of 1848,
became indefeasible by virtue
of the act of 1854, upon the
passage of the English act of
1870, giving aliens a right to
hold real property in Great
Britain.
Hanrick v. Patrick, 119 U. S.
156 ; s.c. bk. 30 L. ed. 396.
Same — Act of 1854, giving aUens
the same rights as the laws of
their country gave citizens of
the United States, did not re-
peal the act of 1848, giving an
ahen nine years after descent
or devise of land to him in
which to sell it or become a
citizen.
Hamickr. Patrick, 119 U. S. 156 ;
bk. 30 L. ed. 390.
Declaring intsntion to become
citizen — Invests with citizen-
ship.— After a foreigner by
birth has duly declared his in-
tention for the purpose of being
naturalized as a citizen, he is
invested, under the laws of
Texas, with all the rights of
citizenship except the elective
franchise ; and therefore he
could acquire real estate by
purchase, and on his death
could transmit it by descent to
his children.
Settegast v. Schrimpf, 35 Tex.
333
5 Va. Code, 1887, § 43.
See : Foxwell v. Craddock, 1
Patt. & H. (Va.) 250.
« W. Va. Code, 1887, c. 70, §§ 1
and 3.
' Wis. Rev. St. 1878, § 2230.
224
CORPORATIONS AS LAND-HOLDERS. [BOOK III.
Sec. 243. Same— Corporations.— At common law corpo-
rations may hold those freehold estates that have been
transmitted to them by their predecessors for any pur-
poses not inconsistent with those for which the corpora-
tion was created.^ In this country the creation of a cor-
poration gives it, as incident to its existence, without ex-
press grant, the power of buying and selling land ; which
power may be denied or limited either by the charter
creating the corporation, which will affect that corpora-
tion only, or by general law, affecting all corporations ; ^
as in England by the statutes of mortmain, which pro-
vide that if land be conveyed to a corporation without
license, the next lord may enter for a forfeiture. This
power of corporation to receive and hold land is not
restricted to the state in which the corporation is
organized, in the absence of prohibited statutes in the
state in which the right is sought to be exercised.^
The quantity of land that corporations may hold, how-
* See : Lathrop v. Sciota Bank, 8
Dana (Ky.) 119 ;
Binney's Case, 2 Bland (Md.) 142 ;
Overseers of Poor v. Sears, 39
Mass. (22 Pick.) 122 ;
Sutton Parish v. Cole, 20 Mass.
3 Pick.) 282, 239 ;
McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. ,
9 Cow. (N. Y.) 437 ; s.c. 18 Am.
Dec. 516 ;
Reynolds y. Stark Co., 5 Ohio 204,
205;
Banks v. Poitiaux, 3 Rand. (Va.)
136, 141 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 706 ;
Blanchard's Factory v. Warner,
1 Blatchf. C. G. 258 ;
Warden v. Southeastern Ry . Co. ,
21 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 886.
A corporation whose term of exist-
ence is limited to a number of
years may purchase and liold
land in fee-simple,
Rives V. Dudley, 3 Jones (N. C.)
Eq. 126.
In England there are certain re-
strictions in the statutes against
mortmains, which statutes are
thought not to have been adopt-
ed in tliis country, outside of
Pennsylvania.
See : Rathbone v. Tioga Nav. Co. ,
2 Watts & S. (Pa.) 74.
' Bank v. Poitiaux, 3 Rand. (Va.)
136 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 706.
^ Thompson v. Waters, 25 Mich.
214 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 343 ;
State V. Boston, C. & M. R. Co.,
35 Vt. 433.
Tacit adoption of foreign laws. —
It is said by Judge Story in
his work on the Conflict of
Laws, §§ 35 and 37, and his
position is fully approved by
the Supreme "Court of the
United States in Bank of Au-
gusta V. Earle, 38 U. S. (13 Pet.)
519, 589; bk. 10 L. ed. 274^
308, that " In the silence of any
positive rule affirming or deny-
ing, or restraining the operation
of foreign laws, courts of jus-
tice presume the tacit adoption
of them by their own govern-
ment, unless they are repug-
nant to its policy or prejudicial
to its interests. It is not the
comity of the courts, but the
comity of the nation which is
administered and ascertained
in the same way, and guided
by the same reasoning by which
all other principles of munici-
pal law are ascertained and
guided."
See : Merrick v. Van Santvoord,
34 N. Y. 308 ;
Runyan v. Coster's Lessee, 39 U.S.
(14 Pet.) 122 ; bk. 10 L. ed. 383.
The same principle applies be-
tween the states of the Union.
Chap. I. § 244.] DIVISION OF ESTATES.
225
ever, is generally limited by the acts creating them. If
at any time the quantity or value exceeds the amount
limited or specified, the charter may be fortified by the
state alone. ^
Sec. 244. Division of estates.— Estates are divided into —
(1) those of inheritance, and (2) those not of inheritance,^
Those estates which are less than freehold, as a term for
years of land, are called chattel interests or estates.^
Such interests are not equal in the eye of the law to the
lowest estate of freehold, a lease for another's life.*
While the utmost limit to which an estate can extend is
fixed and determined, the interest thereby held in the
land is reduced to a chattel interest merely.^ Freehold
estates of inheritance are again subdivided into (1) inherit-
ances absolute, or fee-simple ; and (2) inheritances limited,
one species of which is called fee-tail.®
Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4
Sand. Ch. (N. Y.) 633, 775.
See : Howell v. Earp, 21 Hun
(N. Y.) 393, 395 ;
Gould V. Caj'uga Co. Nat. Bank,
21 Hun (N. Y.) 293 ; affl'd 86
N. Y. 76 ; s.c. 13 Week. Dig.
244;
Reformed Pres. Church, 7 How.
(N. Y.) Pr. 476 ;
Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 3
Lans. (N. Y.) 390 ;
Union Nat. Bank v. Matthews,
98 U. S. 621 ; bk. 25 L. ed. 188;
Eunyan v. Coster, 39 U. S. (14
Pet.) 128 ; bk. 10 L. ed. 382.
Devise to corporation — Heira and
devisees may question legality.
— While it is the province of
the state to see to the enforce-
ment of the limitations in the
charter as to the real property
that corporations can hold, yet
it has been held that heirs, de-
visees, and next of kin are com-
petent to call in question gifts
of land made to corporations
unable to take and hold such
lands.
State V. Bates, 2 Harr. (Del.) 18 ;
Barton v. King, 41 Miss. 288 ;
Harris v. Slaght, 46 Barb. (N. Y.)
470 ; S.C. 3 Abb. App. Dec. 316;
15
Goddard v. Pomeroy, 36 Barb.
(N. Y.) 546;
Ayers v. The Methodist Episcopal
Church, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 351 ;
Quaker Society v. Dickenson, 1
Dev. (N. C,)L. 189;
Ruth V. Oberbrunner, 40 Wis.
238
' 3 Bl. Com. 104.
'Hullenbeck v. McDonald, 113
Mass. 347, 349;
Ex parte Gray, 5 Mass. 419.
See : Spangler v. Stanler, 1 Md.
Ch. 36;
Chapman v. Gray, 15 Mass. 439,
445.
Brewster v. Hill. 1 N. H. 350;
Priohard v. Priohard, L. R. 11
Eq. 232;
2 Bl. Com. 386 ;
1 Brest. Est. 303;
Shep. Touch. 76.
^ See : Prichard v. Prichard, L. R.
11 Eq. 233;
2 Bl. Com. 386.
5 Spangler v. Stanler, 1 Md. Ch. 36;
Chapman v. Gray, 15 Mass. 439,
445;
Montague v. Smith, 13 Mass.
396;
3 Bl. Com. 386.
« 2 Bl. Com. 104.
CHAPTER II.
ESTATES IN FEE-SIMPLE.
Sec. 245. Definition of fee.
Sec. 246. Definition of fee-simple.
Sec. 247. Quantum of estate in fee-simple.
Sec. 248. Same— Taken by corporation.
Sec. 249. Tenant in fee-simple — Definition.
Sec. 250. "Words of limitation.
Sec. 251. Same — Bastard.
Sho. 252. Same — Informal and implied limitation.
Sec. 253. Same — Statutory words of limitation.
Sec. 254. Same — Executory limitation.
Sec. 255. Same — To corporations — "Successors."
Sec. 250. Same — Restrictions on ecclesiastical corporations.
Sec. 257. Kinds of fees.
Sec. 258. Inferior estates derived out of fee-simple.
Sec. 259. Abeyance of fee.
Sec. 200. Same — Land granted to pious uses.
Sec. 201 . Same — Franchise of corporation.
Sec. 262. Same — Present doctrine as to abeyance of fees.
Section 2i5. Definition of fee.— A fee, in feudal law, was
an allotment of land in consideration of "military service
rendered and to be rendered, and originally meant -^ that
which, is held of some superior on condition of rendering
him services,^ the ultimate property remaining in the
superior ; ^ but this strict original meaning of the word
as a beneficial or usufructuary estate soon passed into its
' It is said in Wendell v. Crandall, 1 the quantum, of estate, that is
N. Y. 491, 495, that the word not its only meaning.
" fee " was originally used in '' Wallace v. Harmstead, 44 Pa. St.
contradistinction to allodium, 499.
and signified that which was ^ Afee is defined by Spelman (Feuds,
held of another, on condition c. I.) as the" right which the
of rendering him service. It is tenant or vassal has to the use
related to the quality, and not of lands while the absolute
the quantity of the estate. And property remained in a supe-
although the word is now rior.
generally employed to express
226
Chap. II. § 246.] DEFINITION OF FEE-SIMPLE.
227
modem signification of an estate of inheritance,^ and as
now used the word signifies an estate or inheritance as
distinguished from a less estate.^ The word ''fee" was
originally used in contradistinction to allodium, relating
to the quality rather than to the quantity of the estate ; ^
but when the feudal law was fully established, and it
was universally acknowledged that all the lands in
England were held mediately or immediately of the
crown, the word feodum, or fee, became generally used
to denote the quantity of estate or interest in the land ; *
and the word is now employed to express the quantum
of estate, although it was not in its original use.^
Sec. 2iG. Definition of fee-simple. — An estate in fee-
simple is a freehold estate of inheritance ^ free of condi-
tions, limitations, or restrictions to particular heirs, but
descendable to the general heirs, both male and female,
whether lineal or collateral. '^ It is called fee-simple or
feodum simplex, because it signifies a lawful and pure
inheritance.* The term " fee " standing alone implies an
» 3 Bl. Com. 106;
ICo. Utt. (19thed.)lb;
3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 514 :
1 Brest. Est. 420.
•Iiittleton says that "Feodum is
the same that inheritance is."
Litt., §1.
Iiord Coie expresslyadmits that tlie
usage here adopted is the more
correct.though he has not chos-
en to adhere to it. " Of fee-sim-
ple it is commonly holden that
there be tliree kinds, viz. fee-
simple absolute, fee-simple con-
ditional!, and fee-simple quali-
fied, or a base fee. But tlie more
genuine and apt division were
to divide fee, that is, inheri-
tance, into three pai'ts, viz.,
simple or absolute, conditional!,
and quaUfled or base." Co.
Litt. lb. On the next page he
says : " And therefore, see-
ing fee-simple is hmreditas
legitima velpura, it plainly con-
firmeth that the division of fee
is by his (Littleton's) authority
rather to be divided as is afore-
said than fee-simple."
« -Wendell v.Crandall,! N.y.491,495.
* It appeai-s from Bracton, that the
word feodum was then ofteu
used in both those senses. Et
sciendum quod feodum est id
quod quis tenet, ex quacun-
que causa, sibi et hseredibus
suis. Item dicitur feodum
aliomodo ejus qui ahum feoff at,
et quod quis tenet ab alio : ut
si sit qui dicat. Talis tenet de
me tot feodo per servitium
miUtare. And it is evidently
for the purpose of denoting the
quantity of interest that the
word feodum is used in plead-
ing an inheritance in the king,
viz. , Rex soisitus f uit in domi-
nico suo ut de feodo; where the
word feodum cannot possibly
import an estate holden, the
king not holding of any supe-
rior lord, but merely denotes an
inheritance.
See: Wright's Ten. 148, 263b.
» Wendell v. Crandall, 1 N. Y. 491,
495;
Taul V. Campbell, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.)
319 ; s.c. 27 Am. Deo. 508.
«Litt. §§5,7.
See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 13b, 14b.
'2B1. Com. 45, 104^106.
' Jackson v. Van Zandt, 12 John.
(N. Y.) 169, 177.
228 ESTATE IN FEE-SIMPLE. [Book III.
estate of inheritance,^ and the suffixing of the words
"simple "or " absolute " adds nothing to the force of the
term;^ the word "simple" is used for the purpose of
showing that it descends to the heirs generally, without
restraint.^ The phrases "fee-simple," and "fee-simple
absolute," are regarded as synonymous terms.* A man
is therefore possessed of an estate in fee-simple where he
has an estate in lands and tenements,^ or hereditaments,
corporeal or incorporeal,^ to all his heirs forever, gener-
ally, absolutely, and simply,^ without limitation or
restriction as to heirs, but leaving the descent of the
property to his own pleasure, or the disposition of the
law.*
Sec. 247 Quantum of estate in fee-simple.— A fee-simple
estate is the highest in quality, the most extensive in
quantum, and the most absolute in respect to the rights
which it confers, of all estates known to the law.* It
confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always
has conferred, the lawful right to exercise Over, upon, and
in respect to the land every act of ownership which can
enter into the imagination, including the right to commit
unlimited waste ; and for all practicable purposes of
ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a
chattel, in nothing except the physical indestructibihty
of its subject.
Sec. 248. Same— Taken by corporation.— That a fee-
simple limited to a corporation was formerly, as regards
' Bl. Com. 106 ; « 2 Bl. Com. 104 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lb. Old. Nat. Brev. 41.
' Clark V. Baker, 14 Cal. 613, 613 ; See : Canfleld v. Ford, 38 Barb.
S.C. 76 Am. Dec. 449, 455 ; (N. Y.) 336.
Jecko V. Taussig, 45 Mo. 169. ' 2 Bl. Com. 104.
2 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lb ; See : Patterson v. MoCousland, 3
1 Prest. Est. 430. Bland. Ch. (Md.) 72 ;
* Clark V. Baker, 14 Cal. 613, 631 ; WendeU v. Crandall, 1 N. Y. 491,
B.C. 76 Am. Dec. 749, 755 ; 495 ;
Jackson v. Van Zandt, 13 John. HoUiday v. Overton, 16 Jur. 846 ;
(N. Y.) 169, 177. s.c. 10 Eng. L. & Eq. 175.
See : Jecko v. Taussig, 45 Mo. 169; « 3 Bl. Com. 104.
Litt. § 1 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) » Van Rensselaer v. Poucher, 5
la. Den. (N. Y.) 35, 40 :
5 Libby v. Clark, 118 U. S. 350, 2 Bl. Com. 105, 106 ;
355 ; bk. 30 L. ed. 133, 134 ; Cal. Civ. Code, § 762 :
Comyn's Dig. tit. " Estates." 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) la, note.
Chap. II. §§ 249, 250.] TENANT IN FEE-SIMPLE. 229
the quantum of the estate, not precisely identical with a
"fee-simple" limited to the grantee and his heirs, ap-
pears from the fact that upon the dissolution of a cor-
poration there was a reverting to the donor, not, as upon
a failure of the heirs, to an individual grantee and
escheat to the lord ; but the donor was deprived of his
reverter by the alienation of the corporation. For this
reason Preston speaks of corporations as having a fee-
simple for the purpose of alienation, but a determinable
fee for the purpose of enjoyment.^ By reason of the
existence of this possibility of reverter, a condition
against alienation annexed to a fee-simple is said to be
good in a limitation to a corporation, though such a
limitation is bad in a limitation to an individual.^
Sec. 249. Tenant in fee-simple— Definition.— A tenant in
fee-simple is one who has lands or tenements to hold to
him and his heirs forever. He is the absolute master of
all houses and other buildings erected on the land, and
also of all timber growing thereon, for trees are con-
sidered as parcel of the inheritance.^ He is also entitled
to all mines of metals and minerals,* and to take up and
dispose of all minerals and fossils which are under the
land.^
Sec. 250. Words of limitation.— At common law, words
of limitation are necessary to create an estate in fee-
simple. The land must be conveyed to the party or
parties and to his or their heirs, whether created by deed
or devise, as will be more fully shown hereafter.® Any
departure from the settled forms of the common law in
creating estates with new qualities of inheritance is
looked upon with disfavor. Thus the limitation of an
estate to one and his heirs "male" or "female," or to
his heirs on the part of his father or of his mother, is
regarded as a fee-simple, the words of limitation to the
' 1 Prest. Abst. 272. ' See : Ante, § 90, etseq.
2 2 Doct. Stu., c. 35 ; ^ See : Post, chapter V., " Creating
Shep. Touch. 130. Fee-simple by Deed," and
2 See : Ante, § 56. chapters VI. and VII., " Creat-
* See -Ante, §90, etseq. Except gold ing Fee-simple by Devise."
and silver in some of the states.
230 IMPLIED LIMITATION. [BOOK III.
particular class of heirs being treated as surplusage.^
In the limitation of fee-simple the word ' ' heirs " always
bears its general meaning, when standing alone and un-
qualified by words to restrict it to heirs of the body. Its
significance is not liable to be restricted to any particular
class of heirs, by reason merely of the , fact that, under
the special circumstances of the case, only a particular
class of heirs is capable of an actual inheritance by
virtue of its use.
Sec. 251. Same— Bastard.— A limitation to a bastard and
his heirs gives a fee-simple, not a modified fee. But
where an estate is given to a bastard either by grant or
devise only the heirs of his body are, under the circum-
stances, capable of inheriting.^ And the same is true
even at common law, of an alien, and a man attainted
of felony ; though at common law they could, have no
heirs. ^
Sec. 252. Same — Inform.al and implied limitation. — It is to
be observed that where a limitation is necessary it is not
always express, but may be implied ; and all limitation
whatsoever is in some cases unnecessary. At common
law informal limitation by words of direct and indirect
reference would suffice. Thus a father might enfeoff
his son, habendum to him and his heirs, and the son
afterwards enfeoff his father " as fully as the father en-
feoffed him.''* In some cases no limitation was re-
quired. Thus, one of several coparceners, or one of •
several joint tenants, seized in fee-simple, might release
to another without words of limitation.^ On a partition
between two coparceners seized in fee-simple, a rent
granted by one to the other for equality of partition,
without words of limitation, was in fee-simple.'^ By a
bargain and sale for valuable consideration, the fee.
' See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 27a ; » 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 3b.
Com. Dig. tit. "Estates," A. 6 ; * 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 9b
Litt. § 31 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) ^ i Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 9b ;
37a; Litt., §304.
1 Prest. Est. 461, 473. « 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 10a:
•- 1 Prest. Abst. 373 ; Prest. Shep. Touch. 101.
3 Prest. Est. 358, 359.
Chap. II. §§ 253, 254, 255.] STATUTORY LIMITATIONS. 231
simple might pass without limitation ; ^ as also by a fine
como ceo, and a fine sur concessit ;^ and by a recovery.^
Sec. 253. Same— Statutory words of limitation.— In many
of the states there are statutes governing conveyances in
which words of limitation are dispensed with, and the
English Conveyancing Act of ISSl* enacts that deeds
shall be sufficient in the limitation on an estate in fee-
simple in the use of the words ' ' fee-simple " without the
word heirs.
Sec. 254. Same— Executory limitation.— It was formerly
thought that a tenant in fee-simple, whose estate is
liable to be defeated by an executory limitation, stood in
equity in no better position, as regards the right to
commit waste, than a tenant for life punishable for
waste. ^ But it has more recently been decided that, in
the absence of express provision, he is practically in the
same position as a tenant for life without impeachment
of waste.^ Such a tenant in fee-simple may be made
punishable for waste by an express provision contained
in the instrument under which his estate arises.'^
Sec. 255. Same— To corporations— " Successors."— In the
lirhitation of fees-simple to corporations, the use of the
word " successor " is necessary by the common law for
the limitation of a fee-simple to a corporation sole, and
without it only the estate passed for life to the existing
incumbent.^ In the case of corporations aggregate, a
distinction exists at common law between corporations of
which not only the head, but also the body, were persons
capable in law, and corporations of which all the mem-
bers, except the head, were dead in law. The former took
a fee-simple, by a mere grant to the corporation under its
corporate name, without the use of the word "suc-
' 10 Vin. Abr. 235, tit. Estate, K. 3, * Robinson v. Litton, 3 Atk. 309 ;
pj 2 Stansfield v. Habergham, 10 Ves.
> 3 Prest.' Est. 51, 53 ; ^ ^ 373 ; s.c 7 Rev Rep. 409
1 Salk. 340 ; Turner v. Wnght, 3 DeG. F. & J.
Shep Touch. 4. 334.
a 1 Co Litt. (19th ed.) 9b ; ' Blake v. Peters, 1 DeG. U. & S.
3 Cruise's Fines & Rec. 15. 345
4 § 5, 8 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 94b,
232 RESTRICTIONS— KINDS OF FEES. [Book III.
cesser," or of any words of express limitation. ^ In the
case of the latter kind of corporations words of succes-
sion were needed in order that they might take a fee-
simple to the same extent as in the case of a corporation
sole. It seems that in the case of all corporations aggre-
gate having a head, whether the body consists of persons
capable in law or dead in law, the grant of an immediate
estate, during a vacancy of the headship, is void ; but
the grant of a remainder is good, provided that the new
head be appointed during the continuance of the par-
ticular estate. 2
Sec. 256. Same— Restrictions on eeclesiastioal corporations.
— The nature of an estate is practically ascertained by
the privileges of ownership and alienation which it con-
fers. At common law these were identical in the case of
individual owners and of lay corporations. The rights
of ecclesiastical corporations, who are only seized in right
of their churches, were less absolute. They could not
levy a fine, or bar their successors by non-claim on a fine
levied by others.^ At common law ecclesiastical corpo-
rations sole could not alienate, except subject to certain
precautionary consents ; alienations by bishops needing
confirmation by the dean and chapter, and alienations by
parsons needing confirmation by the patron and ordinary ;
and being, without such confirmation, good during the
life only of the existing incumbent.*
Sec. 25 T. Kinds of fees.— According to Lord Coke, ^ fees-
simple are of three kinds, to wit : (1) fee-simple absolute ;
(2) fee-simple conditional ; and (3) fee-simple qualified,
or a base fee. The more logical and apt course, it is
thought, is to divide the inheritance into three parts, to
wit : (1) simple or absolute ; (2) conditional ; and (3)
qualified or base. Although it will be found difficult to
classify these estates by any well-marked line of discrim-
ination,^ yet we shall, for the purpose of treatment,
pursue the following classification :
1 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 95b. ■• 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 44a.
2 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 264a. * 1 Inst. lb.
' 1 Cruise's Fines & Reo. 288. ^ Chancellor Kent uses quaUfied
Chap. II. §§ 258, 259.] ABEYANCE OF FEE. 233
1. Determinable fees ;
2. Conditional fees ;
3. Qualified fees ; and
4. Base fees.
Sec. 258. Inferior estates derived out of fee-simple.— All
inferior estates and interests in land are derived out of a
fee-simple. For this reason qualified and particular
estates, or limited interests in land vesting in tlie person
who has the fee-simple of the same land, such particular
estate or limited interest becomes immediately drovv^ned
or merged in it.^ This is on the well-known principle
that omne ma jus continet in se minus, — the greater con-
tains or includes in itself the less.^
Sec. 2.59. Abeyance of fee.— We have already seen ^ that
it is against the policy of the law for the freehold to be
in abeyance. The fee-simple is generally vested in some
person or other, although inferior estates have been
carved out of it.* But the estate may be so situated
that no person is seized of it in fee, as where there is a
tenant of the freehold, and the remainder or reversion
in fee-simple exists for a time without any particular
owner, in which case it is said to be in abeyance, — that is,
in expectancy, remembrance, and contemplation of law.^
Thus if an estate is limited to A for life, with remainder
to the right heirs of B, the fee-simple is said to be in
abeyance during _ the life of B, because of the ancient,
base, and determinable fees Farrington v. Morgan, 20 Wend.
indiscriminately, or "promis- (N. Y.) 207, 208 ;
cuouslv," as he puts it. 4 Kent Williams v. Woodard, 2 Wend.
Com. (13th ed.) 9. (N. Y.) 487, 492 ;
•See: Fost, chapters on "Estates Trutch v. Bunnell, 11 Greg. 58,
for Years "and "Merger." 63; s.c. 56 Am. Eep. 456 ; 4
' Gravel HUl School District v. Old Pac. Eep. 588 ;
Farm School District, 55 Conn. In re Phillips' Estate, 48 Leg. Int.
244 ; s.c. 10 Atl. Rep. 689 ; (Pa.) 282 ; s.c. 28 W. N. C. 229 ;
Chicago K. N. R. Co. v. Ozark State ex rel. Barton County v.
Township, 46 Kansas 415 ; s.c. Kansas City F. S. G. R. Co., 32
26 Pac. Rep. 710. Fed. Eep. 722.
See : State v. Crowell, 9 N. J. « See : Ante, § 238.
L. (4 Halst.) 390, 421 ; * 3 Bl. Com. 107.
Hubbard v. Chenango Bank, 8 « See : Matter of Braye & Carney's
Cow. (N. Y.) 88, 101 ; Peerage, 5 Bing. N. C. 574 ; s.c.
Eeynolds v. Orvis, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 35 Eng. C. L. 402 ; 6 Clark & F.
269 272 ■ '!'5T ; 8 Scott 108 ; 1 West 1 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 342.
234
LAND GIVEN TO PIOUS USES.
[BOOK III.
well-established rule of law that nemo est hseres viventes,
no one is an heir to a living person.^ In such case, how-
ever, the contingent remainder is in abeyance, but the
reversion in fee is not in abeyance ; it simply results to
the grantor until the contingency, or B's death, happens.
Sec. 260. Same— Land granted to pious uses.— At common
law ^ land may be granted to pious uses before there is a
grantee in existence to take it.^ In such a case the fee
is said to be in abeyance until there is some one com-
petent to take it.* Where a grant is made to a church
the fee vests in the pastor and his successors,^ but he
simply holds in right of his parish or church ; and on his
death or resignation. or deprivation, the fee is in abeyance
until his successor is chosen ^ with the custody and right
of possession in the parish or church.'^ The minister is
' See : Slayton v. Blount, 93 Ala.
575 ; s.c. 9 So. Rep. 241 ;
Doe d. Wright v.Gooden, 6 Houst.
(Del.) 397 ;
Sellman v. Sellman, 63 Md. 522 ;
Johnson v. Whiton, 118 Mass.
340, 845 ;
Putnam v. Gleason, 99 Mass. 454,
456;
Rice V. Boston & W. R. Co., 94
Mass. (13 Allen) 141, 144 ;
Houghton V. Kendall, 89 Mass.
(7 Allen) 72, 75 ;
Bartle's Case, 33 N. J. Eq.(6 Stew.)
47 ;
Heath v. Hewitt, 127 N. Y. 166 ;
s.c. 27 N. E. Rep. 959 ; 38 N. Y.
S. R. 687 ; 13 L. R. A. 46 ;
Barnes v. Huson, 60 Barb. (N, Y.)
598;
Sleight V. Read, 9 How. (N. Y.)
Pr. 278, 281 ;
Jackson v. Kniffen, 2 John. (N.
Y.) 31, 36 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 390 ;
Re Miller's Estate, 145 Pa. St. 561 ;
s.c. 22 Atl. Rep. 1044 ; 29 W.
N. C. 69 ; 48 Leg. Int. 525 ;
Lott V. Thompson, 36 S. C. 38 ;
s.c. 15 S. E. Rep. 278 ;
Re Parson's, L. R. 45 Ch. Div. 51 ;
Frogmorton v. Wharrey, 2 W. Bl.
728, 730 ; s.c. 3 Wils. 144.
' The rehgious establishment of
England was adopted by the
colony of Virginia, together
with the common law upon
that subject, as far as it was
applicable to the circumstances
of the colony.
Terrettw. Taylor, 13 U. S. (9 Cr.)
43 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 650.
2 In Rice v. Osgood, 9 Mass. 37,
where the Legislature granted a
township of land, taking secur-
ity from the grantee that he
should assign a certain portion
to the first settled minister in
fee, and a similar portion for
the use of the ministry forever ;
it was held that a minister,
afterwards settled, could not
demand a partition of the pro-
portion so to be assigned, as
a tenant in common with the
other proprietors of the town-
ship.
1 Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 13 U.
S. (9 Cr.) 292 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 375.
^ Brown v. Porter, 10 Mass. 93, 97 ;
Terrett v. Taylor, 13 D". S. (9 Cr.)
43 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 650 ;
Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 13 U.
S. (9 Cr.) 393 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 375.
" Jewett V. Burroughs, 15 Mass. 464 ;
Brown v. Porter, 10 Mass. 93, 97 ;
First Parish in Brunswick v.
Dunning, 7 Mass. 445 ;
Dillingham v. Snow, 5 Mass. 647,
555;
Weston V. Hunt, 3 Mass. 500.
' Cheever v. Pearson, 33 Mass. (16
Pick.) 266, 299 ;
Brunswick v. Dunning, 7 Mass.
445:
Weston V. Hunt, 2 Mass. 500.
Chap. II. §§ 261, 262.] FRANCHISE OF CORPORATION. 235
simply seized during his ministry of a freehold in jura
parochise.i
Sec. 261. Same — Prancliise of corporation. — From the
nature of things, the artificial person called a corporation
must be created before it can be capable of taking any-
thing. When, therefore, a charter is granted and it
brings the corporation into existence without any act of
the natural persons who compose it, and gives such cor-
poration any privileges, franchise, or property, the law
deems the corporation to be first brought into existence
and then clothes it with the granted liberties and prop-
erty. When, on the other hand, the corporation is to' be
brought into existence by some future acts of the cor-
porators, the franchise remains in abeyance until such acts
are done, and when the corporation is brought into life
the franchise is instantaneously attached to it.^
Sec. 262. Same— Present doctrine as to abeyance of fees. —
The doctrine of a fee-simple in abeyance is attended by
serious difficulties, and is not favored by the law, for the
reason that the particular tenant or person in possession
of the freehold is thereby rendered dispunishable, at law,
for waste, because a writ of waste can only be brought,
at common law, by one entitled to the fee-simple. In
the second place, the title, if attacked, could not formerly
be completely defended, if there was no person in being
whom the tenant of the freehold could pray in aid to
support his right. .In the third place, the mere right
itself, if subsisting in a stranger, could not be recovered
in this interval, because, in a writ of right patent, a
tenant for life could not join the issue on the mere right.
In the fourth place, in modern times the courts do not
favor the abeyance of the fee-simple, because it operates
as a restraint on alienation,'* and all general restraints
upon alienation are void.* By the ancient common law
the inheritance of land is not permitted to rest in abey-
' Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U. S. (9 Cr.) 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.) 518, 569 ;
43, 47 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 650. bk. 4 L. ed. 629, 672.
« Dartmouth College v. Woodward, ' See : Ante, § 339.
* See : Post, § 384, et seq.
236
ABEYANCE OF FEES.
[Book III.
ance, except from necessity,^ and never found favor
with the courts of this country, ^ although the maxim
that a fee cannot be in abeyance is not of universal
application.^ By act of law not only the fee but the
freehold itself may be in abeyance.* Thus where a
person dies, is removed, or the like, the freehold of his
glebe is in abeyance until his successor is chosen and
installed.^ At common law an estate of freehold cannot
be made to commence in futuro^ and a deed to take
effect at the grantor's death is void,^ and therefore the
' Donovan v. Pitcher, 53 Ala. 411 ;
S.C. 25 Am. Rep. 634, 635 ;
Bucksport V. Spofford, 12 Maine
(3 Fairfield) 487, 495.
An estate in aljeyance was odions,
because, during its oontiau-
ance " there was not seisin of
the land, nor any tenant to the
prceeipe, nor any one of the
abiUty to protect the inherit-
. ance from wrong, or to answer
for its burdens and services.
On this reasoning a particular
estate for years was not allowed
to support a contingent re-
mainder in fee. The title, if
attacked, could not be com-
pletely defended, because there
•was no one in being whom the
tenant could pray in aid to sup-
port his right ; and, upon a
writ of right patent, the lessee
for life could not join the mise
upon the mere right. The par-
ticular tenant could not be pun-
ishable for waste, for the writ
of waste could only be brought
by him who was entitled to the
inheritance." 4 Kent Com.
(13th ed.) 280.
Same — Eule in Shelley's case pre-
vent34. — One of the reasons sup-
porting the rule in Shelley's
case was the prevention of an
abeyance of the inheritance.
A result of this doctrine was,
that when lands were claimed
by descent the capacity to take
must have existed in the heir
at the instant of the death of
the ancestor. " We have no
doubt," say the Supreme Court
of the United States, " that the
correct doctrine of the English
law is that the right to inherit
depends upon the existing state
of allegiance at the time of the
descent cast."
Dawson v. Godfrey, 8 U. S. (4 Cr.)
321 ; bk. 2 L. ed: 634.
' Fry V. Smith, 2 Dana (Ky.) 38 ;
White V. White, 2 Met. (Ky.) 185 ;
Stevenson v. Dunlap's Heirs, 7 T.
B. Mon. (Ky.) 134 ;
O'Hanlin v. Den ex d. Van
Kleeck, 20 N. J. L. (1 Spen.) 31 ;
Johnson i'. Hart, 3 Jolin. Cas.
(N. Y.) 322 ;
Jackson v. Beach, 1 John. Cas.
(N. Y.) 399 ;
Moares v. White, 6 John. Ch. (N.
Y.) 360, 365 ;
Hinkle's Lessee v. Shadden, 2
Swan(Tenn.)46;
Sands v. Lynham, 27 Gratt. (Va.)
291 ; s.c. 21 Am. Eep. 348 ;
Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's
Lessee, 11 U. S. (7Cr.)603; bk.
3 L. ed. 453 ;
Stokes V. Dawes, 4 Mas. C. C. 268 ;
Collingwood v. Pays, 1 Sid. 193.
' See : Wallach v. Van Riswick, 92
U. S. 202 ; bk. 23 L. ed. 473.
* 3 Bl. Goto. 107.
5 See : Ante, § 360.
'' Brewer v. Baxter, 41 Ga. 313 ;
s.c. 5 Am. Rep. 530 ;
Parker v. Nichols, 34 Mass. (7
Pick.) 115 ;
Welsh V. Foster, 13 Mass. 96 ;
Wallis V. WaUis, 4 Mass. 135;
s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 210 ;
Jackson v. Dunsbagh, 1 John.
Cas. (N. Y.) 91, 95 ;
Singleton v. Bremar, 4 McC. (S.
C.) L. 12 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. 699 ;
3 Bl. Com. 167 ;
3 Wood. Lect. 177.
' Jones V. Jones, 6 Conn. Ill ; s.c.
16 Am. Dec. 35 ;
Singleton v. Bremar, 4 McC. (S.
C.)L. 13 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. 699.
Chap. II. § 262.] FREEHOLD IN FUTURO.
237
first estate cannot be in abeyance by act of the owner ; ^
but this rule is changed by the statute of uses.^ So
that by a deed of bargain and sale, or by covenant to
stand seised, a freehold in ftditro will pass.^ The com-
mon law has neither been abolished nor much qualified
in many of the states.*
' Jackson v. Dunsbagh, 1 John.
Cas. (N. Y.) 91 ;
2 Bl. Com. 165 ;
1 Pi-est. Est. 216.
2 27 Hen. VIII., c. 10.
* See : Barnett v. French, 1 Conn.
354 ; s.c. 6 Am. Deo. 241 ;
Caulk V. Fox, 13 Fla. 150 ;
Wyman v. Brown, 50 Maine 139.
153;
Dennett v. Dennett, 40 N. H. 498,
499, 500 ;
Cook V. Brown, 34 N. H. 477 ;
Bell V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 861 ;
s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ;
Casey v. Buttulph, 12 Barb. (N.
Y.) 637, 638 ;
Jackson v. Swart, 30 John. (N.
Y.) 85 ;
Jackson v. Stautts, 11 John. (N.
Y.) 337 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 376 ;
Roberts v. Roberts, 22 Wend. (N.
Y.) 140 ;
Rogers v. Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 9
Wend. (N. Y.) 611, 641 ;
Jackson v. McKennv, 3 Wend.
(N. Y.) 233 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec.
690;
Wardwell v. Bassett, 8 R. I. 305.
' See : Bell v. Scammon, 15 N. H.
381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706;
Gorham v. Daniels, 33 Vt. 600.
CHAPTER III.
INCIDENTS OP AN ESTATE IN FEE-SIMPLE.
Sec. 263. Introduction.
Sec. 364. Power of alienation.
Sec. 365. Same — Definition.
Sec. 266. Same — Kinds of alienations.
Sec. 367. Same — Same — Voluntary alienatioTis.
Sec. 368. Same — Same — Early history of voluntary alienation.
Sec. 369. Same — Same — Under the feudal system.
Sec. 370. Same — Same — Burgage-tenures.
Sec. 271. Same — Same — Alienation of purchased land.
Sec. 273. Same— ^Same — Gifts in maritagium.
Sec. 373. Same — Subinfeudations — Magna Charta.
Sec. 274. Same — Tenants in capite.
Sec. 275. Same — Alienation in mortmain.
Sec. 276. Same — Statute of Quia Emptores.
Sec. 277. Same — Involuntary alienation-^Definition.
Sec. 378. Same — Same — Restrictions against, upheld wlien.
. Sec. 279. Same — Same — Gifts to charitable uses.
Sec. 280. Same — Modes of alienation.
Sec. 281. Same — Same — 1. Alienation by deed.
Sec. 283. Same — Same — 3. Alienation by matters of record.
Sec. 383. Same — Same — 3. Alienation by devise.
Sec. 384. Same — General restraints of alienation.
Sec. 385. Same — Same — Exceptions to the general rule.
Sec. 386. Same — Same — Fee-farm estates.
Sec. -387. Same — Same — Ground-rent estate.
Sec. 288. Same — Same — Estates in fee-tail.
Sec. 289. Same — Same — Estate for life — English doctrine.
Sec. 290. Same — Same — Same — American doctrine.
Sec. 391. Same — Same — Reason for the American rule.
Section 263. introduction.— The law has annexed to
every estate and interest in lands, tenements, and heredita-
ments, certain peculiar incidents, rights, and privileges,
which in general are so inseparably attached to those
estates, that they cannot be restrained by any proviso or
238
Chap. III. §§ 264, 265.] POWER OF ALIENATION. 239
condition whatever. The incidents annexed to a fee-
simple estate are :
1. The right to alienate ;
2. The right of courtesy ;
3. The right of descent to heirs ;
4. The right to devise the estate ;
6. The right of dower ;
6. The forfeiture of the estate —
a. By treason, and
h. By disclaimer ;
Y. The liability for debts—
a. Trade debts, and
6. Debts due the government.
We will take up these incidents in their order.
Sec. 264. Power of alienation.— Of the several incidents
inseparably connected with an estate in fee-simple, the
first is the power of alienation. Any general restrictions
of this power annexed to the creation of an estate in fee-
simple, either by grant or devise, are void, because
repugnant to the nature of the estate.^ The unlimited
power of alienation comprises in itself all inferior powers.
Hence a tenant in fee-simple may create any inferior
estate or interest out of his own ; and if he does not
alienate his estate during his life, he has the absolute
power of testamentary disposition by a will duly executed
according to the solemnities required by statute.
Sec. 265. Same— Definition of alienation.— An alienation
is a transfer or conveying of anything from one person
to another.^ An alienation of estates is the transfer of
the property and possession of lands, tenements, and
other things, from one person to another,^ and is partic-
ularly applied to absolute conveyances of real property.*
A transfer short of the conveyance of the title is not an
alienation of the estate.^
' Gleason v. Fayerweather, 70 Mass. ' Terms de la Ley, passim.
(4 Gray) 348, 351 ; * Conover v. Mutual Ins. Co., 1 N.
Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 38 Y. 390.
Mass (21 Pick.) 43; s.c. 33Am. « Masters v. Madison Co. Ins. Co.,
Dec. 341 ; H Barb. (N. Y.) 524, 639-630.
1 Co. iiitt. \\9i\\ ed.) 333a. See : Commercial Ins. Co. v.
See : Post, § 384, et seq. Spankneble, 53 111. 53 ; s.c. 4
» 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 118b. Am. Eep. 583 ;
240 KINDS AND HISTORY OF ALIENATIONS. [Book III.
Sec. 266. Same— Kinds of alienations.— Alienations are of
two kinds or classes : (1) voluntary alienations, and (2) in-
voluntary alienations. The first is subdivided into {a)
absolute alienations, where the transfer is without con-
dition or qualification ; and (6) conditional alienations,
in which the transfer of the estate is made to depend or
rest upon some event yet to happen, or upon some act
yet to be done.
Sec. 267. Same— Same— Voluntary alienations.— A volun-
tary alienation is where an estate is voluntarily resigned
by one person and accepted by another person, whether
the transfer be effected by sale, gift, marriage-settle-
ment, devise, or other transmission of property by
mutual consent of the parties. ^ The right to thus alien-
ate land and other property is now regarded as one of
the most valuable parts of the estate,^ for, as Chief
Justice Shaw says in Gleason v. Fayerweather,^ "a
chief ingredient in the legal right of property is a right
to dispose of it, a right to exchange, sell, or give it
away."
Sec. 268. Same— Same— Early history of voluntary aliena-
tion.—It is claimed by the old horn-book authors that an
unlimited power of alienation existed in England in the
time of the Saxons ; * but such was not the case under the
feudal system, which succeeded the overthrow of Saxon
institutions. The early feudal rules regulating the
alienation of estates were unnatural and oppressive.
The restraint on alienation was a striking part of the
feudal polity. By a general ordnance mentioned in the
Book of Fiefs,^ the right hand of any person who know-
ingly wrote a deed of alienation was directed to be struck
off."
Ayrs V. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., Blackstone Bank v. Davis, SS
1 Iowa 176, 180 ; Mass. (21 Pick.) 43 ; s.c. 33 Am.
Smith V. Monmouth Mutual Fire Deo. 341.
Ins. Co., 50 Me. 96 ; ^ 70 Mass. (4 Gray) 348, 351.
Rollins V. Columhian Fire Ins. ■» See : 1 Coke Litt. (19th ed.) 18b,
Co., 26 N. H. (5 Fost.) 204. note a by Thomas ;
> See : Boyd v. Cudderbaok, 31 lU. Wright, Ten. 154.
113, 119 ; ' Lib. 2, tit. 55.
3 Bl. Com. 287. « See : 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.)
* Gleason v Fayerweather, 70 Mass. 506.
(4 Gray) 348, 351 ;
Chap. III. §§ 269, 270, 271.] UNDER FEUDAL SYSTEM. 241
Sec. 269. Same— Same— Under the feudal system.— The
genius of the feudal system ^ was strongly in favor of
restraint upon alienation. ^ A genuine feud was inalien-
able without the lord's consent.^ The tenant had only a
usufructuary interest in the soil, without the power of
alienation in px-ejudice of the lord or his heir. Fealty
and escheat remained in the lord. The latter constituted
a reversionary interest in the soil, upon which rested the
lord's right to object to any alienation of the estate,
which might tend to his prejudice. This severity of the
feudal system was diminished by the enactment of vari-
ous statutes from time to time, till in the reign of
Edward I. the statute of Quia Emptores,^ enabled all per-
sons, except the king's tenants in capite, to alien their
lands.
Sec. 270. Same— same— Burgage-tenures.— It is thought
that alienation arose, or at least first became frequent,
in burgage-tenures,^ where the king, or other person,
was lord of the ancient borough, in which the tenements
were held by a rent certain,^ and was usually of a rural
nature.'' It seems that the holdings in this class of ten-
ures never was very strict. The persons living in that
sort of society were sooner freed from habitual rever-
ence for tenures, and, because of their occupation, stood
in need of more exchangeable property. For these rea-
sons it is thought that alienations might happen there
more early than among other tenants.^
Sec. 2Yl. Same— Same— Alienation of purchased land.—
' Grounded upon the admission of tiones faus det cui magis velit :
the 52d and 58th laws of Wil- fl Bocland autem habeat, quam
liam the Conqueror. ei parentes fui dederint, non
2 This restraint was partly in favor mittat earn extra cognationem
of the superior lord, and fuam. Leg. Hen. I. 70.
partly in favor of the heir ^ gee : 3 Stubbs' Hist. Eng. Const.
and the tenant. Whichsoever 172.
of these considerations imposed ■* 18 Edw. I., c. 1.
the first restriction, it is cer- ' Darl. Fend. Prop. 99.
tain the first relaxation of it "1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 108b, 109a ;
contained a caution that re- Glanv., lib. 7, c. 3 ;
warded the interests of the heir. Litt. , §§ 168, 163.
Sel : 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ' 3 Bl. Com. 83. , ^^. ^ ^ ^ ,„^
g(] ) 43. 8 See : 2 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d
A law of Henry I. says : Aquifl- ed.) 44.
16
242 ALIENATION OF PURCHASED LAND. [Book III.
When alienations had become established in burgage-
tenures, the alienation of purchased lands in many in-
stances, and of lands descended in some, were by degrees
permitted. All these alienations broke in upon the
original notion of tenure and its qualities ; and in the
reign of King John prevailed to such a degree as to
occasion the restrictions imposed by the Great Charter.
In these alienations of land some distinctions were made
between hceritates and qucestus, between land descended
as an inheritance and land acquired by purchase. If it
was an inheritance, the owner of the estate might give
it in niaritagium, in remunerationem fervifui, or to a
religious place in free alms, and the like. But, on the
other hand, if the owner had more sons than one who
were mulieratos, that is, born in wedlock, he could not
give any of the inheritance to the younger son or sons
against the consent of the heir ; for it might then happen,
from the partiality often felt by parents towards their
younger children, that, to enrich them, the oldest would
be stripped of the inheritance.^ It was formerly a ques-
tion whether a person having a lawful heir might give
part of the inheritance to a bastard son, for if he could,
the bastard would be in better condition than a younger
son born in wedlock. If the person who wanted to make
a donation was possessed only of land by purchase, he
might make a gift, but not of all his purchased land ;
for he was not, even in this case, allowed entirely to dis-
inherit his son and heir. Though if he had no heir male
or female of his body, he might give all the purchased
lands forever ; and if he gave seisin thereof in his life-
time, no remote heir could invalidate the gift.^ If a man
had lands both by inheritance and by purchase, then he
might give all his purchased lands to whomsoever he
pleased, and afterwards might dispose of his lands by
inheritance, in a reasonable way, as before stated. If a
person had lands in free socage, and had more sons than
one, who by law should inherit by equal portions, the
• See : 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d purchased, but not, as ia the
ed.) 44. civil lavs^, make such donee his
Thus a man ni some cases might heir ; for Glanville says : Sokis
give away, m his lifetime, all Deus heeradem facere potest,
the land vsrhich he had himself non homo.
Chap. HI. §§ 272, 273.J GIFTS IN MAEITAGIUM. 243
father could not give to one of them, either out of lands
purchased or inherited, more than that reasonable part
which would belong to him by descent of his father's in-
heritance ; but the father might give him his share. ^
Sec. 272. Same— Same— Gifts in maritagium.— According
to Glanville,^ every freeman might give a part of Ms
land with his daughter or any other woman, in marita-
gium, whether he had an heir or not, and whether his
heir agreed to it or not. According to the same author-
ity, a person might give part of his freehold in remuner-
ationem fervi fui, or to a religious place in free alms, so
that should such donation be followed by seisin the land
would remairi in the donee and his heirs forever, if an
estate of that extent had been expressed by the donor ;
but if the gift was not followed by seisin, nothing could
be recovered against the heir without his consent, be-
cause such an incomplete gift was considered by the law
rather as a nuda promisso than a real donation. And
one might, in his lifetime, give a reasonable part of his
land to whomsoever he pleased ; but the same permission
was not granted to any one in extremis, lest men,
wrought up by a sudden impulse, at a time when they
could not be supposed to have full possession of their
reason, should make distributions of their inheritances
highly detrimental to the interest and welfare of tenures.
The presumption, therefore, of law, in a case of such
gifts, was that the party was insane and that the act
was the result of such insanity, and not of cool delibera-
tion. However, even a gift made in ultima voluntata
was good, if assented to and confirmed by the heir.^
Sec. 2Y3. Same— Subinfeudations— Magna Charta.— The
alteration that gradually took place in the original strict-
ness with which the alienation of land had been restricted
finally progressed to the point where, if the tenure was
of a common person, he might in many cases make a
feoffment of a part thereof. Such a feoffment seemed
i 1 Eeeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.) ' Glanv. lib. 7, c. 1 ;
104 105. 4 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.)
2 Glanv. Ub. 7, c. 1. 104.
244 TENANTS IN CAPITE. [BOOK IH.
in no way prejudicial to the lord, who still saw land in
possession of a person who was his homager ; but when
the tenure was reserved to the feoffor, the homage, as
far as regarded that portion of the land, passed from the
lord to the feoffor.^ These subinfeudations were very
prejudicial to the objects of the feudal institutions, be-
cause they stript the mesne lord of his ability to perform
his services, and for this reason it was provided in Magna
Charta,^ "that in the future no freeman should give
or sell any more of his land, than so as what remained
might be sufficient to answer the service he owed to the
lord of the fee."^
Sec. 274. Same— Tenants in eapite.— In what manner the
prohibition of Magna Charta effected tenants in eapite *
we are left somewhat in doubt ; some contending that
such tenants were never allowed to alien without a license
from the king and paying a fine ; some, that after the
Great Charta land so aliened without license was forfeited
to the king. Others, again, hold that the land in such
case was not forfeited, but .was feoffed in the name of a
distress, and a fine was thereupon paid for the trespass.
This question remained undetermined for the space of a
hundred years, when it was settled by a statute of
Edward III.,^ which declares that the king should not
hold such land as forfeit, but that a reasonable fine
should be paid in chancery.^ The statute De Prceroga-
tiva Regis,'' passed in the reign of Edward II., declared, in
' confirmation of Magna Charta, that no one who held of the
king in eapite by knight's service might alien more of
his land that the residue should be sufficient to answer
1 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) culled caput regni ; the second
, ,, ^^^' ^, . „„ ^^°^ **i6 iord, called caput
' Magna Charta, c. 33. feudi. A holding of an honor
3 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) in the king's lands, but not im-
i T. P-J- „ . . ■ . mediately of him, was yet a
* Defimtion of tenant in eapite — holding in eapite. This class
Blackstone says (2 Bl. Com. 60) of tenure was abolished by the
that a tenant in eapite was one statute of 13 Car. H., c. 34.
who held directly of the crown, '^ Stats. 1 Edw. III., c. 13.'
whether by knight's service or ' 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed )
socage. But tenure in eapite 340.
was of two kinds, general and ' Stat. 17 Edw. II,, 1.
special. The first from theking,
Chap. III. §§ 275, 276.] ALIENATION IN MORTMAIN.
245
his service, unless he had the king's Hcense for so doing. ^
But notwithstanding the sort of liberty there admitted to
he in tenants in capite, these land-holders could never
safely alien without the king's license. And if they did,
the land used to be seized in the king's hand as forfeit,
according to the rigor of the old law between lord and
vassal.^
Sec. 275. Same — Alienation in mortmain.— Another
means by which the end of tenure was defeated in Eng-
land was alienations in mortmain ; for in consequence
of these, the military service decayed and lords lost the
fruits of tenure. Lands given to religious houses con-
tinued in an unchangeable perpetuity without descent to
an heir, and therefore never produced casualties of ward-
ships, escheats, and the like. To put a stop to these gifts
the English statute of mortmain was passed. The
statute was never in force in the English colonies in
America, and that statute, for that reason, never
was a part of the common law of this country.^
Sec. 2Y6. Same— statute of Quia Emptores.— The restraints
imposed on alienation of land by Magna Charta being not
only violated but generally ignored, the statute of Quia
Emptores * was passed to remedy the evil by confirming
to the, people a privilege that had already been assumed.^
' See : 2 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2(1
ed.) 307.
« 2 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.)
371.
' See : Perin v. Carey, 65 U. S. (24
How.) 465 ; bk. 16 L. ed. 701.
<18Edw. I., c. Ix.
' Quia Emptores never in force in Am-
erica— New York Cases. — It is
doubtful whether the statute of
Quia Emptores was ever in force
in this country. It is said in
De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y.
467, 495 ; s.o. 57 Am. Dec. 470,
476, that it was never in force
in the state of New York. In
this case Chief Justice RUG-
GLES says : "In Jackson v.
Schutz, 18 John. (N. Y.) 174 ;
s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 195, the late
Mr. Emott, in his argument in
favor of the validity of the tenth
sales, insisted that the 'statute
of Quia Emptores was never in
force in this state, and Chief
Justice SPENCfBR said that it
was never supposed that it ex-
isted here."
Same — Michigan Cases. — In the case
of Mandlebaum v. McDonell,
29 Mich. 78 ; s.c. 18 Am.
Rep. 61, 73, the court say :
" Whether the statute Quia
Emptores ever became effectual
in any of the United States by
express or implied adoption, or
as a part of common law, we
need not inquire, since it is clear
enough that no such statute
was ever needed in this state,
if in any of the Western states,
as no such right of escheat or
possibility of reverter ever ex-
isted here in the party having
246 INVOLUNTARY ALIENATION. [BOOK III.
By this statute every freeholder was at liberty to alien
all his land, provided he made a reservation of services,
not to himself, but to the chief lord, so that the practice
of creating new seigniories soon ceased, and every tend-
ency in the kingdom was ever after to continue a part of
the same fee or manor to which it then belonged. ^
Sec. 277. Same— involuntary alienation— Definition.— An
involuntary alienation may be said to be any disposition
made of property by the process of law, such as a sale
on judgment and execution ; ^ or a taking by condem-
nation proceedings under the power of eminent domain.^
Property cannot be granted or devised so that the grantee
or devisee can hold it free from involuntary alienation,
giving at once the benefit of the full possession and en-
joyment of the estate and protecting it from the claim
of creditors ; such a restriction or condition would not
only be repugnant to the estate granted or bequeathed,
but contrary to the policy of the law ; * for it is a set-
tled rule of law that the beneficial interest of the cestui
que trust, whatever it may be, is liable for the payment
of his debts. It cannot be so fenced about by inhibitions
and restrictions as to secure to it the inconsistent char-
acteristics of right and enjoyment to the beneficiary and
freedom and immunity from his creditors. But a condi-
tion precedent, that the provision shall not vest until the
donee's debts are paid, and a condition subsequent, that
it shall be divested and forfeited by his insolvency, with
a limitation over to another person, are valid. Any other
protection than this against the claims of creditors, how-
ever, will not be allowed.^ This rule does not prevent
the estate, but the escheat could ■* Blackstone Bank t. Davis, 38 Mass.
only accrue to the sovereignty (31 Pick.) 42 ; e.g. 33 Am. Deo.
of the state. And, therefore, the 241;
question of the right to impose Bramhall v. Ferris, 14 N. Y. 41 ;
such conditions or restrictions s.c. 67 Am. Dec. 113, 115 ;
stands here upon common-law Hallett v. Thompson, 5 Paige Ch.
reasons as it stood in England (N. Y ) 583 ;
since the statute in question." Pace v. Pace, 73 N. C. 119 ;
■ See : 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d Graves v. Dolphin, 1 Sim. 66 ;
ed.) 383. Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Vesey
' See : Post, chapter on " Execu- 439.
tions." » Niohol v. Levy, 73 N. S. (5 WaU.)
» See : Ante, % 333 ; Post, chapter 433, 441 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 596.
on " Eminent Domain."
Chap. IH. §§ 278, 279.] RESTRICTIONS UPON ALIENATION. 2-iT
a person from transferring his property so as to give the
benefit of it to a particular person, and at the same time
securing the corpus against the donee's creditors as well
as his own act.^ The right in the grantor to exempt
the interest of a beneficiary from the effects of involun-
tary alienation rests upon principles peculiar to the law
governing the administration of trusts.
Sec. 27S. Same— Same— Sestrictions against, upheld when.
— Without at this time entering into a discussion of the
principles involved, it may be laid down as a general rule
that wherever the interest of a beneficiary is so connected
with the interests of other beneficiaries in the same trust
that a sale of it would impair those other interests, or
estates, a restriction against any form of alienation will be
sustained ; ^ but where the interest of the beneficiary can
be separated without prejudice to the remaining interests,
a court of equity will enforce the claims of creditors
against the estate of the debtor, because it is against the
policy of the law that it should be enjoyed, and credit re-
ceived on the strength of its possession, exempt from the
claims of creditors.^
Sec. 279. Same — Same — Gifts to charitable uses.— We
have already seen that the general rules against restraints
do not apply to estates granted or devised to char-
itable uses ; and neither does the rule against involun-
tary alienation. Thus where land was given in trust to
a church for religious purposes, with a restriction to the
effect that it should not be sold or encumbered, and it was
levied upon and sold under process of law to satisfy an
obligation of the society, the court held that the sale
tended to defeat or impair the trust, and that a bill would
lie to set the sale aside.*
' See : Post, chapter on " Trust Es- Scott «. Gibbons, 5 Munf. (Va.)86.
tates." ^ Rugely v. Robinson, 10 Ala. 703 ;
> HUl V. McRae, 27 Ala. 175 ; NlokeU v. Handley, 10 Gratt. (Va.)
Johnston v. Zane's Trustees, 11 336;
Gratt. (Va.) 552 ; Roanes v. Archer, 4 Leigh (Va.)
Perkins v. Dickinson, 3 Gratt. 550 ;
(Va.) 335; Page v. Way, 3 Beav. 20 ;
Markham v. Guerrant, 4 Leigh Rippon v. Norton, 2 Beav. 63.
(Va.) 279 ; * Grissom v. HUl, 17 Ark. 483.
248 MODES OF ALIENATION. [BOOK III.
Sec. 280. Same— Modes of alienation. — Blackstone de-
scribes four modes of alienation or transfer of title to
real estate, which he calls common assurances. The first
of which is by matter in pais, or deed ; the second by mat-
ter of record, or an assurance transacted only in the
king's public courts of record ; the third by special cus-
tom ; and the fourth by devise in a last will or testa-
ment.^
Sec. 281. Same— Same — 1. Alienation by deed. —Aliena-
tions by deed may be by conveyances at common law,
which are either original or primary, being those by
means of which the benefit or estate is created or first
arises ; or they are derivative or secondary conveyances,
being those by which the benefit or estate originally
created is enlarged, restrained, transferred, or extin-
guished.^
Sec. 282. Same— Same— 2. Alienation by matters of record.
— Alienation by matters of record may be either by the
private acts of the Legislature, by grants, as government
patents of land ; by fines, ^ or by common recovery.*
Sec. 283. Same — Same — 3. Alienation by devise.— The
third method of alienating lands is by devise. This
method of alienation is fully discussed elsewhere and
need not be specifically treated at this place. ^
Sec. 284. Same — General restraint of alienation. — Re-
straints on the alienation of property are of two classes :
(1) general restraints, and (2) special restraints, and
are directed against the voluntary alienation and enjoy-
ment of estates,^ or against other involuntary disposition
by process of law. By general restraint is to be under-
stood such a restraint as proves co-extensive with the
duration and enjoyment of the estate granted, or an ap-
proximation thereto. Such a restraint, when attached to
' 3 Bl. Com., c. 20. •> See : Post, § 533, et sea.
' 3 Bl. Com., c. 20. ^ gpg : Post, chapters vl & VII.
See : Post, chapters on "Deed." ^ See : Ante, §S 368, 369.
" See : Post, % 533.
Chap. III. § 284.] GENERAL RESTRAINT ON ALIENATION. 249
a grant or a devise in fee-simple, is absolutely void,^ and
has been ever since the statute of Quia Emptores, passed
in 1290, otherwise known as the statute of Westminster
11.^ And a condition requiring that the grantee or
' Norris v. Hensley, 27 Gal. 439 ;
McCleary v. Ellis, 54 Iowa 311 ;
s.c. 37 Am. Rep. 205 ; 20 Am.
L. Reg. 180 ; 6 N. W. Rep. 571 ;
Smith V. Clark. 10 Md. 186 ;
Lane v. Lane, 90 Mass. (8 Allen)
350;
Gleason v. Fayerweather, 70
Mass. (4 Gray) 348, 351 ;
Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 38
Mass. (31 Pick.) 42; s.c. 32 Am.
Dec. 241 ;
HaU V. Tufts, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.)
455;
Hawley v. Inhabitants of North-
ampton, 8 Mass. 1, 37; s.c. 5
Am. Dec. 66 ;
Mandlehaum v. MoDonell, 29
Mich. 78 ; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 61,
75;
McDowell V. Brown, 21 Mo. 57 ;
Van Rensselaer v. Dennison, 35
N. Y. 393, 399 ;
Oxley V. Lane, 35 N. Y. 340, 346 ;
Lovett V. GiUender, 35 N. Y. 617 ;
De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y.
467; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470;
Sohermerhorn v. Negus, 1 Den.
(N. Y.) 448 :
Dick V. Pitchford, 1 Dev. & Bat.
(N. C.)Eq. 480;
Anderson v. Cary, 36 Ohio St.
506 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 602 ;
Yard's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 95 ;
Doebler's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 9 ;
Brothers v. McCurdy, 36 Pa. St.
407 ; s.c. 78 Am. Dec. 388 ;
Walker v. Vincent, 19 Pa. St.
369;
Rueifsnyder v. Hunter, 16 Pa. St.
41;
McCuUough V. GOmore, 11 Pa.
St. 370 ;
McWiUiams v. Nisly, 3 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 507 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec.
654;
Taylor v. Mason, 22 U. S. (9
Wheat.) 335 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 101 ;
Ware v. Caim, 10 Barn. & C. 433 ;
s.c. 21 Eng. C. L. 187 ;
Greated v. Created, 26 Beav. 621 ;
Attwater v. Attwater, 18 Beav.
830 ; s.c. 18 Jur. 5 ; 8 L. J. Ch.
. 692;
Rochford v. Hackman, 9 Hare
475;
Stukeley v. Butler, Hob. 170 ;
Jones' Will, 23 L. T. N. S. 211 ;
Winbish v. Willoughby, 1 Plow.
77;
Newton v. Reid, 4 Sim. 141 ;
Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429 ;
Bradley v. Peixoto, 3 Ves. Jr.
324; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 7;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 131 ;
1 Shep. Touch. 129, 131.
See : Re Dugdale, 33 Ch. Div.
176 ; s.c. 57 L. J. Ch. 634 ;
Corbett v. Corbett, 14 P. D. 7 ;
s.c. 57 L. J. P. 97.
This is a principle older than the
common law of England. — It is
said in Grotius, b. 1, c. 6, § 1,
that " since the establishment
of property, men who are mas-
ters of their own goods have by
the law of nature the power of
disposing of or of transferring
all or any part of their effects
to other persons : for this is the
very nature of property ; I
mean of full and complete prop-
erty."
See : De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N.
Y. 467, 495 ; s.c. 57 Am. Deo.
470, 476.
Same — Littleton says : " If a feoff-
ment be made on this condition
that the feoffee shall not alien
his land to any, this condition
is void ; because when a man is
enfeoffed of lands or tene-
ments he hath the power to
alien them to any person by
law. For if such a condition
should be good, then the con-
dition should oust him of all
the power which the law gives
him which should be against
reason, and therefore such a
condition is void." Litt. 360.
Lord Coke adds that " the like
law is of a devise in fee upon a
condition that the devisee shall
not alien, the condition is void,
and so it is of a grant, release,
confirmation, or any other con-
veyance whereby the fee doth
pass." 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.)
223a.
■ Stats. 18 Edw. I., c. 1.
250 EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE. [BOOK III.
devisee, on alienating, shall pay a stipulated sum or part
of the price received to the grantor or devisor is void,
because it operates as a restraint upon alienation ; ^
such restrictions being in the nature of the ancient fines
upon alienation, incident to military tenures, clog trans-
mission of property from hand to hand as heavily as those
ancient burdens long ago abolished.^
Sec. 285. Same— Same— Exceptions to the general rule.—
There are some exceptions to this general rule. Thus a
condition in a lease of land in fee reserving the rent,
with right of re-entry for non-payment, is valid, ^ so also
is a provision in restraint of alienation in a devise to
charitable uses,* as is a condition or covenant in a lease
for use not to assign or alienate without license.
Sec. 286. Same— Same— Fee-farm estates.— The term fee-
simple originally indicated the duration of an estate
without reference to the tenure by which it was held ;
but after the statute Quia Emptores the term came to
represent an estate to a man and his heirs, exempt from
all tenure. In all those states where the statute Quia
Emptores, or a similar one, is not in force, an estate in
fee-simple held upon an annual return of rent may be
created. Such estates were frequent in New York until
' De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. we must confirm a condition to
467, 495; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470, pay any amount. It would be
476; a bold assertion to say that the
King V. Burchall, Amb. 379. adoption of such a principle
Restraint on alienation ty requir- would not operate as a fatal
ing money to be paid for privi- restraint upon alienation. That
lege.— It is said in De Peyster ■«. which cannot be done by a
Michael, supra, that "if the direct prohibition cannot be
continuance of the estate can done indirectly. The enforce-
be made to depend on the pay- ment of the restraint upon
ment of a tenth, or a sixth, or ahenation, by requiring money
a fourth part of the value of to be paid for the privilege, and
the land at every sale, it may by a forfeiture in case of non-
be made to depend on the pay- payment, separates the inci-
ment of nine-tenths or the dent of free alienation from the
whole of the sale money. estate as fully and as effectively
It is impossible on any known as a direct prohibition."
principle to say that a con- ^ De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. 467,
dition to pay the half or any 495; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470, 476 ;
the sale money is valid, and a Livingston v. Stickles, 7 Hill (N.
condition to pay the half or any Y.) 253, 257.
other proportion would be void. ^ See : Pofit, chapter on "Estates
If we confirm the validity of from Year to Year."
the condition to pay a quarter, ^ See : Ante, § 279.
Chap. III. § 287.] FEE-FARM AND GROUND-RENT ESTATE. 251
the adoption of the constitution of 1846. Where the
estate is held in perpetuity by a tenant and his heirs by a
yearly rental, it is known as a fee-farm estate ; ^ and a
general restraint against the ahenation or enjoyment of
a fee-farm estate is void for the same reason as in the
case of any other fee-simple estates.^ The right of the
grantor to an annual rent in fee-farm estate is not such
an interest in the land as will sustain the imposition of
restraints against its alienation and enjoyment. The
right to the rent, or of entry for non-payment of rent,
does not amount to an estate in reversion, or an actual
estate of any kind.^
Sec. 28T. Same— Same— Ground-rent estate.— Where an
annual rent is reserved to himself and his heirs by the
grantor out of the amount conveyed as consideration or a
part of the consideration of a conveyance of land in fee-
simple, such reservation is known as a ground-rent.
Where an estate is held in perpetuity by a tenant and his
heirs on such condition, any restraint on alienation is
invalid, the same as in the case of a similar condition in
ordinary grants of a fee-simple estate, or of a fee-farm
estate ; * but a condition for the payment of such rent,
with a right of entry and re-entry for non-payment of
rent, is not a restraint upon alienation or enjoyment of the
estate, and is valid because in no way repugnant to the
estate granted.^ Such a conveyance reserving rent oper-
' See • 3 Bl. Com. 63. Van Rensselaer v. Ball, 19 N. Y.
« De Peyste'r v. Michael,6 N. Y. 467, 100;
495; s. c. 57 Am. Deo. 470. 476. Shonk v. Brown, 61 Pa. St. 320 ;
3 De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. Irwin v. Bank of United States, 1
467, 495; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470, Pa. St. 349;
J76. Eoab V. Beaver, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.)
Tajn'v. Beal, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 405 ; 136; . ^ . , , ,„ ,,
4 Kent Com. (13tli ed.) 353. Franciscus v. Reigart, 4 Watts
" See : De Peyster v. Michael, 6 (Pa.) 98;
N. Y. 467 ; 57 Am. Dec. 470. IngersoU v. Sergeant, 1 Whart.
^ De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. (Pa.) 337; ^ ^r v
497- s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470. Nixon v. Rose, 13 Gratt. (Va.)
See • Weeks v. Sego, 9 Ga. 199; 435;
Perkins v. Hays, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) Radford v. Carwile, 13 W. Va.
Am- 573;
Mebane v. Mebane, 4 Ired. (N. C.) Pybus y. Smith, 3 Bro C C. 340;
Eq. 131, 133; s.c. 44 Am. Dec. Baggett .^^Meux^l Coll.^138; s.c.
Dick 'v Pitchford, 1 Dev. & Bat. Robinson v. Wheelright, 6 DeG.
(N. C.) 484; M. & G. 535 ;
252.
ESTATES IN FEE-TAIL.
[Book III.
ates as an assignment of the estate without an estate in
reversion,^ or possibiUty of return in the grantor,^ and
the claim of possession under a conveyance of the kind is
tantamount to a claim of title in fee.^
Sec. 288. Same— Same— Estates in fee-tail.— When an in-
heritable estate, which shall descend to certain classes of
heirs, is created,* which is known as an estate in fee-tail,^
the general rule against restraints applies, for the reason
that such restraint is repugnant to the estate granted or
devised,^ even though the grantor has a reversion in fee-
simple expectant upon the estate-tail, a continuing estate
in the soil, upon which the right to fetter and restrain
the alienation of real estate has been rested by some.^
Thus it has been held that a condition attached to such
an estate, stipulating that the tenant in tail shall not
Barton v. Briscoe, Jac. 605;
TuUett V. Armstrong, 4 Jur. 34 ;
Jackson v. Hobhouse, 3 Meriv.
483;
Woodmeston v. Walker, 2 Euss.
& M. 205 ;
Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429.
' Van Rensselaer v. Hayes, 19 N. Y.
68.
= De Peysteru. Michael, 6 N. Y. 467,
495; s.c. 57 Am. Deo. 470, 476.
See : Tyler v. Heidorn, 46 Barb.
(N. Y.) 439 ;
Lyonu. Adde, 63 Barb. (N. Y.)89,
96;
Van Rensselaer v. Dennison, 35 N.
Y. 393, 399.
« De Peyster v. Michael, 6N. Y. 497;
s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470 ;
Bedell v. Shaw, 59 N. Y. 51.
* This class of estate exists by virtue
of statute De Souis, West-
minster II., c. 1.
See : Wight v. Thayer, 67 Mass.
(Gray) 284, 286;
Hall V. Thayer, 71 Mass. (5 Gray)
523*
MasUn v. Thomas, 8 GUI. (Md.)
18;
Jewell V. Warner, 35 N. H. 176;
Ransley v. Stott, 26 Pa. St. 126.
' The expression /reetaZZ or feodum
talliatiim was borrowed from
the feudists, among whom it
signified any mutilated or
truncated inheritance, from
which the heirs general are cut
off.
See : Craig, 1. 1, tit. 10, §§24, 25.
The word is derived from the
verb taliare, which meant to
cut; and from which the French
tailler and the Italian tagliare
are derived.
See : 2 Bl. Com. 112, note;
Spelm. Gloss. 531.
" McClearyi;. Ellis, 54 Iowa 311; s.c.
37 Am. Rep. 205; 30 Am. L.
Reg. 180; 6 N. W. Rep. 571;
Halley v. Northampton, 8 Mass.
37;
Mandlebaum v. McDonell, 29
Mich. 78; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 61;
Yard's Appeal, 64 Pa. St. 95;
Bradley v. Peixoto, 3 Ves. 324;
s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 7.
See : Re Dugdale, 38 Ch. D. 176 ;
S.0.57 L. J. Ch. 634;
Corbett v. Corbett, 14 P. D. 7 ;
s.c. 57 L. J. P. 97.
The great ohjection to such a con-
dition is the fact that it would
create a perpetuity.
See : Halley v. Northampton, 8
Mass. 37 ;
Mandlebaum v. McDonell, 39
Mich. 78; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 61;
Eingu. Burchell, 1 Amb. 379; s.c.
1 Eden 424.
' See : De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N.
Y. 467, 495; s.c. 57 Am. Dec.
470.
Chap. III. §§ 289, 290.] ESTATES FOR LIFE. 253
make a lease for his own life, is repugnant to the nature
of the estate.^
Sec. 289. Same— Same— Estate for life— English doctrine.—
In England, it is well settled that the grant or devise of
an estate for life, or an equitable interest for the life of
any person, other than a married woman, ^ carries with
it as a necessary incident the right of alienation by the
cestui que trust. This doctrine was first announced by
Lord Eldon in Brandon v. Eobinson,^ and has been since
followed by Vice-Chancellor Turner * and other eminent
English jurists.^ The English doctrine has been followed
in Alabama,® Georgia,'' Missouri,^ New York,^ North
Carolina,-"' Ehode Island, ^^ South Carolina,^ in one of the
United States District Courts ^^ and in a case in the
United States Supreme Court. ^*
Sec. 290. Same— Same— Same— American doctrine.- While
in this country the decisions are conflicting, the better
opinion, as well as the weight of judicial decision, is
thought to be to the effect that the power of alienation is
not a necessary incident of a life estate, or an equitable
estate for life.^^ In the case of Nichols v. Eaton, i"
1 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 323b ; » Bramhall v. Ferris, 14 N. Y. 41,
Roll. Abr. 418, cond. 44 ;
2 Barton v. Briscoe, Jac. 603. Hallett ik Thompson, 5 Paige Ch.
See : Mollvaine v. Smith, 42 Mo. (N. Y.) 583, 585.
45; S.O. 97 Am. Dec. 295. " Pace v. Pace, 73 N. C. 119 ;
' 18 Ves. 429 ; s.c. 1 Rose 197. Dick v. Pitchford, 1 Dev. & B. (N.
■> See : Rochford v. Hackin, 9 C.) Eq. 480 ;
Hare 480. Mebane v. Mebane, 4 Ired. (N. C.)
5 See : Trappes v. Meredith, L. R. Eq. 31 ; s.c. 44 Am. Dec. 102.
9 Eq. 329 ; " Tillinghast v. Bradford, 5 R. I.
Rippon V. Noi-ton, 2 Beav. 63 ; 305.
Younghusband v. Gisbome, 1 " Heath v. Bishop, 4 Rich. (S. C.)
Coll. C. C. 400 ; Eq. 46 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 654.
Snowdon v. Dales, 6 Sim. 534 ; '^ Sanford v. Lackland, 3 Dill. O. C.
Lear v. Leggett, 2 Sim. 479 ; 6.
Graves v. Dolphin, 1 Sim. 66 ; " Nichol v. Levy, 72 U. S. (5 Wall.)
Piercy v. Roberts. 1 My). & K. 4 ; 433, 441 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 596, 599.
Green v. Spicer, 1 Russ. & Myl. '^ Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 735,
395;
737 ; bk. 33 L. ed. 354, 357.
Shee V. Hale, 18 Ves. 404 ; s.c. 9 See : Sparahawk v. Cloon, 135
Rev Rep. 198. Mass. 263, 266 ;
« Smith v Moore, 37 Ala. 327 ; Braman v. Stiles, 19 Mass. (3
Rugely V. Robinson, 10 Ala. 702. Pick.) 460, 464 ; s.c. 18 Am.
' Bailie w. McWhorter, 56 Ga. 183. Dec. 445; „ „^^ ^ ^
s.McIlvaine v. Smith, 43 Mo. 45 ; Arnwme v. Carroll, 8 N. J. Eq.
s.c. 97 Am. Dec. 395. (4 Halst.) 630, 634 ;
'8 91 U. S. 716 ; bk. 33 L. ed. 354.
254
AMERICAN RULE.
[Book III.
Justice Miller, in commenting on Brandon v. Eobinson,^
says : "We do not see, as implied in the remark of
Lord Eldon, that the power of alienation is a necessary-
incident to a life estate in real property, or that the
rents and profits of real property, and the interest and
dividends of personal property, may not be enjoyed by an
individual without liability for his debts being attached
as a necessary incident to such enjoyment. This doc-
trine is one which the English Chancery Court has en-
grafted upon the common law for the benefit of credit-
ors, and is comparatively of modern origin. The doc-
trine, that the owner of property, in the free exercise of
his will in disposing of it, cannot so dispose of it, but
that the object of his bounty, who parts with nothing
in return, must hold it subject to the debts due his
creditors, though that may soon deprive him of all
the benefits sought to be conferred by the testator's af-
fection or generosity, is one which we are not prepared
to announce as the doctrine of this court. " ^
Sec. 291. Same— Same— Reason for the Am.eriean rule.^
The reason for the American rule holding that the ob-
jections to general restraints on the alienation and en-
joyment of estates in fee do not apply to estates for
hfe, is obvious when we remember that the ground of
objection to the restraint in the case of estates in fee is,
in the language of Lord Coke, that "it is absurd and
repugnant to reason that he that hath no possibility to
have the land revert to him, should restrain his feoffee
Rife V. Geyer, 59 Pa. St. 393 ; s.c.
98 Am. Dec. 351 ;
Brown v. Williamson, 86 Pa. St.
338;
Holdship V. Patterson, 7 Watts
(Pa.) 547 ;
Camp V. Cleary, 76 Va. 140 ; s.c.
14 Cent. L. J. 138 ;
Hyde v. Woods, 94 U. S. 523, 526 ;
bk. 24 L. ed. 264, 265 ;
Nichols V. Eaton, 91 U. S. 725,
727 ; bk. 23 L. ed. 254, 357.
' 18 Ves. 429.
2 See : Hill v. MacRea, 37 Ala. 175 ;
Leavitt v. Bevine, 21 Conn. 8 ;
Pope V. Elliott, 8B.Mon.(Ky.) 56 ;
Erazier v. Bamum, 19 N. J. Eq.
(4C. E. Gr.)316;
Barnett's Appeal, 46 Pa. St. 392,
403;
Eyrick v. Hetrick, 18 Pa. St. 488,
491;
Norris v. Johnston, 5 Pa. St. 289 ;
Vaux V. Parke, 7 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 19 ;
Ashurst V. Given, 5 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 828 ;
Johnston v. Zane's Trustees, 11
Gratt. (Va.) 553 ;
Markham v. Guerrant, 4 Leigh
(Va.) 379.
Chap. III. § 291.] REASONS FOR AMERICAN RULE. 255
in fee-simple of all powers to alien. " ^ Another objection
is that were the restraint general, being co-extensive with
the estate, it would contravene the rule against perpe-
tuities.^ But after the life estate the grantor still retains
an estate in land, and may be supposed not indifferent
about its alienation and enjoyment, and any restriction
when attached to a life estate must necessarily be dis-
charged within a period of time falling short of any
violation of the rule against perpetuities. For this rea-
son courts have upheld restraints against the alienation
of life estates as being neither opposed to the policy of
the law nor repugnant to the nature of the estate to
which they are attached.^
> 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 223a. Parry v. Harbert, 1 Dyer 45b.
2 See : Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Restraints in the nature of fines
Mass. 37 ; upon alienation have been held
Mandlebaum ■;;. McDonell, 29 good in leases for hfe in New
Mich. 78 : s.o. 18 Am. Rep. York.
61. Jackson v. Groat, 7 Cow. (N. Y.)
3 Jackson v. SUvemail, 15 John. (N. 285 ;
y.) 378 ; Livingston v. Stickles, 7 HiU (N.
McWilliams v. Nisly, 2 Serg. & Y.) 253.
R. (Pa.) 507; s.o. 7 Am.Dec, 654 ;
CHAPTEE IV.
INCIDENTS OF AN ESTATE IN FEE-SIMPLE.
Sec. 292. Power of alienation — Estate for years.
Sec. 293. Same — Estates settled on feme covert.
Sec. 394. Same — Estates dedicated to charitable uses.
Sec. 395. Same — Conditions in conveyance.
Sec. 296. Same — Special restraints — Definition.
Sec. 297. Same — Same — Large's Case.
Sec. 298. Same — Same — Prohibiting alienation to particular persons.
Sec. 299. Same — Same — Restricting alienations to particular persons.
Sec. 300. Same — Same — Restricting alienation to family.
Sec. 301. Same — Same — Restraining alienation for a particular time.
Sec. 303. Same — Same — Condition to do certain acts.
Sec. 303. Same — Same — Condition not to do certain acts.
Sec. 304. Same — Same — Restraints on estates of persons not sui Juris.
Sec. 305. Same — Same — Restraints on marriage.
Sec. 306. Same — Same — Restraints on second marriage.
Sec. 307. Same — Forfeitui-e — Fee-simple estate.
Sec. 308. Same — Same — Life estate.
Sec. 309. Same— rSame — Estate for years.
Sec. 310. Same— Curtesy.
Sec. 311. Same — Descent.
Sec. 312. Same — Power of devise — Saxon and Danish rule.
Sec. 313. Same — Same — Under the Normans and their successors.
Sec. 314. Same — Same — Reason for the common-law rule.
Sec. 315. Same — Same — American rule.
Sec. 316. Same — Dower.
Sec. 317. Same — Forfeiture — English doctrine.
Sec. 318. Same — Same — American doctrine.
Sec. 319. Same — Liability for debts — Common-law doctrine.
Sec. 330. Same — Same — American doctrine.
Section 292. Power of alienation— Estate for years.— In
estates for years, as in estates for life, conditions in re-
straints of alienation are valid, ^ and for the same
reasons.
' BlaokstoneBankw. Davis, 38 Mass. 467, 495 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470,
(21 Pick.) 43 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 476 ;
241 ; Hargrave v. King, 5 Ired. (N. C.)
De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. Eq. 430 ;
256
Chap. IV. §§ 293, 294.] ESTATES TO CHARITABLE USES. 257
Sec. 293. Same— Estates settled on feme covert.— In an in-
strument settling land upon a feme covert for her sepa-
rate use, general restrictions against alienation are valid/
where there is a gift over, but void otherwise.^ The
reason for the exception from the general rule in such
cases is the fact that such estates are creatures of equity,
and courts of equity have the right to so mold them as
to accomplish the object intended by securing the estate
to the beneficiary against the husband.
Sec. 294. Same — Estates dedicated to charitable uses. —
From the very nature of the uses and purposes of the
grant or bequest, conditions of general restraint, on alien-
ation in a grant or devise to charity, are valid. ^ But any
Morgan v. Slaughter, 1 Esp.* 8 ;
s.c. 5 Rev. Rep. 715 ;
Doe V. Bevan, 3 Maiol. & Sel.
353;
Roe ex d. Hunter v. Galliers, 2 T.
R. 133 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 445 ;
Church V. Brown, 15 Ves. 258;
s.c. 10 Rev. Rep. 74.
Weeks v. Sego, 9 Ga. 199 ;
Perkins v. Hays, 69 Mass. (3
Gray) 405 ;
Dick V. Pitchford, 1 Dev. & B.
. (N. C.) 484 ;
Mebane v. Mebane, 4 Ired. (N. C.)
Eq. 131, 133 ; s.c. 44 Am. Dec.
102;
Shonk V. Brown, 61 Pa. St. 320 ;
Nixon V. Rose, 13 Gratt. (Va.)
425 ;
Radford v. Carwile. 13 W. Va.
572 *
Pybtis'v. Smith, 3 Bro. C. C. 340 ;
Baggett V. Meux, 1 CoU. 138 ; s.c.
8 Jur. 391 ; 13 L. J. Ch. 228 ;
Robinson v. Wheelright, 6 DeG..
M. & G. 535 ;
Barton v. Briscoe, Jac. 605 ;
Tullett V. Armstrong, 4 Jur. 34 ;
Jackson v. Hobhouse, 2 Meriv.
483;
Woodmeston v. Walker, 2 Russ.
& M. 205 ;
Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves.
429.
^ See : Woodmeston v. Walker, 2
Russ. & M. 197.
Newton v. Reid, 4 Sim. 141..
3 See: Yard's Appeal, 64 Pa. St..
95;
Stanley v. Colt, 72 U. S. (5 WaU.)
119 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 503 ;
Perin v. Carey, 64 U. S. (24 How.)
465 ; bk. 16 L. ed. 701 :
Jones V. Habersham, 3 Wood. C.
C. 443.
* In speaking respecting Espinasse's
Eeports, on an oocasion when the case
of Wheeler v . Atkins, 5 Esp . N. P. C. 246,
was relied upon by .counsel, Lord Den-
man said : " I am tempted to remark,
for the benefit of the profession, that
Espinasse'sKeports, in days nearer their
own time, when their want of accuracy
was better known than it is now, were
never quoted without doubt and
hesitation ; and a special reason was
often given as an apology for citing
that particular case. Now they are
often cited as if counsel thought them
of equal authority with Lord Coke's
Reports." Small v. Nairne, 13 Q. B. 840,
844 ; S.C. 66 Eng. C. L. 839, 844.
The particular case here cited was
17
treated as an authority by Lord Kenyon
in Eolkingham v. Croft, 3 Anst. 700 ;.
s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 844, decided in 1796 ;
but doubt was thrown upon it later by
Lord Eldon, in the case of Church v.
Brown, 15 Ves. 258, 262 ; s.c. 10 Rev.
Rep. 74, 77, decided in 1808. The sub-
sequent cases of Stanways v. Bishop, 29'
L. T. 120, decided in 1857; and Hamp-
shire V. Wiokens, L . B. 7 Ch. Div. 555 ;
s.c. 47 L. J. Ch. 243 ; 38 L. T. 408; 23.
Moak's Eng. Rep. 708, decided in 1878,
in both of which cases Church v. Brown
was cited by counsel in .argument,,
show that the courts have not regarded
as well founded the doubts cast upoa
the case by Lord Eujon.
258
CONDITIONS IN CONVEYANCE.
[Book III.
restraint that interferes "with the purposes for which the
estate is granted will be void. The end and aim of
every estate granted to charitable uses is to raise a
revenue upon which the charity may subsist, or further
its aims and the object of its creation ; consequently, a
stipulation in a grant or devise to charitable uses, that
the rent of the property granted or devised shall never
be raised, will be held void, as repugnant to the purposes
of the estate granted.^
Sec. 295. Same— Conditions in conveyance.— Conditions
in a conveyance in fee-simple, or otherwise, whether
made by deed or devise, are valid so long as the bene-
ficial enjoyment of the estate is not impaired ; but such
conditions are alwayS limited in extent and special in
their character, and are fully treated under another
head.^
Sec. 296. Same— Special restraints— Defllnition.-By spe-
cial restraint is meant such parcel or limited abridg-
ment of the right of alienation and enjoyment as will
leave that right not unreasonably impaired or curtailed.
Such restrictions consist of almost every conceivable
form, such as injunctions against every mode of aliena'-
tion, conditions, covenants, and limitations, operating in-
directly against the transfer and enjoyment of estates.
They will be found attached to all manner of estates,
freeholds, and for use, legal and equitable.^ Some of
' Attorney-General v. Masters of
Oath HaU, Jac. 381.
'See: Post, chapter on "Estates
on Condition."
* Metlxods of imposing restrictions. —
It is said in Re Macleay, L. R.
20 Eq. Cas. 86 ; s.c. 13 Moak's
Eng. Rep. 719, that you may
restrict alienations in many
ways. You may restrict aliena-
tion by prohibiting a partic-
ular class of alienation, or you
may restrict alienation by pro-
hibiting it to a particular class of
individuals, or you may restrict
alienation by restricting it to a
particular time. In all these
ways you. may limit it, and it
appears to me that in two ways,
at all events, this condition is
limited. First, it is limited as
to the mode of alienation, be-
cause the only prohibition is
against selling. Tliere are
various modes of alienation be-
sides sale ; a j5erson may ljas"e,
or he may mortgage, or he may
settle ; therefore it is a mere
limited restriction on alienation
in that way. Then again, it is
limited as regards class ; he is
never to sell it out of the fam-
ily, but he may seU it to one
member of the family. It is
not, therefore, limited in the
sense of there being only one
person to buy ; the will shows
there were a great many mem-
Chap. IV. § 296.] SPECIAL EESTRAINTS.
259
these restrictions or prohibitions rest upon the capacity
of the donee^ and some are created for his protection.
Special or partial restraints, reasonable as to time, are
usually regarded as valid, ^ even when attached to fee-
simple estates vested in persons sui juris, unless unrea-
sonable and arbitrary ; and no proposition is better settled
in law than that a life interest may be so created and
conferred as to be determinable upon the event of the
bers of the family when she
made her will ; a great many
are named in it ; therefore you
have a class wliich probably
was large, and was certainly
not small. Then it is not,
strictly speaking, limited as
to time except in this way,
that it is hmited to the
Ufe of the first tenant in
tail ; of course, if- unlimited as
to time, it would be void for
remoteness under another rule.
So that this is strictly a limited
restraint on alienation, and
unless Coke upon Littleton
has been overruled or is not
good lavsr, that is a good con-
dition."
' Warner v. Bennett, 31 Conn.
468;
CoULas Mfg. Co. v. Marcy, 25
Conn. 242 ;
O'Brien v. Wetherell, 14 Kan.
616;
Gray v. Blanchard, 25 Mass. (8
Pick.) 248 ;
Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 54
N. Y. 35, 38 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep.
556;
Plumb V. Tubbs, 41 N. Y. 442;
NicoU V. N. Y. & Erie R. Co., 12
N. Y. 121 ;
Craig V. WeUs, 11 N. Y. 315 ;
Stines v. Dorman, 25 Ohio St.
580;
Sperry v. Pond, 5 Ohio 388 ;
Doe V. Pearson, 6 East 173.
See : De Rutte v. Muldrow, 16
Cal. 505, 513 ;
Laflan v. Naglee, 9 Cal. 662, 676 ;
s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 678 ;
Langdon v. Ingram's Guardian,
28 Ind. 360 ;
Stewart v. Barrow, 7 Bush (Ky.)
868;
Stewart v. Brady, 3 Bush (Ky.)
623;
Simonds v. Simonds, 44 Mass.
(3 Met.) 562 ;
Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 38
Mass. (21 Pick.) 42 ; s.c. 32 Am.
Deo. 241 ;
Mandlebaum v. McDoneU, 29
Mich. 78; s.c. 18 Am. Rep.
61;
Dougalv. Fryer, 3 Mo. 40 ; s.c. 22
Am. Dec. 458;
McCoUough V. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St.
370;
McWilUams v. Nisly, 2 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 507 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec.
654 -,
Co well V. Colorado Springs Co.,
100 U. S. 55; bk. 25 L. ed.
547; ■
Large's Case, 2 Leon. 82 ; s.c. 3
Id. 182 ;
2 Bac. Ab., tit. " Condition," L.
notes ;
1 Prest. Est. 478.
Compare : Sohermerhorn v.
Negus, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 448.
Conditions in partial restraint
of alienation, as that the
grantee shall not alien or as-
sign to a particular person, or
for a particular time, have been
held good, but some of the
cases so holding are of doubt-
ful authority.
De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y.
467, 495 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470,
476.
See : McCoUough v. Gilmore, 11
Pa. St. 370 ;
Turner v. Fowler, 10 Watts (Pa.)
325.
Condition not to sell. — It is said
in Anderson v. Gary, 86 Ohio
St. 506 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 602,
that lands devised to the testa-
tor's son upon condition that
the devisee shall not sell within
a specified time, nor mortgage
or encumber the lands, the con-
ditions are void. To same ef-
fect, Rona V. Meier, 47 Iowa
607 ; s.c. 29 Am. Rep. 493.
260 • LAEGE'S CASE. [Book III.
donee's bankruptcy or insolvency, or any act of involun-
tary alienation on his part.^
Sec. 29T. Same— Same— Large's Case.— The doctrine of
partial or particular restraints on alienation of land took
its origin in Large's Case,^ decided by the Court of Queen's
Bench in the reign of Elizabeth. Eestraints upon the
assignment of leases and against the pursuit of certain
trades upon premises were of more ancient origin.^ In
Large's Case the testator devised his lands to his wife
until his son William should attain the age of twenty-
one years, with remainder as to a portion of his lands to
two sons, and as to another portion to two other sons,
upon condition that if any of his sons should, before
William reached the age of twenty-two years, sell or go
about to sell his respective estate, he should forever lose
the same, in which event it was to go over to another.
Before the son William attained the age of twenty-two
years, one of the sons leased his lands for sixty years,
and to and from sixty years until two hundred and forty
years. On suit brought to forfeit the estate the condi-
tion in the devise was held valid and the lease declared
a substantial breach of it. While this case is usually
cited in support of the doctrine of partial restraints, it is
not thought to be a very strong authority in support of
subsequent conditions against alienation, because the
estate that was defeated in that case had never vested in
possession, and a vesting was made dependent upon this
' Bramhall v. Ferris, 14 N. Y. 41 ; "Wilson v. Greenwood. 1 Swanst.
Churchill v. Marks, 1 Coll. 441 ; 471 ;
Ex parte Boddam, 3 DeG. F. & J. Dommet v. Bedford,' 6 T. E. 684,
625 ; 694 ;
Doe V. Clarke, 8 East 186 ; Higginbotham v. Holmes, 19 Ves.
Muggeridge's Trusts, Johns. 88 ;
(Eng.) 625 ; Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves.
Whitfield V. Prickett, 2 Keen. 429 ;
609 ; Shee v. Hale, 13 Yes. 404 ; s.c. 9
Cooper V. Wyatt, 5 Madd. 489 ; Rev. Rep. 198 ;
King V. Topping, McClell. & Y. Brandon v. Aston, 3 Y. & C.
558 ; 34.
Yarnold v. Moorhouse, 1 Russ. & ' 3 Leon. 83 ; 3 Id. 183.
My. 364 ; 3 See : Chinsley v. Langley, 1 RoUe
Martin v. Margham, 14 Sim.230 ; Abr. 437.
Pym V. Lockyer, 12 Sim. 394 ; See : King v. Castle, 1 And. 123,
Lewes v. Lewes, 6 Sim. 304 ; 124 ;
Lear v. Leggett, 3 Sim. 479 ; s.c. Anonymous, Dyer 6a.
lEuss. &M. 690;
Chap. IV. § 299.] ALIENATION TO PARTICULAR PERSONS. 261
condition, which is in the nature of a condition precedent
to a full seista of the land by the son whose act defeated
it before the time had arrived for its enjoyment as well
as an estate in possession.
Sec. 298. Same— Same— Prohibiting alienation to particu-
lar persons.— A restriction in a grant or devise prohibiting
the grantee or devisee from alienating for a particular
time or to a particular person is valid/ where they do
not take away all power of alienation. The law on this
subject is very old, and cannot be better stated than it is
in Coke upon Littleton, in Sheppard's Touchstone, and
other books of that kind, which treat it in the same
way.^ Littleton says : " If the condition be such that
the feoffee shall not alien to such a one, naming his
name, or to any of his heirs, or of the issue of such a one
or the like, which conditions do not take away all power
of alienation from the feoffee, then such condition is
good."^ But such conditions are conditions subsequent
which tend to divest the estate and are to be strictly con-
strued.*
Sec. 299. Same— Same— Restricting alienations to particu-
lar persons.— Provisions in a conveyance, either by gift or
devise, restricting alienation to particular persons or-
their heirs, are generally held valid, if not inconsistent
with a reasonable enjoyment of the estate.^ But it
' See : Langdon v. Ingram's Guard- ' McCollough v. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St.
ian, 28 Ind. 360 ; 370; „„.,„„
Simonds v. Simonds, 44 Mass. (3 Doe v. Pearson, 6 East 178 ; s.c.
Met.) 558, 562 ; 2 Smith 295 ;
De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y. Re Macleay, L. R. 20 Eq. Gas.
467 495 ■ S.O. 57 Am. Dec. 470, 186 ; s.c. 13 Moak's Eng. Rep.
476'; 719.
McWiUiams v. Nisly, 2 Serg. & This doctrine has teen questioned
R. (Pa.) 507 ; s.c. 7 Am. Deo. in some well-reasoned opinions
654 by able judges,
s See • in re Macleay, L. R. 20 Eq. See : Schermerhorn v. Negus, 4
Gas. 186, 188 ; s.c. 13 Moak's Den. (N. Y.) 448 ;
Ene- Ren 719, 721. Anderson v. Gary, 36 Ohio St.
s Litt I' 361 506 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rep. 602 ;
'Bradstreet v. Glark, 38 Mass. (31 Attwater i;. Attwater, 18 Beav.
Pick ) 389 ; 330 ; s.c. 18 Jur. 50 ; 33 L. J.
Gadberry v! Shepard, 37 Miss. Gh. 693
303;.
Same — In Attwater v. Attwater,
Hovt 'v. KimbaU, 49 N. H. 337 ; supra, the courts say : " It is
Page V. Palmer, 48 N. H. 385. obvious that if the mtroduction
262 RESTKICTING TO FAMILY. [Book III.
is said in Muschang v. Bluet, ^ and approved hy Lord
EOMILLY in the case of Attwater v. Attwater,^ that
the restriction must not, in fact, take away all power,
because, if you say that the grantee or devisee shall not
alien except to A B, who you know will not or cannot
piTrchase, that would be in effect restraining him from
all alienation ; and it is well established that you cannot
do indirectly that which you may not do directly.^
Sec. 300. Same — Same— Restricting alienation to family. —
A condition in a deed or devise restricting alienation
to the members of the family is valid. Thus it has been
held that a devise to the testator's brother conditioned
never to sell " out of the family " is valid.* So also of a
restriction against alienation, except to the sisters of the
devisee,^ or to the heirs of a specified person.® There is
an American case where a testator, after devising land in
equal shares to several children for life, with remainder
in fee to other children, declared that no portion of the
real estate devised should be sold or alienated by the
devisees or their descendants, except to each other or
their descendants. The restriction against alienatiqn was
held to be void;^ But there are some well-considered
English cases on the same point, which seem to maintain
a contrary doctrine.^ Thus in the case of Doe v. Pearson ®
the gift was a gift in fee upon this special provision and
condition, "that in case my said daughters Ann and
Hannah, or either of them, shall have.no lawful issue,
that then, and in such case, they and she having no law-
of one person's name, as the 186, 187 ; s.c. 13 Moak's Eng.
only person to whom the prop- Eep. 719, 731.
erty may be sold, renders such * In re Macleay, L. E. 20 Eq. Gas.
a proviso vaUd, a restraint on 186 ; s.c. 13 Moak's Eng. Eep.
alienation may be created, as 719.
complete and perfect as if no ^ Doe v. Pearson, 6 East 173 ; s.c. 2
person whatever was named ; Smith 295.
inasmuch as the name of a per- « McCoUough v. GUmore, 11 Pa. St.
son who alone is permitted to 370.
purchase might be so selected ' Sohermerhorn v. Negus, 1 Den.
as to render it reasonably cer- (N. Y.) 448.
tain that he would not buy the » gee : In re Macleay, L. E. 20 Eq.
property, and that the property Gas. 186; s.c. 13 Moak's Eng.
could not be aliened at aH." Eep. 719 ;
' Bridgm. 137. Attwater v. Attwater, 18 Beav.
°- Gited : 3 Jarm. WiUs (3d ed.) 17; 330 ;
18 Beav. 330. Doe v. Pearson, 6 East 173.
' In re Macleay, L. R. 20 Eq. Gas. » 6 East 173.
Chap. IV. § 301.] EESTRICTING FOE PARTICULAR TIME. 263
ful issue as aforesaid, shall not have power to dispose of
her share in the said estate so above given to them,
except to her sister or sisters, or to their children." In
this case the question was given great consideration by
a full court, and Lord Ellenborough, who gives the
judgment, goes into the authorities very carefully and
holds the condition good. He says : " We think the con-
dition is good ; for, according to the case of Daniel v.
Ubley,^ it was not doubted but that she might have
had given her a fee-simple conditional to convey it to
any of the sons of the devisor ; and if she did not, that
the heir might enter for the condition broken." ^
Sec. 301. Same — Same — Restraining alienation for a par-
ticular time.— It has generally been supposed to be the rule
of law that a restriction or a prohibition against aliena-
tion for a limited time only is valid, provided only the
limitation is for a reasonable time ; ^ but doubt has been
thrown on the correctness of this view by recent well-
reasoned opinions by able judges. In the case of De
Peyster v. Michael,* decided by the New York Court of
Appeals in 1852, Chief Justice Euggles says: "There
are cases where conditions not to sell or assign to a par-
ticular person, or for a particular time, have been held
good, but some of them are of doubtful authority. " In
' Sir "W. Jones, 137 ; s.c. Latch. 9, ^ Langdon r. Ingram's Guardian,
39, 134. 28 Ind. 360 ;
' Justice Christiancy, in writing Stewart v. Barrow, 7 Bush (Ky.)
the opinion in Mandlebaum v. 368 ;
McDonell, 29 Mich. 78 ; s.c. Stewart v. Brady, 3 Bush (Ky.)
18 Am. Rep. 61, 75, says: "I 623;
think there is much reason to Simonds v. Simonds, 44 Mass.
doubt whether this case [Doe (3 Met.) 558, 562 ;
V. Pearson] should be recog- Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 38
nized as law here, if, indeed, it Mass. (21 Pick.) 42 ;
would be now in England." Gray v. Blanchard, 25 Mass.
This opinion was written in (8 Pick.) 254 ;
1874. Early in 18T.J Sir George Dougal v. Fryer, Z Mo. 40; s.c.
Jessel, Master of the Rolls, 23 Am. Dec. 458 ;
wrote the opinion in Re Mac- Jackson v. Shultz, 18 John. (N.
leay, L. R. 20 Eq. Cas. 186 ; s.c. Y.) 174, 184 ;
13 Moak's Eng. Rep. 719, in McColIough v. Gilmore, 11 Pa.
which he goes carefully over St. 370 ;
the cases, and adheres to the McWilliams v. Nisly, 2 Serg. &
doctrine laid down in Doe v. R. (Pa.) 507 ;s.o.7 Am.Dec.654 ;
Pearson, and distinguishing Large's Case, 2 Leon. 82 ; s.c. 3
that in Attwater v. Attwater, Id. 182.
18 Beav. 330. " 6 N. Y. 467, 495 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec.
470, 476.
264 RESTRICTING FOR PARTICULAR TIME. [Boo:: III.
the case of Mandlebaum v. McDonell/ decided by the
Supreme Court of Michigan in 1874, it is declared that
"there never has been a time since the statute Quia
Emptores when a restriction in a conveyance of a vested
estate in fee-simple, in possession or remainder, against
selling for a particular period of time, was valid by the
common law, and a condition or restriction which would
suspend all power of alienation for a single day is incon-
sistent with the estate granted, unreasonable and void." ^
In the case of Anderson v. Cary,^ decided by the Supreme
Court of Ohio in 1881,. where lands were devised upon
condition that the devisees should not sell within a speci-
fied time, nor mortgage or otherwise encumber the lands,
the court held the devise absolute and the condition void.*
McIlvaine, Justice, says that by " the policy of our laws it
is of the very essence of an estate in fee-simple absolute,
that the owner, who is not under any personal disability
imposed by law, may alien it or subject it to the payment
of his debts at any and all times ; and any attempt to
evade or eliminate this element from a fee-simple estate,
either by deed or by will, must be declared void and of no
force. "^
29 Mich. 78 ; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 61. effectual in any of the United
■ Good prior to statute Quia Emp- States by express or implied
tores. — In this case Justice adoption, or as a part of the
Christiancy says that "At common law, we need not in-
common law, however, prior quire, since it is clear enough
to the statute Quia Emptores, a that no sucli statute was ever
condition against alienation needed in this state, if in any
would in England have been of tlie Western states, as no
good, because prior to that such right of escheat or possi-
statute the feofror or grantor biUty of reverter ever existed
of such an estate was entitled here in the party conveying the
to the escheat on failure of estate ; but the escheat could
heirs of the grantee, which only accrue to the sovereignty
was properly a possibiUty of — tlie state. And, therefore,
reverter, and was treated as a the question of tlie right to im-
reversion ; so that the vendor pose such conditions or re-
did not, by the feoffment or strictions stands here upon
conveyance, part with the en- common-law reasons, as it has
tire estate ; but this reversion, stood in England since the
dependent on this contingency, statute in question."
remained in him and his heirs, ^ 36 Ohio St. 506 ; s.c. 38 Am. Rep.
which gave them an interest 602.
to insist upon the condition and * See ; Rona v. Meier, 47 Iowa 607 ;
take the benefit accruing to s.c. 29 Am. Rep. 493.
them upon the breach," and = See : Hobbs v. Smith, 15 Ohio St.
that "Whether the statute 419.
Quia Emptores ever became
Chap. IV. § 302.] TO DO CERTAIN ACTS.
265
Sec. 302. Same— Same— Condition to do certain acts.— Con-
veyances by deed or devise, with a condition requiring
the grantee or devisee to do certain acts, have been held
to be vahd ; ^ such as that the devisee or grantee shall
assume a given name ; ^ that the grantee or devisee shall
actively assist in defeating a lawsuit pending against the
grantor or devisor at the time the estate is given ; ^ that
the devisee shall reside on the premises ; * that the
grantee or devisee, an infant, be educated in some school,
and feared in a particular faith ; ^ that the grantee or
donee shall withdraw from tt^e priesthood," or refrain
' See : Hayden v. Stoughton, 22
Mass. (5 Pick.) 528 ;
Cornelius i\ Ivins, 26 N. J. L.
(2 Dutch.) 376 ;
Lessee of Speriy v. Pond, 5 Ohio
387 ; s.c. 24 Am. Deo. 296.
Distinction between condition to pay
money and to do an act. — Lord
Eldon says: "There is a dis-
tinction between the breach of
a covenant or condition to pay
money, and one requiring acts
to be done. In the former case
reUef raay be granted against a
forfeiture, because the money
and interest may be paid as a
satisfaction. But where any-
thing else is to be done but the
payment of money, the law
having ascertained the contract
and the rights of the conti'act-
ing parties, a court of equity
could not interfere."
HiU V. Barclay, 18 Ves. 63.
' Assuming a new name required. — It
has been said that where the
devise requires the devisee to
assume a new name, with a
gift over upon the refusal or
neglect to comply therewith
within a year, the condition is
void.
Musgrave v. Brooks, 26 Ch. Div.
792.
Same — Act of Legislature not neces-
sary.— Where the donee is re-
quired to assume a new name,
unless the wiU so requires, it is
not necessary to procure an act
of the Legislature changing the
name of the devisee to the one
he is directed to assume.
Barlow v. Bateman, 3 Pr. Wms.
65.
See: Taylor v. Mason, 23 U. S.
(9 Wlieat.) 325 ; bk. 22 L. ed.
101.
It is sufficient that the devisee
assume the required name by
his own act.
See : Davis v. Loundes, 2 Scott
71 ;
Doe d. Litscombe v. Yates, 5
Barn. & Aid. 544 ; s.c. 7 Eng.
C. L. 298.
Compare : Barlow v. Bateman,
2 B. P. C. 272.
^ Cannon v. Apperson, 14 Lea
(Tenn.) 558.
4 Lowe V. Cloud, 45 Ga. 481;
Marston v. Marston, 47 Me. 495;
Casper v. Walker, 33 N. J. Eq.
(6 Stew.) 35 ;
Astley V. Essex, L. R. 18 Eq.
295 ; s.c. 9 Moak's Eng. Rep.
809;
Wilkinson v. WUkinson, L. R.
12 Eq. 604 ;
Robertson v. MoweU, 66 Md. 565;
s.c. 10 Atl. Rep. 671.
A condition requiring residence in a
certain house is satisfied by
such a residence as is necessary
for the creation of a legal dom-
icile.
Wynne v. Fletcher, 24 Beav. 430;
Attenborough v. Thompson, 2
Hurl. & H. 559;
Walcot V. Botfield, Kay 534;
Dunne v.Dunne,3 Smale & G. 22.
Compare: Newkerki;. Newkerk,
2 Cai. (N. Y.) 345 ;
Pardue v. Givens, 1 Jones (N.
C.) Eq. 306.
'^ Barnum v. Mayor of Baltimore,
62 Md. 275; s.c. 50 Am. Rep.
319 ; 4 Am. Prob. Rep. 305 ;
Magee V. O'Neill, 19 8. C. 170; s.c.
45 Am. Rep. 765.
' Bamum v. Mayor of Baltimore,
266
NOT TO DO CERTAIN ACTS.
[Book III.
-from forming any such connection ; ^ that the grantee or
devisee shall provide for the support and maintenance of
the grantor ; ^ shall pay off an incumbrance,^ erect a
school-house, *_ maintain a road,^ keep a saw-mill or a
grist-mill doing business on the premises,^ and the like.
But a condition which requires the grantee or devisee
to. pay to the grantor or devisor a sum of money upon
alienation is invalid, as a restraint upon the estate '
granted.'^
Sec. 303. Same— Same— Condition not to do certain acts. —
A grantor of land may impose limitations or restrictions
on the use of an estate, and if the effect of the stipulation
is not to accomplish an illegal purpose, such limitation or
restriction is lawful ; and where it affects the land, or the
mode of its enjoyment, its effect is to bind all deriving
title under the conveyance in which the restriction is
found. ^ These special restraints or limitations imposed
62 Md. 375 ; s.c. 50 Am. Eep.
219; 4 Am. Prob. Rep. 391,
395;
Mitohell"8 Lessee v. Mitchell, 18
Md. 405; ■
Yidal V. Girard, 43 U. S. (2 How.)
137, 199: bk. 11 L. ed. 205, 234.
' As not to 'become a nun.
In re Dickerson, 30 L. J. Bep.
(N. S.) 33; s.c. 1 Eng. L. & Eq.
149;
O'Hanlon v. Unthank, Jr., L. R.
7 Ex. 68.
= Eastman v. Batchelder, 36 N. H.
141; s.c. 72 Am. Dec. 395.
See : Clinton v. Fly, 10 Me. 293;
Jackson v. Topping, 1 Wend. (N.
Y.) 388; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 515.
A condition or reservation in favor
I of a stranger is void.
See: Craig v. Wells, UN. Y.
315, 323 ;
Hombeck v. Westbrook, 9 John.
(N. Y.) 73 ;
Jackson v. Topping, 1 Wend. (N.
Y.) 388; s.c. 7 Am. Deo. 515;
Moore v. Plymouth, 3 Bam. &
Aid. 66; s.c. 5 Eng. C. L. 48 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 47a, 214;
Shep. Touch. 80, 120.
Conditions subsequent, it . seems,
can only be reserved for the
benefit of the grantor and his
heirs, and that no other person
can take advantage of the
brp9 oh
Nicoll V. N. Y. & Erie R. Co., 12
N. Y. 131; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 137.
' Spaulding v. Hallenbeck, 35 N. Y.
304, 306;
Belmont v. Coman, 22 N. Y. 438;
s.c. 78 Am. Dec. 313;
Trotter v. Hughes, 13 N. Y. 74.
* Hayden v. Stoughton, 33 Mass.
(5 Pick.) 528. '
^ Cornelius v. Ivins, 26 N. J., L. (3
Dutch.) 376.
* Lessees of Sperry v. Pond, 5 Ohio
387; s.c 24 Am. Dec. 296.
' De Peyster v. Michael, 6 N. Y.
467, 495; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 470,
476.
See : Mandlebaum v. MoDonell,
39 Mich. 78; s.c. 18 Am. Dec.
61.
Livingston v. Stickles, 7 HUl (N.
Y.) 353, 357 :
McCollough V. Gilmore, 11 Pa.
St. 370 ;
Tanner v. Fowler, 10 Watts (Pa.)
325 ;
King V. Burchell, Amb. 379.
8 Warner v. Bennett, 31 Conn. 468 ;
Collins Mfg. Co. v. Marcy, 25
Conn. 243 ;
O'Brien v. Wetherell, 14 Kan.
610;
Tobey v. Moore, 130 Mass. 448 ;
Chap. IV. § 303.] NOT TO DO SPECIFIED ACTS.
267
upon the estate are of various kinds ; such as that the
grantee or devisee shall not contest the will/ or assert
certain claims against the estate of the testator ; ^ that
the grantee shall not become a nun,^ that the grantee shall
not sell the estate during the lifetime of the grantor, un-
less the latter should sell the land on which he lived ; *
Dorr V. Harrahan, 101 Mass. 531 ;
S.C. 3 Am. Rep. 398 ;
Linzee v. Mixer, 101 Mass. 513,
536;
Gray v. Blanchard, 35 Mass. (8
Pick.) 284 ;
Cooke V. Turner, 15 Mees. & W.
737.
See : Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leav-
itt. 54 N. Y. 35 ; s.c. 13 Am.
Eep. 556 ;
Atlantic Dock Co. v. Libby. 45 N.
Y. 499 •
Plumb V.' Tubbs, 41 N. Y. 443 ;
Jackson v. Schutz, 18 John. (N.
Y.) 174 ; s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 195 ;
Barrow v. Richard, 8 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 351 ; s.c. 35 Am. Deo.
713;
Stines v. Dorman, 35 Ohio St.
580, 583 ;
McCoUough V. GUmore, 11 Pa.
St. 370 ;
McWiUiams v. Nisly, 3 Serg. &
E. (Pa.) 507 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec.
654 ;
Rogers v. Law, 66 U. S. (1 Black.)
353 ; bk. 17 L. ed. 58 ;
In re Dickson, 30 L. J. Rep. (N. S.)
Ch. 33 ; s.c. 1 Eng. L. & Eq. 149 ;
Western v. Macdermott, L. R. 3
Ch. App. 73 ;
WOson V. Hart, L. R. 1 Ch. App.
463;
Lloyd V. Branton, 3 Meriv. 118 ;
Tulk V. Moxhay, 2 Ph. Ch. 774 ;
Chinsley v. Langley, 1 RoUe Abr.
■437 ;
Whatman v. Gibson, 9 Sim. 196.
1 Compare: Bradford -y. Bradford,
19 Ohio St. 546 ; s.c. 3 Am.
Rep. 419 ;
Chew's Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 388 ;
Thompson v. Gaut, 14 Lea (Tenn.)
310, 314, 315 ;
Evanturel v. Evanturel, 23 W. R.
33; s.c. L.R. 6P.C. 1.
See : Shivers v. Goar, 40 Ga.
676;
Nallet V. Smith, 6 Rich. (S. C.)
Eq. 12 ; B.C. 60 Am. Dec. 107 ;
Runnels v. Runnels, 27 Tex. 515 ;
Gregg V. Coates, 23 Beav. 33 ;
Egg V. Devey, 10 Beav. 444 ;
Attorney-General v. Christ's
Hospital, Tarn. 393.
Compare : Donegan v. Wade, 70
Ala. 501 ; s.c. 3 Am. Prob. Rep.
206.
Snch a condition in a will is valid
although there is no gift over.
Violett V. Brookman, 26 L. J. Ch.
308;
Cooke ■u.Turner,15 Mees & W.727;
Anonymous, 3 Mod. 7.
In New York it has been held that
notwithstanding a clause for-
feiting the bequests in case of
opposition to the wiU, tliere will
be no forfeiture where the op-
position is made in good faitli
and is not vexatious merely.
Jackson v. Westerfield, 61 How.
(N. Y.) Pr. 399.
In Pennsylvania a similar doctrtne
seems to prevail.
Chew's Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 228.
Condition not to oppose wiU—
Aiding and advising salt of
another. — Under a provision in
a will tliat any child who " re-
sists the probate or petitions to
break or set it aside " should
forfeit all interests under it, and
that the property should pass
to those who liad not "op-
posed" it, the court laeld that
aiding and advising a suit in-
stituted by another devisee
worked a forfeiture of the
child's interest under the will.
Donegan v. Wade, 70 Ala. 501 ;
s.c. 3 Am. Prob. Rep. 206.
■•' Chew's Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 238 ;
Rogers v. Law, 66 V. S. (1 Black.)
353 ; bk. 17 L. ed. 58 ; (
Cooke V. Turner, 15 Mees. & W.
727 *
Lloyd'v. Branton, 3 Meriv. 118.
» Jn re Dickson, 20 L. J. Rep. (N. S.)
Ch. 33 ; s.c. 1 Eng. L. & Eq.
149;
O'Hanlon v. Unthank, Ir. L. R.
7 Eq. 68.
■■ McWiUiams v. Nisly, 2 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 507 ; s.c.7 Am. Dec.G54.
208
NOT TO DO SPECIFIED ACTS.
[Book IU.
that the grantee should not leave the estate to aiiy one
but the heirs of a designated person ; ^ that no wall ^ or
buildings shall be erected within a certain distance of the
street ; ^ that there should be erected no buildings but a
dwelling-house ; * that no windows shall be placed in a
particular wall of the house, or any house to be erected
upon the premises, for thirty-five years ; ® that the prem-
ises shall not be used or occupied as a hotel ; ® that the
property shall not be occupied for the purposes of carry-
ing on any offensive trade or calling,'' or any particular
trade or calling,* that the grantee shall not suffer the
premises to be used for the manufacture or sale of intoxi-
cating liquors ; " also that there shall not be erected on
> MoCollough V. GUmore, 11 Pa. St.
370.
' Linzee v. Mixer, 101 Mass. 512,
536.
2 Tobey v. Moore, 130 Mass. 448.
Bestricting improTements on lots
• — Benefit of aU. — Covenants
or conditions inserted by the
owner of a contract of lands in
deeds given for different lots
therein, restricting the manner
of improvement or enjoyment
thereof, for the benefit of all
the lot-owners in the contract,
is valid and wUl be enforced
against the gi'antees, or those
holding imder them with
notice.
See: Whitney v. Union R. Co.,
77 Mass. (11 Gray) 359, 364,
365 ; s.c. 71 Am. Dec. 715 ;
Kirkpatrick v. Peshine, 24 N. J.
Eq. (9 C. E. Gr.) 206, 214 ;
Eogers v. Danforth, 9 N. J. Eq. (4
Halst.) 289, 294 ;
Gilbert v. Peteler, 38 N. Y. 165,
168 ; s.c. 97 Am. Dec. 785 ;
TaUmadge v. Tlie East River
Bank, 36 N. Y. 105, 110 ;
Brouwer v. Jones, 23 Barb. (N.
Y.) 161 ;
Berringer v. Schaefer, 53 How.
(N. Y.) Pr. 69, 71 ;
Birdsall v. Tiemann, 12 How. (N.
Y.) Pr. 551 ;
Barrow v. Richard, 8 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 351 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec.
713;
Steward v. Winters, 4 Sandf . Ch.
(N. Y.) 587, 593 ;
Stines v. Dorman, 35 Ohio St.
583;
Easter v. Little Miami R. Co., 14
Ohio St. 48, 54 ;
Clark V. Martin, 49 Pa. St. 389 ;
King V. Large, 7 Phil. (Pa.) 285.
* Dorr V. Harrahan, 101 Mass. 531 ;
s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 398.
^ Gray v. Blanchard, 35 Mass. (8
Pick.) 384.
« Stines v. Dorman, 35 Ohio St. 580.
' Dorr V. Harrahan, 101 Mass. 531 ;
s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 398.
* Chinsley v. Langley, 1 Rolle Abr.
437;
3 Prest. Abs. 184.
» Collins Mfg. Co. v. Murray, 35
Conn. 243 ;
O'Brien v. Wetherell, 14 Kan.
616;
Plumb V. Tubbs, 41 N. Y. 443 ;
Cowell V. Colorado Springs Co.,
100 U. S. 55 ; bk. 35 L. ed. 547 ;
Colt V. Towle, L. R. 4 Ch. App.
654.
Condition against tuildings. — In
the case of Plumb v. Tubba, 41
N. Y. 443, it was said that a
condition that a school-house
should not be erected on the
premises, or a distillery, or a
blast f urnaop, or a livery stable,
or a machine shop for iron
manufacture, or a powder
magazine, or a hospital, or a
cemetery, have been held to be
valid conditions. The court
cite Gilbert v. Peteler, 38 N. Y.
165 ; S.C. 97 Am. Dec. 785, as
decisive of the point at issue.
See : Collins v. Marcy, 35 Conn.
342;
Gray v. Blanchard, 25 Mass. (8
Pick.) 384 ;
Chap. IV. § 304.] PERSONS NOT SUI JURIS. 269
the premises granted or devised a school-house, a
slaughter-house, a livery stable, a machine shop, a blast
furnace, a hospital, a cemetery, a brewery, or a distil-
lery,^ or any manufactory of gunpowder, glue, varnish,
vitriol, or turpentine, or any other noxious or dangerous
trade or business.^ But any condition annexed to a
grant or bequest tending to separate husband and wife
will be void as against public policy,^ such as a condition
that the grantee or devisee shall not support or cohabit
with his wife.*
Sec. 304. Same— Same— Eestraints on estates of persons
not sui juris.— Special restraints against the alienation
and enjoyment of estates are frequently imposed for the
benefit and protection of persons not sui juris. They
are necessarily of a limited duration, but they are imposed
upon the person receiving the estate, and do not affect the
fee beyond his existence. Thus a devise to a minor condi-
tioned that he shall not come into possession, occupy, or
have advantage of the estate, except through his guard-
ian, is valid ; ^ and in the case of a married woman
restraints against burdening and alienating may be laid
upon her estate during coverture, where they are imposed
NicoU V. N. Y. & Erie R. Co., 12 Atlantic Dock Co. v. Leavitt, 54
N. Y. 121 ; N. Y. 35, 38 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep.
Craig V. Wells, 11 N. Y. 815 ; 556 ;
Lessees of Sperry v. Pond, 5 Ohio Atlantic Dock Co. v. Libby, 45
387 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 296. N. Y. 499, 502 ;
' Sfisin-oil— Distillery of, within pro- Plumb v. Tubbs, 41 N. Y. 442,
hibition. — In Atlantic Dock Co. 446 ;
V. Leavitt, 54 N. Y. 35, 38 ; s.c. NicoU v. N. Y. & Erie Railway
13 Am. Rep. 556, 557, it was Co., 12 N. Y. 121 ;
held that whUe tlie distillery Craig v. Wells, 11 N. Y. 315 ;
used for the manufacture of Barrow v. Richard, 8 Paige Ch.
resin-oil was probably not such (N. Y.) 351 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec.
a distillery as was contem- 713 ;
plated by the parties to the deed. Lessee of Sperrj- v. Pond, 5 Ohio
yet the court found, upon suffi- 387 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 296.
cient evidence,that the business = Conrad v. Long, 133 Mich. 78 ;
was dangerous within the mean- Wren v. Bradley, 2 DeG. & S. 49 ;
ing of the covenants contained Brown v. Peck, 1 Eden 140.
in the deed, and that was * Potter r. McAIpine, 3 Dem. (N. Y.)
sufficient to show a breach 108.
thereof. * Smithwick v. Jordan, 15 Mass.
« Warner v. Bennett, 31 Conn. 468 ; 113.
Collins Mfg. Co. v. Marcy, 25 See : Blackstone Bank v. Davis,
Conn 242 • 38 Mass. (21 Pick.) 42, 44 ; s.c.
Gray v. Blanchard. 25 Mass. (8 32 Am. Dec. 241, 242.
Pick.) 384 :
2Y0
RESTRICTIONS ON MARRIAGE.
[Book III.
in general terms. ^ And are valid during marriage, but
before and after coverture they will be as invalid as
when attached to the estate of any person sui juris?
When special restraints contravene the policy of the law,
they are void in like manner as general restraints of a
similar nature.^
Sec. 305. Same — Same — Eestraints on m.arriage. — All
conditions in a grant or devise of land in general restraint
of marriage are void ; * and this rule applies where the
grantee or devisee is a man as well as where a woman. ^
But conditions annexed to gifts, legacies, or devises in
restraint of marriage are not void if they are reasonable
in themselves, and do not directly or virtually operate as
an undue restraint upon the freedom of marriage. Thus
a testator who has a right to concern himself with the
settlement of the donee in life ^ may impose a condition
that the donee shall or shall not marry a particular
person;'' such as a domestic servant.^ A reasonable'
condition limiting the time as to marriage is also valid ;
such as that the donee shall not marry until he is twenty-
one years of age,^ or until he has secured the consent of
parents, guardians, or trustees. •'''
V. Salter, 3 Russ. & Myl.
' TuUett V. Aiinstrong, 4 Mylne &
Cr. 390; s.o. 1 Beav. 3;
Barton v. Briscoe, 3 Jac. 603.
5 See : Clarke v. Windham, 12 Ala.
798;
Brown v. Pecock, 3 Russ. & Myl.
210;
Jones
208;
Woodmeston ' v. Walker, 2 Russ.
& Myl. 197 ;
Newton v. Reid, 4 Sim. 141.
3 See : Ante, § 284.
* Crawford v. Thompson, 91 Ind.
266 ; s.c. 46 Am. Rep. 598 ; 4
Am. Prob. Rep. 598 ;
Otis V. Prince, 76 Mass. (10 Gray)
581;
Parsons v. Winslow, 6 Mass. 169 ;
s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 107 ;
Bostwick V. Blades, 59 Md. 231 ;
s.o. 3 Am. Prob. Rep. 364, 366 ;
WiUiams v. Cowden, 13 Mo. 311 ;
s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 433 ;
Maddox v. Maddox, 11 Gratt.
(Va.) 804 ;
Morley v. Eennoldson,2 Hare 570;
Lloyd ■;;. Branton, 3 Meriv. 108 ;
Reves V. Herne, 5 Vin. Abr. 343,
pi. 41.
^ Otis V. Prince, 76 Mass. (10 Gray)
581. ^
* Haughton v. Haughton, 1 Moll.
611;
Stackpole v. Beaumont, 3 Ves. 89 ;
s.o. 3 Rev. Rep. 52.
' Finlay v. King's Lessee, 28 U. S.
(3 Pet.) 346 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 701 ;
Davis 17. Angel,4DeG. F. & J. 524.
« Jenner v. Turner, 16 Ch. Div. 188 ;
s.c. 37 Moak's Eng. Rep. 139.
» See : Shackelford v. HaU, 19 111.
213;
Maddox i;. Maddox, 11 Gratt. (Va.)
804 ; .
Eeuff V. Coleman, 30 W. Va. 171 ;
s.c. 3 S. E. Rep. 597 ;
Stackpole v. Beaumont, 3 Ves.
89 ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 52.
1" Collier v. Slaughter, 30 Ala. 363 ;
CoUett V. Collett, 35 Beav. 312 ;
Dawson v. Oliver-Massey, 3 Ch.
Div. 753 ; s.c. 17 Moak's Eng.
Rep. 731 ;
Chap. IV. §§ 306, .307.] ON SECOND MARRIAGE. 271
Sec. 306. Same— Same— Restraints on second marriage.—
Where the restraint upon marriage is in the form of a
condition imposed by the husband against the re-marriage
of his widow, with a forfeiture or termination of the
estate resulting from a breach of the condition, the
weight of authority holds it is valid ; and that restraints
against the enjoyment of property in the shape of con-
ditions against second marriages, when imposed by the
husband upon his widow, are not against the policy of
the law.^ But when the condition is subsequent, and
the legacy is not given over, such a condition is con-
sidered merely in terrorem and the condition is void,
because it puts a restraint upon matrimony, which ought
not to be discouraged.^
Sec. 30T. Same— Forfeiture— Fee-simple estate.— Where a
legal restriction is laid upon the grant of an estate in
fee-simple, a failure to comply with such restraint, do
such act, or fulfill such condition as the law regards as
reasonable in a grant or devise of lands, is a breach
thereof, but does not divest of the title. To accomplish
In re Stepheuson's Trusts, 18 W. Bennett v. Robinson, 10 Watts
R. 1066. (Pa.) 348 ;
' Vaughn v. Lovejoy, 34 Ala. Hawkins v. Skeggs, 10 Humph.
437 ; (Tenn.) 31 ;
Collier v. Slaughter, 30 Ala. Hughes v. Boyd, 2 Sneed (Tenn.)
263 ; 512 ;
Doyal V. Smith, 28 Ga. 262 ; Doe v. Driscoll, 4 Allen (New B.)
Holmes v. Field, 12 111. 424 ; 176 ;
Vance v. Campbell, 1 Dana (Ky.) Doe v. Corrie, 3 Kerr (New B.)
229 • 450 *
Bostickv. Blades, 59 Md. 231 ; s.c. Jordan v. Holkham, Amb. 209 ;
3 Am. Prob. Rep. 364, 366 ; Craven •!;. Brady, L. R. 4 Eq. Cas.
Clark V. Tennison. 33 Md. 85 ; 209 ;
Gough V. Manning, 26 Md. 347 ; Scott v. Tyler, 2 Dick. 712 ;
Binnerman v. Weaver, 8 Md. Morley v. Reimaldson, 2 Hare
517 ; 570 ;
O'Neale v. Ward, 3 Har. & McH. Lloyd v. Lloyd, 2 Sim. N. S.
(Md.) 93 ; 335 ;
Rogers v. American Board, 87 Grace w. Webb, 15 Sim. 384;
Mass. (5 Allen) 69 ; Doe v. Freeman, 1 T. R. 389 ;
Pringle v. Dunkley, 22 Miss. (14 Barton v. Barton, 2 Vern. 308.
Smed & M.) 16 ; s.c. 3 Am. ^ See : Parsons v. Winslow, 6 Mass.
Dec. 110 ; 169 ; s.c. 4 Am. Dec. 407 ;
Dumey i\ Sohceffler, 24 Mo. 170 ; Bellasis v. Ermine, 1 Ca. Ch. 32 ;
8 c 69 Am. Dec. 432 ; Vintner v. Fix, 1 Ch. Rep. 131 ;
McCuUough's Appeal, 13 Pa. St. Harvy v. Aston, Com. Rep. 726 ;
J97 . Earl of Salisbury ■;;. Bennet,
Commonwealth v. Stauffer, 10 Skin. 286 ;
Pa St. 350 ; s.c. 51 Am. Dec. Bates v. Graves, 2 Ves. 293,
489;
2Y2 EESTRICTIONS ON LIFE ESTATE. [BOOK III.
this, end there must be an entry, or what is made equiv-
alent thereto by statute, by the grantor or his heirs, for
a breach of condition, to forfeit the estate.^ Where
land is conveyed with certain restrictions on the power
of alienation, and the grantee aliens in violation thereof,
but by subsequent events such restrictions are at an end,
his heirs are estopped from contesting the validity of the
conveyance.^
Sec. 308. Same— Same— Life estate.— There is no proposi-
tion in the law better settled than that a life estate may
be so created and conferred as to be determinable upon
the event of the donee's bankruptcy or insolvency, or any
act of voluntary alienation on his part.^ Thus in the
case of Bramhall v. Ferris* the testator provided that
the estate or interest granted to Ferris should terminate
on the event of a decree or judgment pronounced against
him in a creditor's suit instituted for the purpose of
obtaining the fund ; and in that event the executors
were directed to apply the income to the support of his
family by paying the same to his wife, or in any other
mode which they in their discretion might adopt. The
court say that they " know of nothing in the rules of law
to prevent these provisions from taking effect according
to the intention of the testator. It may, and should be,
conceded, that if the bequest to Ferris had been given to
1 NicoU V. N. Y. & E. R. Co., 12 N. Yamold v. Moorhouse, 1 Russ. &
Y. 131. My. 364 ;
See : Ludlow v. N. Y. & H. R. Martin v. Margham, 14 Sim.
Co. 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 440 ; 330 ;
Alleghany Oil Co. v. Bradford Pym v. Lockyer, 13 Sim. 394 ;
Oil Co., 31 Hun (N. Y.) 36. Lewes v. Lewes, 6 Sim. 304 ;
« Mo Williams v. Msly, 3 Serg. & Lear v. Leggett, 3 Sim. 479 ; s.c.
R. (Pa.) 507 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 1 Russ. & M. 690 ;
654. Wilson v. Greenwood, 1 Swanst.
3 Bramhall v. Ferris, 14 N. Y. 41 ; 471 ;
Churchill v. Marks, 1 Coll. 441 ; Dommet v. Bedford, 6 T. R.
Ex parte Boddam, 3 DeG. F. & 684 ;
J. 635 ; Higginbotham v. Holmes, 19 Ves.
Doe V. Clarke, 8 East 186 ; 88 ;
Muggeridge's Trusts, Johns. Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves.
(Eng.) 635 ; 439 ;
Whitfield V. Prickett, 3 Keen Shee v. Hale, 13 Ves. 404 ; s.c. 9
609 ; Rev. Rep. 198 ;
Cooper V. Wyatt, 5 Madd. 489 ; Brandon v. Aston, 3 Y. & C. N.
King V. Topping, McCleU. & Y. R. 24.
558 ; * 14 N. Y. 41.
Chap. IV. § 308.] RESTRICTIONS AS TO CREDITORS. 273
him absolutely for life, with no provision for its earlier
termination, and no limitation over in the event specified,
any attempt of the testator to make the interest of the
beneficiary inalienable, or to withdraw it from the claims
of creditors, would have been nugatory. Such an
attempt would be clearly repugnant to the estate in fact
devised or bequeathed, and would be ineffectual for that
reason, as well as upon the policy of the law.^ The doc-
trine, however, and the cases on which it rests, do not
deprive a testator of the power to declare effectually that
the bequest shall cease on the happening of an event
which would subject it to the claims of creditors, and
then to give it a different direction. ' ' There is, " said Lord
Eldon in Brandon v. Eobinson,^ " an obvious distinction
between a disposition to a man until he becomes a bank-
rupt and then over, and an attempt to give him property
and to prevent his creditors from obtaining any interest
in it although it is his.^ This distinction is one of sub-
stance, and we think the principle on which it depends
win sustain the will in the present case. If a testator
may provide that his bounty bestowed upon one person
shall cease and go to another on the occurrence of bank-
ruptcy, I can see no reason why he may not do so in the
event of an execution returned unsatisfied, followed by a
creditor's suit and judgment therein."*
' The court cite in support of this See : Leavitt v. Beirne, 21 Conn,
proposition the following 1 ;
cases : Pope v. Elliott, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.)
Blackstone Bank v. Davis, 38 56 ;
Mass. (21 Pick.) 42 ; s.c. 32 Am. Sparhawk v. Cloon, 135 Mass. 263,
Dec. 341 ; 366 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 445 ;
HalLett v. Thompson, 5 Paige Cli. Braman v. Stiles, 19 Mass.
(N. Y.) 583 ; (2 Pick.) 460, 464 ;
Graves v. Dolphin, 1 Sim. 66 ; Arnwine v. Carrol, 8 N. J. Eq.
Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 429. (4 Halst.) 620, 625 ;
- 18 Ves. 429. Rife v. Geyer, 59 Pa. St. 393 ; s.c.
^ See : Lewes v. Lewes, 6 Sim. 98 Am. Dec. 351 ;
304 ; Shankland's Appeal, 47 Pa. St.
Graves v. Dolphin, 1 Sim. 66 ; 113 ;
Shee V. Hale, 13 Ves. 404 ; s.c. 9 StiU v. Spear, 45 Pa. St. 168 ;
Rev. Rep. 198. Brown v. Y\'^illiamson, 36 Pa. St.
* This case is approved in : 338 ;
Williams v. Thorn, 70 N. Y. 270, Fisher v. Taylor, 2 Rawle (Pa.)
274 ; 33 ;
Campbell v. Foster, 35 N. Y. 061, Holdship v. Patterson, 7 Watts
367 ; (Pa.) 547 ;
Roosevelt v. Roosevelt, 6 Hun Ashurst i\ Given, 5 Watts & S.
(N. Y.)31, 40. (Pa.) 323;
18
274 CURTESY— DESCENT. [BOOK III.
Sec. 309. Same— Same— Estate for years.— The law relat-
ing to and controlling the limitations and conditions that
may be placed upon a life estate is also applicable to and
controlling in the creation of estates for years.-' The
gift of an estate to a woman during her widowhood,^
terminable upon her re-marriage, rests upon the same
principle.^
Sec. 310. Same— Curtesy.— Among the incidents of an
estate in fee-simple at common law, aside from the right
of alienation, is the right of the husband to curtesy in all
the lands of which his wife was seized during coverture,*
provided a child of theirs, who could have inherited the
estate,^ was born alive before the death of the mother.^
This subject will be fully treated in a subsequent chapter,'^
and need not be adverted to here farther than to remark
that an unborn child, after conception, is to be considered
in esse for the purpose of enabling it to take an estate,
or for any other purpose which is for the benefit of the
child if it should afterwards be born alive, or delivered
by the Caesarean operation ; but it is otherwise with
respect to those claiming rights through such a child.^
Sec. 311. Same— Descent.— Another incident, at common
law, of an estate in fee-simple is that, if not aliened by deed
of grant or the last will of the owner, the estate descends,
Tillinghast v. Bradford, 5 R. I. " Pearse v. Owens, 2 Hayw. (N. C.)
205 ; 234;
White V. White, 30 Vt. 338 ; Evans v. Rosser, 2 Hem. & M.
NickeU v. Handly, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 190 ;
336 ; Craven v. Brady, L. R. 4 Eq. Cas.
Hyde v. Woods, 94 U. S. 523, 209.
526 ; bk. 24 L. ed. 264, 266 ; ^ See : Heath v. White, 5 Conn.
Nichols V. Eaton, 91 IT. S. 716, 228, 235 ;
727-729 ; bk. 23 L. ed. 254, 257- MoDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 445,
258; ' 448.
Rochford v. Hackman, 9 Hare « 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 40a.
475 ; « Marsellis v. Talhimer, 2 Paige Ch.
Godden v. Crowhurst, 10 Sim. (N. Y.) 35 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 66.
487 ; ' See : Post, chapter XVII., " Curt-
Twopenny V. Peqton, 10 Sim. esy."
487 ; 8 Marsellis v. Talhimer, 3 Paige Ch.
Domett V. Bedford, 3 Ves. 149 ; (N. Y.) 35 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 66.
1 Lewin on Trusts, c. VII. See : GUlespie v. Nabors, 59 Ala.
' Doe V. Carter, 8 T. R. 61 ; 441 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 20 ;
Roe ex d. Hunter v. Galliers, 2 T. Hawley v. James, 5 Paige Ch.
R. 133 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 445. (N. Y.) 464 ;
? See : Ante, § 309. Matter of Frances Winne, 1 Lans.
(N. Y.) 513.
Chap, IV. §§ 312, 313.] POWER OF DEVISE. 275.
without restriction, to such persons as are by law his
legal heirs, whether the estate he in possession, reversion,
or remainder, vested or contingent. It is for this reason
that the word simple is added to the word fee, importing
an absolute inheritance clear of any condition, limitation,
or restriction to particular heirs ; in contradistinction to
another class of estates of inheritance which are only de-
scendable to some particular heirs. The rules of descent
in this country depend rather upon the local statutes
of the several states, and will be found fully treated in
another chapter of this work.^
Sec. 312. Same— Power of devise— Saxon and Danish
rule.— Before the establishment of the feudal system by
William the Conqueror and his successors, there existed
in England a testamentary power over land. This power
seems to have been rather adapted from the remnant of
the Eoman laws and customs found in that country, than
brought over from their own country.^
Sec. 313. Same — Sam.e— Under the Normans and their
successors.— After the Norman Conquest the power of
devising land ceased, except as to socage lands in some
particular places, such as cities and boroughs, in which it
was still preserved ; and also except as to terms for years
or chattel interests in land, which, on account of their
original insignificance, were deemed personalty, and as
such were ever disposable by will. This limitation of the
testamentary power proceeded partly from the solemn
form of transferring land by livery of seisin, introduced
at the Conquest, which could not be complied with in the
case of a last will, and partly from a jealousy of deathbed
dispositions ; but principally from the general restraint
of alienation incident to the rigors of the feudal system,
as it was established, or at least perfected, by William I.^
In the reign of Edward I. the statute of Quia Emptores re-
moved in a great measure this latter bar to the exercise
of testamentary power ; that is, in respect to all free-
'See: Post, chapter VIII., " De- cuique liberi et nullum testa-
scent of Fee-simple Estate." mentum." Tac. Posthum. 31.
« In writing of the ancient Germans 127 .
Tacitus says :" Successores sui » See : Wright's Ten. 173.
276 REASONS FOE RULE. [Book IIL
holders, except the king's tenants in capite. But the two
former obstructions still continued to operate, though
indeed this was in name and appearance only ; for soon
after the statute of Quia Emptores feoffments to uses
came into fashion, and last wills were enforced in chan-
cery as good declarations of the use ; and thus through
the medium of uses the power of devising was continually
exercised in effect and reality. But at length this practice
was checked, not accidentally, but designedly, during the
reign of Henry VIII., ^ by a statute which, by transferring
the possession or legal estate to the use, necessarily and
compulsively consolidated them into one, and so had the
effect of wholly destroying all distinction between them, till
the means to evade the statute, and, by a very strained con-
struction, to make its operation dependent on the intention
of parties, were invented. However, the bent of the
times was so strong in favor of every kind of alienation,
that the Legislature, in a few years after having inter-
posed to restrain an indirect mode of passing land by
wills, expressly made it devisable. This great change of
the common law was effected by statutes also passed
during the reign of Henry VIII., ^ which, taken together,
gave the power of devising to all having estates in fee-
simple, except in joint tenancy, over the whole of their
socage land, and over two-thirds of their lands holden by
knight's service.^
Sec. 314. Same— Same— Reason for the common-law rule.—
As we have seen, at early common law land could not be
be disposed of by will.* The reason for this seems to
have been the inability of the devisor to consummate the
alienation by livery of seisin either in deed or in law,*
' Stat. 27 Hen. VIII. be two kinds of livery of seisin,
' 33 & 34 Hen. VIII. viz., a liverie in deed, and a
' See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) Ilia, livery in law. A livery in deed
note (1). is when the feofeer taketh the
■* See : Ante, § 313 ; ring of the doore, or turfe or
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 111b, note twigge of the land, and deliver-
(!)• eth the same upon the land to
Lord Bacon says that lands are the feoffee in name of seisin of
not "testamentary and devis- the land, etc., per hostium et
able at common law." Bacon's per haspam et annulum vel per
Tracts, 316. fustem velbaculum,"etc. 1 Co.
' Kinds of livery of seisin.—" There Litt. (19th ed.) 48a.
Chap. IV. § 318.] AMERICAN AND ENGLISH RULES. 277
which was indispensable at common law.^ This livery
of seisin is no other than the pure feudal investiture
or delivery by corporeal transactions, nam feudum sine
investitatura nuUo modo constitui potuit ; ^ and the estate
was then only perfect when there was a joinder of right
and possession, fit juris et sui nee conjunctio.^
Sec. 315. Same — Same — American rule. — The power to
devise real property in this country, like the rule of
descent, is regulated almost exclusively by the local
statutes in the various states, and will come up for full
consideration hereafter.*
Sec. 316. Same— Dower.— At common law all estates in
fee-simple are subject to an inchoate or actual right of
dower in the wife ; and such is the rule in all the states
in this country except those in which curtesy and dower
have been done away with by statute. The subject is
fully treated in a separate chapter hereafter.^
Sec. 31T. Same — Forfeiture- English doctrine.- By the
common law of England estates in fee-simple are forfeited
to the crown by attainder of treason ; ® and the lands
whereof a person so attainted died seized in fee-simple
become vested forever in the crown, '^ without any office ;
because they could not descend on account of the corrup-
tion of blood of the person last seized ; and the freehold
cannot be in abeyance.^
Sec. 318. Same— Same— American doetrine.—In this coun-
try, however, no attainder of treason against the federal
government works corruption of blood, or forfeiture of
' 2 Bl. Com. 311 ; * See : Post, chapters VI. and VII.,
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 48a. " Creation of Fee-simple by
' For a "fee cannot in any maimer Devise."
be made without giving posses- ^ See : Post, chapter XVIII.,
sion. Wright, Ten. 37. "Dower."
3 Fleta, 1. 3, c. 15, § 5. . '4 Bl. Com. 881;
The degree of possession made a sub- 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 392.
ject of very minute distinction ' Lord de la Warre's Case, 11 Co.
and refinement at this time, and la ;
is discoursed on by Bracton at 4 Bl. Com. 381.
length. Brae. 38l'b. See ; Burgess v. Wheate, 1 Eden
See : 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. 201 ;
C2d ed ) 303. Wheatly v. Thomas, Lev. 74.
*■ '' 8 2Hawk. P. C.,c. 4, §1.
278 LIABILITY FOB DEBTS. [Book IU.
property, except during the life of the person attainted. •■
Though forfeiture for treason against the general govern-
ment of the United States has been abolished, it is
thought still to exist, by common law, against those
individual states which have not expressly abolished it.^
Seo 319. Same — Iiiability for debts — Common-law doe-
trine.— Another incident of an estate in fee-simple is its
liability for the debts of the owner. This liability was
not originally an incident of real estate, which was first
made liable to execution for the debts of the owner dur-
ing his lifetime by statute of Edward I. '; ^ but there was
no positive English law until a statute was passed in the
reign of William IV.,* providing for subjecting the estates
of decedents to the satisfaction of all the debts of the
ancestor. After this time estates of which a person died
seized in fee-simple, and which descended upon the heir,
were liable in the hands of the heir to the payment of all
debts of the ancestor by a specialty, in which ^he heir
was expressly mentioned as bound ; but if the heir
aliened before the action was brought, the creditor was
without remedy ; and where the person so dying seized
was indebted hj bond or other specialty, and devised the
estate, the creditor had no remedy against the devisee. **
Sec. 320. Same— Same— American doctrine.— In this coun-
try lands are subject to the payment of the debts of the
owner, in all forms of action, both before and after his
death, and in the hands of heirs and deviseps," accord-
' U. S. Const., art. 3, § 3. Wyman v. Brigden, 4 Mass.
See : Wallaoh v. Van Riswick, 92 150 ;
U. S. 303 ; bk. 38 L. ed. 473; Bellas v. McCarthy, 10 Watts
Day V. Mioou, 85 U. S. (18 Wall.) (Pa.) 13 ;
156 ; bk. 31 L. ed. 860 ; Petition of Johnson, 15 K. I. 438 ;
Bigelow V. Forrest, 76 U. S. s.c. Atl. Rep. 248 ; 3 New Eng.
(9 Wall.) 339 ; bk. 19 L. ed. 696. Rep. 635 ;
' See : 3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 386. Watkins v. Holman, 39 U. S. (16
■' Stat. 13 Edw. I., c. 18. Pet.) 35, 63 ; bk. 10 L. ed. 873,
" Stats. 3.& 4 WiU. IV., o. 104. 888.
* See : Davy v. Pepys, 3 Plow. 439 ; The sale of the decedent's estate
Buckley v. Nightingale, 1 Stran. will be authorized by probate
665. ■ courts for the payment of his
« See : Millard v. Harris, 119 IU. debts at any time while such
185 ; s.c. 10 N. E. Rep. 387 ; 8 land remains in the hand of
West. Rep. 57 ; his heirs and devisee.
Chap. IV. § 320.] AMERICAN DOCTRINE. 279
ing to the laws of the state in which the lands are
situated.^
Moaers v. White, 6 John. Ch. (N.
Y.) 360 ;
Petition lie Johnson, 15 R. 1. 438 ;
s.c. 8 Atl. Rep. 248; 3 New
Eng. Rep. 635.
An executor may sell the interest
of a devisee in lands. for the
payment of such debts of the
testator as are not barred by
the statute of limitations.
Millard v. Harris, 119 lU. 185 ;
S.C. 10 N. E. Rep. 387 ; 8 West.
Rep. 57.
Bruch V. Lantz, 2 Rawle (Pa.)
892 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 458 ;
Sands v. Lynham, 27 Gratt. (Va.)
391 ; s.c. 21 Am. Rep. 348 ;
Watkins v. Holman, 39 U. S. (16
Pet.) 35; bk. 10 L. ed. 873.
CHAPTEE V.
CREATION OF FEE-SIMPLE ESTATE BY DEED.
Sec. 331. Methods of creating fee-simple estates.
Sec. 322. Same — Common-law rule— 7Apt words.
Sec. 323. Same — ^Whole estate need not be conveyed.
Sec. 324. Same — Reservations.
Sec. 335. " Heirs " cannot be supplied with any other word.
Sec. 326. Same — Must appear in operative part of deed.
Sec. 327. Same — Supplied by reference to other instruments.
Sec. 338. Same — Exceptions to the rule.
Sec. 339. Same — Same — Deeds in trust ajid equitable estates.
Sec. 830. Same — Same — Deed to corporation.
Sec. 331. Same — Same — Deed to sovereign.
Sec. 333. Same — Abrogation of rule by statute.
Sec. 333. " Heirs "—Definition.
Sec. 834. Same — Word of limitation, not of purchase.
Sec. 835. Same — Construed " children " when.
Sec. 336. Same — ^When to be ascertained.
Sec. 337. Same — "Present heirs."
Sec. 338. Same—" Bodily heirs " or " heirs of the body."
Section 321. Methods of creating fee-simple estates.— An
estate in fee-simple may be created either by deed of gift
or by devise. While estates created by these methods
are alike, the words made use of in creating the respect-
ive estates, and the rules of interpretation applied by the
courts to the instruments, are different. A deed is mtich
more strictly construed than a will.^ In this chapter
will be given the rules relating to the creation of a fee-
simple estate by deed, the words necessary to be used,
and the rules of interpretation applied by the courts.
' " Heirs " necessary to vest fee- being a natural person, though
simple. — The general rule of the rule is more flexible and
law is that both in a deed and more readily relaxed in a will
in. a will the word " heirs " is than in a deed,
necessary to vest a fee-simple Cleveland v. Hallett, 60 Mass.
in the devisee, the %rantee 403, 407,
280
Chap. V. §§ 322, 323.] EULE AS TO APT WORDS. 281
Sec. 322. Same— Common-law rule— Apt words.— At com-
mon law an estate in fee-simple could not be created in a
natural person without the use of apt words to that end/
/among which is the word " heirs," accompanied, it would
seem, by the possessive pronoun, for these words make
the estate of inheritance.'^ None of the rules of the com-
mon law were more inflexible and rigidly adhered to
than this one, even the manifest intention of the parties
to a deed being made to give way before it. This inflex-
ible rule of the common law, in all its uncompromising
nature, is applicable in this country in all the states
where not abrogated or modifled by statute.^ In con-
struing a deed the question is not what estate did the
grantor intend to pass, but what did he pass by apt and
proper words. If he has failed to use the proper words
in expression of intent, no amount of recital showing the
intent will supply the omission.*
Sec. 323. Same— Wh-ole estate need not be conveyed.—
The whole estate need not be conveyed. A fee may be
properly granted accompanied by a reservation of the
usufruct to the grantor for life. Thus a deed providing
that possession is to be given at the death of the grantor
is valid ; ^ and where a deed is made to a person and to
her heirs and assigns forever, in consideration of love,
' No particular form of words is Merritt v. Disney, 48 Md. 344 ;
necessary, in some states, to Reaume v. Chambers, 23 Mo. 36 ;
convey realty, any words de- Hogan's Heirs i'. Welcker, 14 Mo.
noting an intention to transfer 177 ;
the title being suiHcient. Sisson v. Donnelly, 36 N. J. L. (7
See : Gambril v. Doe ex d. Rose, Vr.) 433 ;
8 Blackf. (Ind.) 140 ; s.c. 44 Jackson v. Myers, 3 John. (N. Y.)
Am. Dec. 760 ; 388 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 504 ;
Bridge v. Wellington, 1 Mass. Fray v. Packer, 4 Watts & S.
319 ; (Pa.) 17 ;
2 Bl Com 398 ; Hileman v. Bouslaugh, 13 Pa.
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 460. St. 344 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 474 ;
' Litt 4 1 Roberts v. Forsythe, 3 Dev. (S.
See": 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) la. C.) L. 36 ; „^^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^^ ^
3 Patterson v. Moore, 15 Ark. 223 ; Adams v. Ross, oO N. J. L. (1 Vr.)
Edwardsville R. Co. v. Sawyer, 505; s.c. 83 Am. Dec. 337;
93 111 377 • 3 Prest. Est. 11, 12.
Bean v French, 140 Mass. 229, * Adams v. Ross, 30 N. J. L. (1 Vr.)
231 . 505 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 337.
Sedeewick v. Laflin, 93 Mass. (10 ' Waugh's Executors v. Waugh, 84
AUen) 430 ; Pa. St. 350 ; s.c. 24 Am. Rep.
BufBn V. Hutchinson, 83 Mass. (1 191.
Allen) 58 ;
282 WHAT ESTATE CONVEYED. [Book III.
-good- will, and affection, reserving the use of the lands
duriag the grantor's natural life, it conveys a fee in prce-
senti, subject to the life estate. ^ It is said by the Supreme
Court of South Carolina, in the case of Cribb v. Rogers,^ —
where it was " argued that under the operation of the
statute of uses the fee was, at the moment of its creation,
thrown upon the grantor by the execution of its uses,
and thus the deed rendered ineffectual, " — that " the statute
of uses could not operate until there was such a title in
the grantee as the deed was intended to vest, and this
was a fee. The only effect of the statute would, assum-
ing its operation, be to cast upon the grantor an estate
commensurate with the uses created by the deed, and
that would be a life estate, leaving a remainder in fee
vested in the grantee which would owe its existence as
such, not to the deed, but to the operation of the statute.
The rules of the common law, as it regards the support
required for a remainder, are therefore inapplicable, for
the deed does not create a remainder as such. The
statute cannot operate to defeat the deed, for it was not
intended to have such effect, but only to effectuate its
purposes by raising estates competent to give the fullest
support to its uses.^ The present interest was conveyed
by the deed in Jenkins v. Jenkins,* as it was to take
effect only upon the death of the grantor. It is contrary
to the nature of a deed that it should commence to
operate as such at a time subsequent to its delivery ; on
the contrary, it must take effect, if at all, from the
moment of delivery to operate as a deed, though in cer-
tain cases it may be upheld as a covenant to stand seized
to the use of the grantee."
Sec. 324. Same— Beservations.— Where it is sought to
create a reservation or to make an exception * in favor of
' Cribb V. Rogers, 12 S. C. 564 ; Jaggers v. Estes, 2 Strobh. (S;
s.o. 32 Am. Rep. 511. C.) Eq. 343, 376 ; s.c. 49 Am.
= 12 S. C. 564 : s.c. 32 Am. Rep. 511. Deo. 674 ; and Singleton v.
8 Jenkins v. Jenkins, 1 Mills (8. C.) Bremar, 4 McC. (8. C.) L 15
48. " 1 MiUs (S. C.) 48.
This case fully sustains the con- * Eeservations and exceptions Dis-
clusions just stated. The same tinction between. — It is said in
conclusions were reached in Bowen v. Conner, 60 Mass. (6
Sunday v. Boon (MS.), cited in Cush.) 132, 135, that in our own
Chap. V. § 325.] RESERVATIONS—" HEIRS.'
283
any person out of an estate conveyed in fee-simple, the
same rigor of rule applies to the words "his heirs," or
' ' their heirs, " and they are as necessary in the creation
of the reservation or exception as in creating a fee-sim-
ple estate itself. If they are omitted, a life interest only
vests. ^ No words of perpetuity will take their place.
The same rule of interpretation applies to an exception
out of a grant as to the deed itself, in respect to the limit-
ation of the estate thereby created. If the whole fee is
granted, and an exception he made to the grantor him-
self, without words of inheritance, a life estate only is ex-
cepted.^ Thus it is said in the case of Bean f. French ^
that it is the well-settled rule in deeds to an individual,
that the word "heir" is necessary to create an estate of
inheritance in the grantee, if he takes to his own use and
not in trust.^
Sec. 325. " Heirs " cannot be supplied by any other word..
— Under the common-law rule the word "heirs" is
necessary to create an estate of inheritance in the grantee.
conveyancing this distinction
is not so precisely observed, but
a clause of reservation is con-
strued to be an exception if
that will best effect the intent
of the parties. And so in the
Enghsh cases, the term reser-
vation is often very uncertain.
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 47a ;
Shep. Touch. 80.
See : Thompson v. Gregory, 4
Johns. (N. Y.) 81 ; s.c. 4 Am.
Dec. 255.
It is said in Perkins v. Stockwell,
131 Mass. 529, 530, that whether
a particular provision is in-
tended to operate as an excep-
tion or reservation is to be
determined by its character,
rather than by the particular
words used.
Stockwell w. CouiUard, 129 Mass.
231;
Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson
Iron Co., 107 Mass. 290, 321 ;
Ashcroft V. Eastern Railroad, 126
Mass. 196 ;s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 196;
Shep. Touch. 80.
' Bean v. French, 140 Mass. 229,
231;
Ashcroft V. Eastern Ark. Co.,
126 Mass. 196, 199 ; s.c. 30 Am.
Rep. 672 ;
Dennis v. Wilson, 107 Mass. 591,
593;
Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corp.
V. Chandler, 91 Mass. 159, 170 ;
Curtis V. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13
Met.) 457, 461 ;
Kister v. Reiser (Pa.), 38 Leg. Int.
300;
Shep. Touch. 100.
' Curtis V. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13
Met.) 457, 461 ;
Shep. Touch. 100.
2 140 Mass. 229, 231.
^ Sedgewick v. Laflin, 92 Mass. (10
Allen) 430 ;
Buffum V. Hutchinson, 83 Mass.
(1 Allen) 58.
Eeservation by way of implied
grant. — The same rule applies
to a reservation which operates
by way of an implied grant.
See : Ashcroft v. Eastern Rail-
road, 126 Mass. 196; s.c. 30
Am. Rep. 672 ;
Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corp. v.
Chandler, 91 Mass. (9 Allen)
159 ;
Curtis V. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13
Met.) 457.
234
' HEIRS " HAS NO EQUIVALENT.
[Book III.
' where he takes in his own use and not in trust ; ^ other-
wise the only estate that will pass will be an estate for
' GambrU v. Doe ex d. Ross, 8
Blaokf. (Ind.) 140 ; s.o. 44 Am.
Dec. 760.
See : Hogan v. Barry, 143 Mass.
538 ; s.c. 10 N. E. Rep. 253 ;
■ Bean v. French, 140 Mass. 299 ;
s.c. 3 N. E. Rep. 206 ; 1 New
Eng. Rep. 313 ;
Sedgewick v. Laflin, 93 Mass. (10
Allen) 430 ;
BuflEum V. Hutchinson, 83 Mass.
(1 Allen) 58 ;
Cleveland v. Hallett, 60 Mass. (6
Cush.) 407 ;
Gould V. Lamb, 52 Mass. (11 Met.)
84 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 187 ;
Rector «. Waugh, 17 Mo. IB ; s.c.
57 Am. Dec. 251 ;
Leitensdorfer v. Delphy, 15 Mo.
160 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 187 ;
Sisson V. DonneUy, 36 N. J. L. (7
Vr.) 434 ;
Adams v. Boss, 80 N. J. L. (1 Vr.)
505 ; s.c. 82 Am. Dec. 237 ;
Batchelor t'.Whitaker,88 N.C.850;
Roberts v. Forsythe, 3 Dev. (N.
C.)L. 26;
Brown v. Nat. Bk. of Hamilton,
44 Ohio St. 269 ; s.c. 6 N. E. Rep.
648 ; 3 West. Rep. 601 ;
Cromwell v. Winchester, 2 Head
(Tenn.) 389 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 5.
Compare : Baker v. Hunt, 40 111.
264; s.c. 89 Am. Dec. 846;
Wickersham v. Bills, 8 Ind. 387 ;
Ross V. Adams, 28 N. J. L. (4
Dutch.) 160 ;
Lemon v. Graham, 131 Pa. St.
447 ; s.c. 19 Atl. Rep. 48 ; 6 L.
R. A. 663 ; 35 W. N. C. 839 ; 47
Leg. Int. 324 ;
Cromwell v. Winchester, 3 Head
(Tenn.) 889.
littleton on the rule. — It is said by
Lord Littleton that "these
words ' his heires ' do not only
extend to his immediate heires,
but to his heires remote and
most remote, born and to be
bom, sub quibus vocabulis
'haeredibus suis' omnes hseredes,
propinqui comprehenduntur, et
remoti, nati et nascituri, and
haeredum appellatione veniunt,
hssredes hseredum. in infinitum.
And the reason wherefore the
law is so precise to prescribe cer-
taine words to create an estate
of inlieritance, is for avoiding
of uncertainty, the mother of
contention and confusion."
See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) la, 8b ;
Com. Dig., tit. " Estate," A. 3 ;
4 Cru. Dig., tit. 33, c. 31, c. 1 ;
3Prest. Est. 1, 2, 4, 5;
1 Shep. Touch. 101.
niinois doctrine. — In Baker v.
Hunt, 40 111. 264 ; s.c. 89 Am.
Dec. 346, it is said that the
words "heirs, executors, and
administrators," commonly
used in the covenants of deeds,
are surplusage in Illinois, as,
under the statutes of that state,
the heir is bound by all the de-
mands against his ancestor, to
the extent of the real estate in-
herited.
Indiana doctrine. — In Wickersham
V. Bills, 8 Ind. 387, the court
say that the word "heirs" is
not necessary in Indiana for
creating a fee-simple, where
other words of inheritance, con-
veying a fee-simple, are used,
and the intention appears clear.
New Jersey doctrine. — It seems
that a fee may be passed in
New Jersey without the use of
^ the words " heirs," if other lan-
guage indicating a clear in-
tention to include the line
of inheritance be substituted
therefor.
Ross V. Adams, 38 N. J. L. (4
Dutch.) 160.
Pennsylvania doctrine.— In the re-
cent case of Lemon v. Graham,
131 Pa. St. 447; s.c. 19 Atl.
Rep. 48 ; 6 L. R. A. 663 ; 35 W.
N. C. 389 ; 47 Leg. Int. 334, it
is said that the assignment
under seal of all the grantor's
"right, claim, interest, and
property whatever in and to " a
deed, on the back of which it
is written, and which deed gives
the grantor an estate in fee-
simple, is sufficient to transfer
the fee without the use of the
word "heirs " or its equivalent.
In Tennessee the common-law rule
that without the use of the
word heirs in deeds an estate
for life only is granted, has been
changed by statutory enact-
ment.
Chap. V. § 326.] "HEIRS" NECESSARY TO FEE-SIMPLE. 285
the life of the grantee. ^ The land must be conveyed to
the grantor and "his heirs," and no words of perpetuity-
will supply the omission of these necessary words of lim-
itation.^ Thus a grant to a man to have and to hold to
him forever, or to have and to hold to him and his as-
signs forever, will convey only a life estate.^ The term
"forever "is not equivalent to "his heirs or assigns,"*
and will not impart inheritable qualities.^ Words which
show an intention on the part of the grantor that the
estate shall endure forever, will not convey more than a
life estate, such as a grant to a man "and his genera-
tion, to endure as long as the waters of the Delaware
run ; " ® but if the necessary words of limitation are added,
other words descriptive of the estate granted will be sur-
plusage. Thus where the conveyance is to a man, "his
heirs and assigns," "as long as wood grows and water
runs," the instrument creates a fee-simple estate, the
words "as long as wood grows and water runs" being
treated as mere surplusage.'^
Sec. 326. Same— Must appear in operative part of deed.—
Cromwell v. Winchester, 3 Head Handy v. McKim, 64 Md. 560;
(Tenn.) 389. s.c. 4 Atl. Rep. 125 ; 3 Cent.
• Curtis V. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13 Rep. 704.
Met.) 457, 461 ; « Curtis v. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13
Gould V. Lamb, 53 Mass. (11 Met.) Met.) 457, 461.
84 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 187 ; Citing : Gould v. Lamb, 53 Mass.
Young V. MarshaU, HiU & Den. (11 Met.) 86 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec.
(N. Y.) 93. 187 ;
2 Curtis V. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13 Wright ■y. Dowley, 3 W. BL 1185 ;
Met.) 457, 461. 3 Crabb on R. Prop., §§ 955, 966 ;
Citing : Jackson i;. Mvers, 8 John. Litt., § 1.
(N. Y.) 388 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. ■* Dennis v. Wilson, 107 Mass. 591,
504 ; 593 ;
Fray v. Packer, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) Sedgewick v. Laflin, 93 Mass. (10
17; Allen) 430;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 8b ; Buflfum v. Hutchinson, 83 Mass.
2 Prest. Est. 11, 13. (1 Allen) 58 ;
Estate for life— Limitation over— Bowen v. Conner, 60 Mass. (6
" Heirs " necessary. — Where a Cush.) 133 ;
deed created an estate for life Curtis v. Gardner, 54 Mass. (13
in A, with limitation over to Met.) 457 ;
such other person or persons as 3 Bl. Com. 107 ;
would be entitled to take an es- 3 Prest. Est. 4.
tate in fee by descent from A, ' Dennis v. Wilson,107 Mass.591,593.
the word " heirs " is needful in « Foster v. Joice, 3 Wash. C. O. 498.
ultimate limitation over to ' Arms v. Burt, 1 Vt. 303 ; s.c. 18
create fee-simple, and without Am. Dec. 680.
it the rule in SheUey's Case See : Stevens v. Dewmg, 3 Vt.
could not be applied. 411.
286
• HEIRS " IN OPERATIVE PART OF DEED. [Book III.
The word "heirs," to carry an estate in fee, must ap-
pear in the operative part of the deed. It need not ap-
pear in the premises of the instrument or grant proper ;
it being held sufficient if it appear in the habendum
clause,^ the particular office of which is to define the
amount of the estate taken by the grantor.^ While the
habendum may enlarge the estate named in the prem-
ises,^ yet the words in the habendum or the covenants
cannot have the effect of enlarging an estate less than a
fee thereto ; * neither will they serve to give the instru-
ment the effect of a conveyance of the legal estate, where
an equitable interest only is defined in the premises.^
But in the case of Saunders v. Hanes,'' where the deed
contained no words of inheritance in the habendum, a
restriction upon the grantee and his heirs was allowed
to enlarge the estate into a fee.'' In Phillips v. Thomp-
' Pormal parts of a deed. — Tliere are
eight formal or orderly parts of
a deed of feoffment mentioned
by Lord Coke, viz. : "1. The
premises of the deed implied by
Littleton ; 2. the habendum,
whereof Littleton here speak-
eth; 3. the tenendum, men-
tioned by Littleton ; 4. the red-
dendum ; 5. the clause of war-
rantie ; 6. the in cujus rei tes-
timonium, comprehending the
sealing ; 7. the date of the
deed, containing the day, the
month, the yeare and stile of
the king, or of the yeare of our
Lord ; lastly, the clause of hiis
testibus ; and yet all these pai-ta
■were contained in a very few
and significant words, hseo fuit
Candida illus setatis fides et
simplicitas, quse pauculis lineis
omnia fidei fixmamenta posue-
runt." 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 6a.
' See : Lancaster Bank v. Myley, 13
Pa. St. 544. .
' Chaffee v. Dodge, 3 Root (Conn.)
205.
* Patterson v. Moore, 15 Ark. 222 ;
Den ex d. Roberts v. Forsythe,
3 Dev. (N. C.) L. 26 ;
Sisson V. DoimeUy, 86 N. J. L.
(7 Vr.) 432 ;
Adams v. Ross, 30 N. J. L. (1 Vr.)
505 ; B.C. 83 Am. Dec. 237.
° Hastings v. Merriam, 117 Mass.
245, 252.
See : Chapin v. First Universalist
Soc. of Chicopoe, 74 Mass. (8
Gray) 580.
« 44 N. Y. 353, 359.
' Sestrictiou enlarges to a fee when, —
The court say if the lease
granted an inheritable estate,
the words (his heirs and de-
visee) were appropriate and had
direct meaning and force. If
not, they are without any signi-
ficance. We are not to assume
that they are used inadvertent-
ly or without meaning. The
word " heirs," as here iised, in-
dicates that they were to take
the estate, in case the lessee
died possessed of it, and were
limited by the restriction as the
ancestor. The adoption of the
word "heirs," in this connec-
tion, is repugnant to the limit-
ation of the estate for the life
of the lessee, arising from the
want or omission of that word
in the habendum clause. It
occurs in the premises, a part of
the lease prior to this clause,
and of the most considerable
importance to the lessee. It is
no more probable that the word
was there included unadvised-
ly, than that it was so omitted
in the very next clause of the
lease. In my opinion, this use
of the word " heirs" is repug-
nant to the construction assign-
Chap. V. § 327.] " HEIRS " SUPPLIED BY REFERENCE. 287
son,^ where the -warranty and habendum clauses were run
together, the court construed the deed as passing a fee ;
and in Bridge v.Wellington,^ it is said that an instrument
which contains no words of grant is sufficient to pass a
fee, because the habendum and the covenants which fol-
lowed clearly indicated that such was the intention of the
grantor. Although the habendum in a deed in general
refers to the premises, and declares the estate which the
grantee shall hold in them, yet it may sometimes enlarge
or diminish the grant, when it is so worded as to show
a clear intention to do so ; ^ and it may qualify, ex-
pound, or vary the estate given by the premises.* But
where an estate for life only is mentioned in the premises
and the habendum, this cannot be enlarged into a fee,
either by a warranty in fee or by a covenant for quiet en-
joyment to the grantee and his heirs, ^ even where the
warranty is against the grantor, his heirs, executors, and
assigns.^
Sec. 327. Same— Supplied by reference to other instru-
ments.—The general rule is that the word ' ' heirs " is
absolutely necessary to create a fee-simple ; ^ yet this
word need not be contained in the deed where the estate
is described by reference to another instrument, in pur-
suance of which the deed is and professes on its face to
be executed ; or where the estate is given to the grantee,
' ' as fully as it was granted in " a former deed, referring
to it, where such instrument or deed referred to contains
the word " heirs, "^ for in such a case the instrument
conveying the estate borrows the words of limitation
from the former instrument and conveys a fee.^ This
ing to the lessee a life estate ^ Moss v. Sheldon, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.)
only, as claimed for the plaint- 160.
iffs by reason of the omission ' Snell v. Young, 3 Ired. (N. C.) L.
of that word in its appropriate 379 ;
place." Register v. Rowell, 3 Jones (N.
Saunders v. Hanes, 44 N. Y. 353, C.) L. 312.
359. « Patterson v. Moore, 15 Ark. 333.
' 73 N. C. 543. ' Cleveland v. Hallett, 60 Mass. (6
* 1 Mass. 319, 337, cited with ap- Cush.) 407 ;
proval in Jamaica Pond Ague- Gould v. Lamb, 53 Mass. (11 Met.)
duct Corp. V. Chandler, 91 Mass. 84 ; s.o. 45 Am. Dec. 187.
(9 Allen) 159, 167. ^ Mercier v. Missouri, Ft. S. & G. R.
8 Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (30 Co., 54 Mo. 506.
Pick.) 514. ' 3 Prest. Est. 2 ;
Shep. Touch. 101.
288
EXCEPTIONS TO RULE.
[Book III.
rule, however, must be strictly applied,* and no intention,
however clearly manifested, that the instrument referred
to, even though it be a will, shall pass a fee, will do so
unless such instrument contained words of inheritance.^
Sec. 328. Same— Exceptions to the rule.— To this general
rule there are exceptions, as there are to all other general
rules. ^ Thus if lands be given and granted to a trustee,
whatever the formal words of the grant, he will be con-
sidered as taking the legal title in those cases where it
should be vested in him in order to enable him to execute
the purposes of the will.^ And where land is given and
In the case of Gould v. Lamb, 52
Mass. (11 Met.) 84 ; s.c. 45 Am.
Deo. 187, the court say that
" if one recite that B hath en-
feoffed him of white acre, to
have and to hold to him and
his heirs, and he doth grant the
same to C, by this C, the
grantee, takes a fee-simple of
this acre. Shep. Touch. 101.
So if a father enfeoflfs his son,
to hold to him and his heirs,
and the son re-enfeoffs the
father as fully as the father en-
feoffed him, an estate in fee-
simple will pass. Co. Litt. 9 b;
Cru. Dig., tit. 33, c. 24, sec.'S ;
2 Crabb on Eeal Prop., § 956.
And undoubtedly a fee-simple
may be created by other words
of reference to deeds and in-
struments without the use of
the word ''heirs," where the
intention appears clear."
'Eeaume v. Chambers, 23 Mo. 36 ;
Lytle V. Lytle, 10 Watts (Pa.)
256.
» Gould V. Lamb, 52 Mass. (11 Met.)
84, 86; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 187,
188.
' Chamberlain v. Thompson, 10
Conn. 243; s.c. 26 Am. Dec.
390 393 '
Morton u' Barrett, 22 Me. 257;
s.c. 39 Am. Deo. 575, 578 ;
Goodrich v. Proctor, 67 Mass. (1
Gray) 567, 570 ;
Gould V. Lamb, 53 Mass. (11 Met.)
84, 86 ; s.c. 45 Am. Deo. 187,
188;
Purdie v. Whitney, 37 Mass. (20
Pick.) 25 ;
Fisher v. Fields, 10 John. (N. Y.)
495;
Bagshaw v. Spencer, 2 Atk. 577 ;
Villiers v. ViUiers, 2 Atk. 73 ;
Sanford v. Irby, 3 Barn. & Aid.
654 ; s.c. 5 Eng. C. L. 376 ;
Houston r. Hughes, 6 Bam. &
Cr. 403; s.c. 13 Eng. C. L.
188;
Gates d. Markliam v. Cooke, 3
Burr. 1684, 1686 ;
Murthwaite v. Jenkinson, 3 Barn.
& Cr. 357 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L.
163;
Doe V. Nioholls, 1 Barn. & Cr.
336 ; s.c. 8 Eng. C. L. 144 ;
Shaw V. Wright, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr.
176;
Horton v. Horton, 7 T. R. 652 ;
Silvester v. Wilson, 2 T. R. 444 ;
Wykliam «. Wykham, 18 Ves. 414;
Gibson v. Montfort, 1 Ves. 485 :
Biscoe V. Perkins, 1 Ves. & B.
489.
In Chamberlain v. Thompson, 10
Conn. 343 ; s.c. 26 Am. Deo,
390, the court say that,
"wherever an estate in fee is
required, in order to satisfy the
purpose of the trust, such an
estate will pass without the
word heirs. Tliis principle is
fuUy asserted by Kent, C. J.,
in giving the opinion of the
court in the case of Fisher v.
Fields, 10 John. (N. Y.) 495. He
says : ' A trust is merely what
a use was, before the statute of
uses. And in exercising its
executory jurisdiction over
trusts, the Court of Chancery is
not bound by the technical
rules of law, but takes a wider
range in favor of the intent of
the party.' And again, in his
Com.mentaries, the same
Chap. V. § 329.] EXCEPTIONS— DEEDS IN TRUST.
289
granted to a bishop, parson, or the hke, to have and to
hold to him and his successors, this is a fee-simple ; ^ and
where lands are given and granted to a corporation
aggregate, without the word "successors," or any other
word of inheritance, it will create a fee-simple estate.^
Sec. 329. Same — Same — Deeds in trust and equitable
estates.— The first and most important class of exceptions
to the general rule that the word heirs is essential in a
deed to pass a fee, is where there is a conveyance in
trust, in which case the trustee is held to take an estate
as large as may be necessary for the purposes of the trust,
whether the instrument of conveyance contain words of
inheritance or not.^ The primary object of such a con-
leamed jurist remarks : ' An
assignment or conveyance of
an interest in trust will carry
a fee without words of limita-
tion, where the intent is mani-
fest.' See : 4 Kent Com. (13th
ed.) 298. In Bagshaw v. Spen-
cer, 2 Atk. .577, which was the
case of a devise in trust, Lord
Hakdwicke says : ' The devise
to sell would have carried the
fee, if the word heirs had
not been mentioned.' And he
further says, in Villiers v.
ViUiers, 2 Atk. 72 : 'If land be
given to a mein without the
word heirs, and a trust
be declared of that estate,
and it can be satisfied by no
other way but by the cestui
que trust' staking an inlierit-
ance, it has been construed
that a fee passes to him."
See : Gates d. Markham v. Cooke,
3 Burr. 1684, 1686;
Shaw V. Wright, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr.
176;
Gibson v. Montfort, 1 Ves. 485.
i Gould V. Lamb, 52 Mass. (11 Met.)
84 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 187.
2 Id.
« See : Kom v. Cutler, 26 Conn. 4 ;
Kirkland v. Cox, 94 111. 400 ;
North V. Philbrook, 34 Me. 532 ;
Farquharson v. Eichleberger, 15
Md. 63 ;
Spessard v. Eohrer, 9 GUI. (Md.)
261;
Attorney-General v. Proprietors'
Meeting-house in Federal
Street, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 1 ;
19
Cleveland v. HaUett, 60 Mass. (6
Cush.) 403 ;
Gould V. Lamb, 52 Mass. (11
Met.) 84; s.c. 45 Am. Dec.
187;
Newhall v. Wheeler, 7 Mass. 189,
190;
Rosenbury, 12 Mich.
Angell V.
241;
Wilcox V.
488;
Weller v.
Wheeler, 47 N. H.
Rolason, 7 N. J. Eq.
(2 C. E. Gr.) 13 ;
Fisher v. Fields, 10 John. (N. Y.)
495;
Welcli V. Allen, 21 Wend. (N. Y.)
147;
Fox V. Phelps, 20 Wend. (N. Y.)
437 ;
Holmes v. Holmes, 86 N. C.
205;
Nelson v. Lagow, 53 U. S. (12
How.) 98 ; bk. 13 L. ed. 909 ;
Hardy v. Redman's Adm'r, 3 Cr.
C. C. 635.
Equitable estate — In North Car-
olina the word ' ' heirs " is not
necessaiy to the creation of an
equitable estate in fee, if an in-
tention to pass such an estate
can be gathered from the in-
strument.
Holmes v. Holmes, 86 N. C.
205.
Same — In Michigan the word
"heirs" is not necessary to
convey a fee in a conveyance in
trust for the sale of land and
the payment of debts from the
proceeds, but the trustee may
be held to take as large an es-
290 EXCEPTIONS— DEED TO CORPORATION. [BOOK III.
struction manifestly is to uphold trusts so created, and
to secure to the respective objects of them the benefits
intended ; and to accomplish this purpose the trustee
must have a legal estate co-extensive with the trusts.
For this reason where it is the necessary implication that
a fee was intended to be conveyed, this intent the law
will carry into effect by holding the estate a fee.-' In the
case of Weller v. Eolason,^ it is said that the word heirs
is necessary to create an estate in fee in a common-law
conveyance, and that the application of this principle is
not affected by the circumstance that the conveyance is
made in trust.
Sec. 330. Same— Same— Deed to corporations.— The second
exception to the general rule is where a conveyance is
made to a corporation, in which case the word "succes-
sors " takes the place of the word " heirs," and carries the
fee.^ And if lands be granted to a corporation aggregate
without the use of the word "successors," or other
words of inheritance, it will pass the fee.*
Sec. 331. Sam.e— Same— Deed to sovereign. — A third ex-
ception to the general rule, that the word heirs is neces-
sary in a deed of conveyance to carry the fee, is where
the conveyance is made to a sovereign government ; it
having been held by the United StS,tes Court of Claims
that a grant to the government does not require the
word heirs or other words of inheritance.^
Sec. 332. Same— Abrogation of rule by statute.- In many
tate as may be necessary for Steams v. Palmer, 51 Mass. (10
the purposes of his trust, Met.) 33, 35 ;
whether the conveyance con- Newhall v. Wheeler, 7 Mass. 189,
tain word of inheritance or 190 ;
not. Fisher v. Fields, 10 John. (N. Y.)
Angell V. Rosenbury, 12 Mich. 495, 505 ;
241. Oates v. Cooke, 3 Burr. 1684 ;
Compare : Weller v. Rolason, 7 Gibson v. Montfort, 1 Ves. Sr.
N. J. Eq. (2 C. E. Gr.) 13. 485.
' Cleveland v. Hallett. 60 Mass. (6 ' 14 N. J. L. (2 J. S. Gr.) 13.
Cush.) 403, 407 ; s See : Curtis v. Gardner, 54 Mass.
Brooks V. Jones. 52 Mass. (11 (13 Met.) 457, 461.
Met.) 191 ; * See : Gould v. Lamb, 52 Mass. (11
Gould V. Lamb, 52 Mass. (11 Met.) 84 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec.187.
Met.) 84 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. * Joseph v. United States, I Ct. of
187 ; CI. 197.
Chap. V. § 333.]
■■ HEIRS " DEFINED.
291
of the states the general rule requiring the use of the word
heirs in a deed of conveyance to carry the fee has been
abrogated or so modified by statute that neither " heirs "
nor any other technical word is required to convey or
create an estate in fee-simple. Under these statutes all
conveyances of lands are taken to be grants in fee-
simple, unless the contrary intention is expressed in the
instrument, or follows by necessary implication.^
Sec. 333. " Heirs "—Deflnition.— At common law the
word "heir" means he upon whom the law casts the
estate immediately on the death of the ancestor. ^ Ac-
cording to modern usage the heir in law is simply one
who succeeds to the estate of a deceased person.^
• It is said in the case of Bridge i\
Wellington, 1 Mass. 227, that
where a deed contains no words
of grant, Ijut from the terms of
which it is manifest that the
intention was to gi-ant an es-
tate, and it contains a haben-
dum to one and his heirs,
passes a fee-simple.
' BaUey v. Bailey, 25 Mich. 188 ;
2 Bl. Com. 201.
' Castro V. Tennent, 44 Cal. 253 ;
McKinney v. Stewart, 5 Kan.
384;
Lavery v. Egan, 143 Mass. 389 ;
B.C. 9 N. E. Rep. 747 ; 3 New
Eng. Rep. 441 ;
The word "heirs" is nomen opera-
tivTim.
See : Derm v. GUlot, 2 T. R. 431,
435 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 516.
As to when " male heirs " are
nomen coUectiTnm, including all
the heirs in succession.
See : BrowneU v. Brownell, 10 R.
I. 509.
"Heir" means one to whom .an
estate has descended from
his immediate ancestor. A per-
son is the " heir" of one from
whom he has inherited through
several successive descents.
Castro V. Tennent, 44 Gal. 253.
Same — Has several meanings. —
The term "heir" has several
significations. Sometimes it
refers to one who has formally
accepted a succession, and
taken possession thereof ; some-
times to one who is called to
succeed, but still retains the
faculty of accepting or renounc-
ing, and it is frequently used as
appUed to one who has form-
ally renounced.
Mumford v. Bowman, 26 La.
Ann. 413.
Same — Equivalent to "distributee."
— In any instrument the word
"heir" is to be taken as
equivalent to "distributee";
unless a different intention is
apparent.
Sweet V. Dutton, 109 Mass. 589 ;
s.c. 12 Am. Rep. 744.
Heir in law is simply one who
succeeds to the estate of a de-
ceased person, the wife is an
heir of her deceased husband,
and when her deceased son has
no wife, child, or father, she is
his heir.
McKinney v. Stewart, 5 Kans.
384.
A "widow" is an heir in a spe-
cial limited sense only.
TJnfried v. Heberer, 63 Ind. 72 ;
Rusing V. Rasing, 25 Ind. 63 ;
Clark V. Scott, 67 Pa. St. 452,
453.
A hushand is neither the heir
nor next of Mn of his wife,
not in a technical sense.
Ivins' Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 184 ;
s.c. 51 Am. Rep. 516.
But in Eby's Appeal, 84 Pa. St.
241, where an administrator
gave money to the heirs of his
daughters, and one of them died
without issue, it was held that
the husband might take, as ta-
tended by the word heir.
• HEIRS " WORD OF LIMITATION.
[Book III.
Only where there is a plain demonstration in a deed that
the word heirs was used in another than its strict legal
sense will any other construction be given it.-"^
Sec. 334:. Same— Word of limitation, not of purchase. —
The word heirs must be deemed, ordinarily, a word of
hmitation and not a word of purchase, as the equivalent
of children, 2 and will be construed to limit or define the
estate* intended to be conveyed.^ The words "heirs of
the body, " in a deed, are words of limitation and not of
purchase.* It has been held that the word " heirs now
living," where used in a deed, are words of limitation or
purchase, as will best accord with the manifest intention
of him who employs them.^
Sec. 335. Same— Construed " children "when.— The word
"heirs," which is deemed, ordinarily, a word of limit-
ation and not of purchase, is the equivalent of "chil-
dren."® Where in a deed the words "children" and
1 Rivard v. Gisenhof , 35 Hun (N.
Y.) 247.
«, See : McCuUough v. GUddon, 33
Ala. 208 ;
Couch V. Anderson, 26 Ala.
676;
Knowlden v. Leavitt, 121 Mass.
307;
Rivard v. Gisenhof, 35 Hun (N.
Y.) 247 ;
Brant v. Gelston, 2 John. Cas. (N.
Y.) 384.
In grantee's covenant. — The word
"heirs" is used as a word of
limitation only in a grantee's
covenant with P " and his
heirs," that he would, upon the
request of P, " his heirs, execu-
tors, administrators, or as-
signs," convey the land to
P " and his heirs," or to
such persons as "he or they"
should nominate, and secures
to P an equitable estate in fee-
simple, which he may devise.
Knowlden v. Leavitt, 121 Mass.
307.
In deed to a dead man. — The
word " heirs " being a word of
purchase, only limiting and de-
fining what estate passes to the
grantee, a deed to a dead man
and his heirs is a nullity.
Hunter v. Watson, 12 Gal. 363 ;
s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 543.
^ Ware v. Richardson, 3 Md. 505 ;
s.c. 56 Am. Dec. 765.
" Brant v. Gelston, 2 John. Cas. (N.
Y.) 384.
But in the case of Sharman v.
Jackson, 30 Ga. 234, in a
gift of chattels to be equal-
ly divided among the heirs
of the body of the tenant for
life, the words "heirs of the
body " were held not to create
an estate-tail, being words of
purchase.
5 Ware v. Richardson; 3 Md. 505 ;
s.c. 56 Am. Dec. 762.
« Twelves v. Nevill, 39 Ala. 175 ;
Brown v. Ransey, 74 Ga. 210;
Tucker v. Tucker, 78 Ky. 503 ;
Seev. Derr, 57 Mich. 369; s.c. 34
N.W. Rep. 108 ;
Rivard v. Gisenhof, 35 Hun (N.
Y.) 247 ;
Grimes v, Orrand, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.)
298.
" Heirs " means children if so
intended.
Brown v. Ransey, 74 Ga. 210.
When "lieirs" not synonymous
with " children "or " issue."
See : Sewall v. Roberts, 115 Mass.
363.
Chap. V. s^g 336, 337.] HEIRS WHEN ASCERTAINED. 293
*' heirs " are used indiscriminately, in order to harmonize
the parts of the deed, the word " children " will be sub-
stituted for the word " heirs " in the habendum.^ When
the word heirs is used in reference to a living person as
the ancestor, it means in the popular sense children who
are heirs apparent.^
Sec. 336. Same— "WTien to be ascertained.— Where land
is conveyed to the " heirs " of a person living at the time
of its execution, the delivery of the title vests in those
persons who would be the heirs if the person should then
die.* And where a person gives land to the use of
another for his life, and in case that person died without
""children," then to "his own right heirs," in the event
of such death the heirs of the grantor are to be ascer-
tained at the donor's and not at the donee's death.^
Sec. 337. Same— " Present heirs."— The words "present
heirs," used in a deed of land to a trustee for a person
"and her present heirs," makes such person and the
children that she then has tenants in common in the
estate.^ The grant in a deed to a woman and her " chil-
dren and their heirs and assigns forever " vests the title
Wlien in a deed to A and the the grantor's wife and heirs,
" heirs " of B, their children -where it is clearly shown that
and assigns, "heirs of B" the word " heirs " is used as a
means B's children. synonym of children, the deed
Tucker v. Tucker, 78 Ky. 503. will be held to convey a bene-
" Heirs " — In deed — Heans " cMl- ficial interest to the children
dren " when in a deed to during the hf e of the mother,
A and the " heirs " of B, their with the remainder at her death,
children and assigns, "heirs" Twelves v. NeviU, 39 Ala. 175.
of B means B's children. "Heirs"— ffieans "children " When.
Tucker u. Tucker, 78 Ky. 503. —The word "heirs" may
"Heirs" —Equivalent to " chil- mean "children"; so held
dren."— Where a person con- where an improvident person
veyed certain lands by deed to deeded land to his brother, to
"the heirs" of a father who be immediately deeded by the
was alive at the time, it was latter to the wife and " heu:s '
held that the word "heirs" of the former,
should not be taken in its tech- See v. Derr, 57 Mich. 369 ; s.c. 24
nical signification, but to mean N. W. Rep. 108.
"children"; and that the deed ' Warn •«. Brown, 103 Pa. St. 347.
takes eflEect at once as a present = Feltman v. Butts, 8 Bush (Ky.) 115.
gift » Heath c. Hewitt, 49 Hun (N. Y.)
Grimes v. Orrand, 2 Heisk. (Tenn.) 12 ; s.c. 17 N. Y. S. R. 270.
298 * Harris v. McLaran, 30 Miss. 533.
" Heirs " — In deed of gift — Con- ' Chess-Charlye Co. v. PurteU, 74
stmction.— In deed of gift to Ga. 467.
294 BODILY HEIRS. [Book III.
of the land in the grantee and her cjiildren then in being,
though unborn ; but those begotten and born thereafter
take nothing thereof.^
Sec. 338. Same—" Bodily heirs " or " heirs of the body."—
The words "bodily heirs " or "heirs of the body," in a
deed of land, may be construed as words of purchase
whenever there is anything in the instrument which
shows that they were used to designate certain persons
answering the description of heirs at the death of the
party.^ When used in a deed of lands made by a father
to a daughter, they will carry a fee, in the absence of
anything in the deed to show that the words were used
in a sense different from their technical import.^
' King V. Eea, 56 Ind. 1. estate intended to be conveyed.
« Williams v. Allen, 17 Ga. 81. Ware v. Richardson, 3 Md. 505 ;
The phrase " heirs of the body," g.c. 56 Am. Dec. 763.
when used in a deed, will be ' True v. Nicholls, 3 Duv. (Ky.)
construed to limit or define the 547.
CHAPTEE VI.
CaiEATION OF FEE-SIMPLE BY DEVISE.
Sec. 339. Introductory.
Sec. 340. Statute of uses — Effect of its passage.
Sec. 341. Same — Adopted in this country.
Sec. 343. Same — Rules of construction — Evading the statute.
Sec. 348. Same — Same — American rules of construction.
Sec. 344. Statute of wills — Effect on power to devise lands.
Sec. 345. Devise of land carries fee when — Common-law doctrine.
Sec. 346. Same — Doctrine in American courts.
Sec. 347. Same — Precatory devise.
Sec. 348. Same — Rule for interpretation of deeds not applicable.
Sec. 349. Same — Words of limitation.
Sec. 350. Same — "Heirs" not necessary to pass fee.
Sec. 351. Same — ^What words carry fee
Sec. 352. Same — "Estate'' is genus generalissimum.
Sec. 353. Same — What passes fee in reversion
Sec. 354. Same — ^When fee vests.
Sec. 355. Same — ^Words of survivorship in wills — Doctrine of early
English cases.
Sec. 356. Same — Same — Doctrine of later Englisli cases.
Sec. 357. Same — Same — Doctrine of the American cases.
Sec. 358. Same — ^Limited remainder — Vesting of.
Sec. 359. Same — Devise with power — Carries fee when.
Sec. 360. Same — Same — When fee does not pass.
Sec. 361. Same — Same — Same — Reason for the rule.
Sec. 362. Same — Devise with limitation over — Contingent fee.
Sec. 363. Same — Same — Limitation over void for uncertainty.
Sec. 364. Same — Same — Same — Fee in first taker.
Sec. 365. Same — Devise to a person and his children.
Sec. 368. Same— Same— What children included.
Sec. 367. Same — Residuary clause carries fee when.
Section 339. introductory.— The power of alienating
lands by will was of ancient origin. Its beginnings are
lost in the uncertainties of early antiquity. It existed
among the Saxons, but was swept away by the new order
of things when William the Conqueror set up the feudal
295
296 STATUTE OF USES— EFFECTS OF. [Book III.
system in England.^ When the modification of the
feudal system of laws and life and the amelioration of
their rigor and severity set in, and partial liberty in re-
gard to person and property was re-established, the
power of alienating lands and creating a fee-simple
estate by devise came into vogue a;nd general use much
later than the accomplishment of the same thing by
deed. The reasons for this have been heretofore adverted
to,^ and will be hereafter fully discussed when we
come to treat of uses and devises. Suffice it at the
present time to say that at common law a fee-simple con-
ferred no power to devise by will.^ But by local custom
in some of the ancient boroughs^ as in the city of Lon-
don, a man might devise by testament his lands and
tenements, which he held in fee-simple within the
borough at the time of his death ; and by the force of such
devise, "he to whom such devise was made, after the
death of the devisor, might enter into the tenement so to
him devised, to have and to hold to him after the form
and effect of the devise without any livery of seisin
thereof to be made to him."* The custom, however,
never extended to a remainder or a reversion in expect-
ancy upon a fee-tail, because, by the common law, there
could be no such remainder or reversion ; and the statute
De Bonis, though it made such remainders and rever-
sions capable of existence, did not enlarge the extent of
the custom.^
Sec. 340. Statute of uses— Eflfect of its passage.— In Eng-
land, prior to the passage of the statute of uses,® a large
portion of the land was held to uses, the legal title being
in one person, upon the trust and confidence that he would
apply it to the use of some other person. The effect of
the statute of uses was to destroy these large trust
estates, and to transfer them to the cestui que use, the
same as if the seisin or estate of the feoffee, together
^ See: Ante, ^191, et seq. alien.— Lands in the city of
' See : Ante, % 314. London might be divested by
^ See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 111b. the owner, although he was not
■> 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) Ilia ; a citizen. Dyer, 255a, pi. 3.
Litt., § 167 ; "4 Com. Dig. 119.
3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) 9; « Stats. 37 Hen, VHL, c. 10.
Devise of lauds in London by
Chap. VI. § 341.] STATUTE OF USES— ADOPTION.
297
with the use had uno flatu, passed from the feoffor to the
cestui que use. By uniting the seisin to the use in the
person who was entitled to the use, this statute had the
effect to defeat the customary mode of making devises in
the way of uses.^ This, of course, had a marked effect
upon the tenures of the realm. Interest in land which
had heretofore been merely equitable and cognizable only
according to the rules of equity became at once legal and
cognizable in courts of common law ; and many persons
who were seized of estates to uses ceased at once to have
any title either at law or in equity.
Sec. 341. Same— Adopted in this country.— The doctrine
of uses and trusts introduced into the English law by the
statute of Henry VIII. has been adopted into the juris-
prudence of nearly every state in the Union, either as a
part of the common law of the state or by re-enactment,^
and as a consequence the doctrines established by the
English courts are so interwoven with the history and
judicial decisions of every American state, and the growth
of our jurisprudence in regard to real estate, that the
" See : 4 'Eeeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d
ed.) 243-246.
' See : Horton v. Sledge, 29 Ala.
478, 490 ;
Bryan v. Bradley, 16 Conn. 474,
483;
Adams v. Guerax-d, 29 Ga. 651 ;
s.c. 76 Am. Dec. 624 ;
Blake v. Colins, 69 Me. 156 ;
Eichardson v. Stodder, 100 Mass.
528;
Chanery v. Stevens, 97 Mass. 77,
85;
Johnson v. Johnson, 89 Mass. (7
AUen) 196 ;
Marshall v. Fish, 6 Mass. 31 ; s.c.
4 Am. Dec. 76 ;
Ready v. Kearsley, 14 Mich.
215 *
Rollins V. Riley, 44 N. H. 1 ;
French v. French, 3 N. H. 239 ;
Exter V. Odiorne, 1 N. H. 237 ;
Chamberlain v. Crane, 1 N. H.
64;
Vander Volgen v. Yates, 9 N. Y.
219 ; s.c. 8 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.)
242;
Sprague v. Spragne, 13 R. I.
701;
Nightingale v. Hidden, 7 R. I.
115, 132 ;
Howard v. Henderson, 18 S. C.
184;
Hooberry v. Haxding, 10 Lea
(Tenn.) 392.
In New York, the statute of uses
has been abolished by legis-
lative enactment.
See : 4 N. Y. Rev. Stat. (8th ed.)
2436, § 45 ; 3 N. Y. Stats. Codes
& L. 3176, § 1.
In Ohio, it is thought, the statute
of uses Tvas never in force.
See : Helfenstine v. Garrard, 7
Ohio 275 ;
Thompson v. Gibson, 2 Ohio 439.
In Vermont the statute is not in
force.
See : Sherman v. Dodge, 28 Vt.
26;
Gorman v. Daniels. 23 Vt. 600,
disapproving Society for the
Propagation of the Gospel v.
Hartland, 2 Paine C. C. 536.
In Virginia the statute of uses
was a part of the colonial law,
but was superseded by the Re-
vised Statutes of 1793.
298 RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. [Book III.
law of tenures, as interpreted and applied in American
courts, is largely governed and controlled by the English
precedents established under the statute of uses.^
Sec. 342. Same — Rules of construction — Evading the
statute.— The manifest object of the statute of uses, as
declared in the English statute of Henry VIII. , was to
destroy uses and trusts altogether ; yet the courts have
refused to carry out that intention on various grounds.
The convenience of being able to keep the legal title of
the estate in one person, while the beneficial interest
should be in another, was too great to be given up alto-
gether ; consequently English courts of equity found, and
continue still to find, reasons to withdraw certain con-
veyances from the operation of the statute.
Sec. 343. Same— Same. — American rules of construction. —
The American courts of law and equity, in construing
the statute of uses, have adopted three general rules,
under which conveyances are excepted from its operation.
The first is where a use has been limited upon a use ; the
second is where a copyhold or leasehold estate or personal
property has been limited to uses ; and the third is where
such powers or duties have been imposed with the estate
upon the donee to uses as to render it necessary that he
should continue to hold the legal title in order to perform
his duty or execute the power. ^ According to the first
rule of construction where a use is limited upon a use the
statute executes only the first and the second remains a
mere equitable interest.^ The second rule of construction
1 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 299-301. Hutchins v.Heywood,50 N.H.496;
2 1 HiU on Trustees, § 230 ; Cueman v. Broadnax, 37 N. J. L.
1 Perry on Trusts (4th ed.), § 300. (8 Vr.) 508 ;
See : KeUogg v. Hale,108 111.164 ; Ramsey v. March, 2 McC. (S. C.)
Preachers' Aid Society v. Eng- L. 252 ; s.c. 13 Am. Deo. 717 ;
land, 106 111. 129 ; "Wilson v. Cheshire, 1 McC. (S. C.)
Farr v. Gilreath, 33 S. C. 511 ; L. 233 ;
Howard v. Henderson, 18 S. C. Coxall v. Sherrerd, 73 U. S. (5
189 ; Wall.) 268 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 573 ;
Hooberry v. Harding, 10 Lea Durant v. Ritchie, 4 Mas. C. C.
(Tenn.) 892 ; 45, 65 :
Henderson v. HUl, 9 Lea (Tenn.) Hurst's Lessee v. McNeil, 1 Wash.
25. C. C. 70 ;
' See : Reid v. Gordon, 35 Md. 183 ; Doe ex d. Lloyd v. Passingham,
Matthews v. Ward, 10 GUI. & J. 6 Barn. & C. 305 ; s.c. 13 Eng.
(Md.) 443 ; C. L. 146.
Chap. VI. § 343.]
AMERICAN RULES.
299
affects only freeholds ; leaseholds and chattels, interests in
land and personal property given to uses, are not affected,
and the use remains unexecuted as before, the statute.^
The third rule of construction is less technical, but of
much more importance in this country, than the two
preceding. According to it, where powers or duties are
imposed upon a donee to uses which make it necessary
that he should continue to hold the legal title in order to
perform the duty imposed, or execute the power con-
ferred, the trust is held to be a special or active trust
unexecuted by the statute.^ Consequently, where an
active duty or power is imposed on the trustee, by the
limitation to him and his heirs, either to pay rents ; ^ to
The English rnle is the same.
See : Burgess v. Wheats, 1 W.
Bl. 161 ;
Tyrrel's Case, Dyer 155a ;
Williams v. Waters, 14 Mees. &
W. 166 ;
. Wlietstone v. Saintsbury, 2 Pr.
Wms. 146.
' See : Pryon v. Mood, 3 McMull.
(S. C.) L. 393 ;
Joar V. Hodge, 1 Spears (S. C.)
L. 593 ;
Rice V. Burnett, 1 Spears (S. C.)
Eq. 579 ;
The English decisions lay down the
same rule.
See : Doe v. Routledge, 2 Cowp.
709;
Symson v. Turner, 1 Eq. Cas.
Abr. 383.
'See: Morton v. Barrett, 33 Me.
357 ; B.C. 39 Am. Deo. 575 ;
Chapin v. Universalist Soc, 74
Mass. (8 Gray) 580 ;
Norton v. Leonard, 39 Mass. (13
Pick.) 152 ;
Newhall v. Wheeler, 7 Mass. 189,
190;
Exter V. Odiome, 1 N. H. 333 ;
Wood ■;;. Wood, 5 Paige Ch. (N
Y.) 596 ; s.c. 38 Am. Deo. 451 ;
Striker v. Mott, 3 Paige Ch. (N.
Y.)387 i s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 646.
The English courts foUow the same
rule.
See : Sandford v. Irby, 3 Barn. &
Aid. 654 ; s.o. 5 Eng. C. L. 376;
Houston V. Hughes, 6 Barn. & C.
403 ; s.c. 13 Eng. C. L. 188 ;
Murthwalte v. Jenkinson, 3 Barn.
& C. 357'; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L.
162;
Doe V. NichoUs, 1 Bam. & C.
357 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 144 ;
Tenny v. Moody, 3 Bing. 3 ; s.c.
11 Eng. C. L. 13 ;
Harton v. Harton, 7 T. R. 653 ;
s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 537 ;
Silvester ex d. Law v. Wilson, 3
T. R. 444; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep.
519;
Wykham v. Wykham, 18 Ves.
414;
Mott V. Buxton, 7 Ves. 201 ;
Biscoe V. Perkins, 1 Ves. & B.
489.
s Meacham v. Steele, 93 111. 135 ;
Morton v. Barrett, 32 Me. 257;
s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 575 ;
Hutchinsv. Haywood, 50 N. H.
500;
Adams v. Perry, 43 N. Y. 487;
Manice v. Manice, 43 N. Y. 303 :
Leggett V. Perkins, 3 N. Y. 297 ;
Brewster v. Striker, 3N. Y. 19;
McCosker v. Brady, 1 Barb. Cli.
(N. Y.) 339 ;
Deibert's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 296 ;
Ogden's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 501;
Wickham v. Berry, 53 Pa. St.
70;
Shankland's Appeal, 47 Pa. St.
113;
Barnett's Appeal, 46 Pa. St. 393 ;
s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 513 ;
Doe d. Gratrex v. Hompray, 6
Ad. & El. 306 ; s.c. 33 Eng. C.
L. 137 ;
White V. Barker, 1 Bing. N. C.
573 ; s.c. 37 Eng. C. L. 767 ;
Kenrick v. Beauclerck, 3 Bos. &
P. 178 ; s.c. 6 Rev. Rep. 746 ;
Anthony v. Rees, 3 Cromp. & J.
7^:
300
EFFECT OF STATUTE OF WILLS.
[Book ni.
apply rents to the maintenance of the beneficiary ; ^ to
invest the proceeds or principal and apply the accumula-
tion of the estate ; ^ to sell the estate,^ or to mortgage
it for the payment of debts^ legacies, or annuities, or to
purchase other lands for particular uses ; * to accumulate
out of the estate a sum for a prescribed purpose ; ® to
preserve contingent remainders ; ® to protect the estate
for a given time, such as until division, or the death of
the specified person," — the operation of the statute will
be excluded.
Sec. 344. Statute of wills— Effect on power to devise lands.
— The statute of wills ^ enabled tenants in fee-simple
generally to devise the whole of their lands held by tenure
in socage, and two-thirds of their lands held by tenure
in knight-service ; with certain disabilities affecting the
tenants of the king in capite, holding by knight-service
ut de corona ; that is, directly of the king through the
Eobinson v. Grey, 9 East 1 ;
Jones V. Say, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr.
383;
Barker v. Greenwood, 4 Mees. &
W. 429;
Nevil V. Saunders, 1 Yern. 415 ;
Garth v. Baldwin, 2 Ves. Sr. 646.
• Vail V. Vail, 4 Paige Ch. (N. Y.)
317;
Gerard Ins. Co. v. Chambers, 46
Pa. St. 485 ;
Porter v. Doby, 2 Eich. (S. C.)
Eq. 49, 52 ;
Doe d. SheUey v. EdUn, 4 Ad. &
El. 582; s.o. 31 Eng. C. L. 261;
Tenney v. Moody, 3 Bing. 3 ; s.c.
11 Eng. C. L. 12 ;
Shapland v. Smith, 1 Bro. C. C.
75;
Doe V. Ironmonger, 3 East 533.
Silvester ex d. Law v. Wilson, 2
T. R. 444 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 519.
» Exter V. Odiorne, 19 N. H. 233 ;
Vaux V. Parke, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.)
19;
Ashhurst v. Given, 5 Watts & S.
rPa ) 323 ■
Nickell V. ' Handley, 10 Gratt.
(Va.) 336.
8 Wood V. Mather, 38 Barb. (N. Y.)
478;
Bagshaw v. Spencer, 1 Yes. Sr.
143.
■• See : Chamberlain v. Thompson,
10 Conn. 243 ; s.c. 23 Am. Dec.
390 ;
Vaux V. Parke, 7 Watts & S. (Pa)
19;
Doe d. Cadogan v. Ewart, 7 Ad. &
El. 636; s.o. 34 Eng. C. L. 337 ;
Spenoe v. Spence, 13 C. B. N. S.
199 ; s.c. 104 Eng. C. L. 198 ;
Smith V. Smith, 11 C. B. N. S.
121 ; s.c. 103 Eng. C. L. 119 ;
Curtis V. Price, 12 Ves. 89 ; s.c.
8 Rev. Rep. 303 ;
Bagshaw v. Spencer, 1 Ves. Sr.
143.
5 Wright V. Pierson, 1 Edw. Ch. (N.
Y.) 110 ;
Stanley v. Leonard, 1 Edw. Ch.
(N. Y.) 87.
^ Vanderheyden v. CrandaU, 3 Den.
(N. Y.) 9 ;
Barker v. Greenswood, 4 Mees. &
W. 431 ;
Biscoe V. Perkins, 1 Ves. & B.
485.
'■ Williams v. McConico, 36 Ala.33
Nelson v. Davis, 35 Ind. 474 ;
Morton v. Barrett, 22 Me. 357
s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 575 ;
Pasey v. Cook, 1 HUl (S. C.) 413
McNish V. Guerard, 4 Strobh. (S,
C.) Eq. 66.
8 Stat. 33 Hen. VIII., c. 1 ; explain-
ed and amended by 34 & 35
Hen. VIII., c. 5.
Chap. VI. § 345.] DEVISE CARRIES FEE. 301
king's grant, and not mediately through an honor com-
ing to the king's hands by forfeiture or escheat.^ The
provisions of this statute, which are exceedingly prolix,
are thus summarized by Lord Coke : "These statutes
take not away the custome to devise whereof Littleton ^
speaketh ; for though lands devisable by custome be
holden by knight's service, yet may the owner devise the
whole land by force of the custome, and that shall stand
good against the heire for the whole. But the devise of
lands holden by knight's service by force of the statutes
is utterly void for a third, and the same [the third part]
shall descend to the heire. If he hath any lands holden
by knight's service in capite [that is, ut de corona], and
lands in socage, he can devise but two parts of the
whole ; but if he hold lands by knight's service of the
king, and not in capite [that is, ut de honore], or of a
mesne lord, and hath also lands in socage, he may devise
two parts of his lands holden by knight's service, and
all his socage lands. If he holds any land of the king
in capite, and by act executed in his lifetime he con-
veyeth any part of his lands to the use of his wife or of
his children, or payment of his debts, though it be with
power of revocation, he can devise by his will no more,
but to make up the land so conveyed [to] two parts of
the whole. And if the lands so conveyed amount to two
parts or more, then he can devise nothing by his will.
But if he hath land onely that is holden in socage, then
he may devise by his will all his socage land." *
Sec. 345. Devise of land carries fee when— Common-law
doctrine.— At common law a much more liberal practice
existed in the creation of estates in fee-simple by devise
than by deed. The general rule of the common law, that
words of inheritance or perpetuity are necessary to
create, a fee is recognized by Justice Story in an early
case,^ where it can be carried into effect without a viola-
' See • 4 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d this rule has been considerably
ed.)248, etseq. modified by the well-known
•> Litt S 167. rule for the construction of
8 1 Co.' Litt. (19th ed.) Ulb. wills, by which it is required
^ See • Wright v. Denn ex d. Page, that the intent of the testator
23 U S (10 Wheat.) 204, 333 ; be allowed to control.
bk. 6 L. ed. 303, 310-319 ; but
302
AMERICAN DOCTRINE.
[Book III.
tion of the rules of law/ and it is clear and manifest
from the words and expressions of the will that there
was an intention to supply the legal and technical terms
which carry a fee.^ This intention of the testator,
however, must appear from the words of the will itself,
and not from conjecture.^ While it is a well-settled rule
that no evidence outside of the will itself can be given to
show what estate the testator intended the devisee
should take, yet where the will refers to another right,
the court will examine such other right and construe the
will in connection with it.*
Sec. 346. Same— Doctrine in American courts.— It is said
in Smith v. Berry,^ that a review of all the authorities,
English and American, would show that the latter have
gone much farther than the former in giving effect to
the intention of the testator, and for a very good reason.
In America the law of primogeniture is universally
The first great rule of exposition
of wills, to which all rules
must bend, is that the intent of
the testator shall prevail pro-
vided it be consistent vrith the
rules of law.
See : Spooner v. Lovejoy, 108
Mass. 539, 533.
Chief Justice Marshall says of
this rule that " it's the polar
star to guide us in the con-
struction of wills."
Smith V. Bell, 31 U. S. (6 Pet.) 68,
75, 84 ; bk. 8 L. ed. 322, 325,
838.
The intention of the testator can-
not prevail against a positive
rule of law, however, such as
the rule in Shelley's Case, un-
less it clearly appears that the
word ' ' heirs " was used by the
testator in a sense different
from the technical meanipg
assigned to it by law.
Allen V. Craft. 109 Ind. 476 ; s.c.
58 Am. Rep. 435 ; 9 N. E. Rep.
919 ; 7 West. Rep. 516.
Same — Prevails when. — If from
the whole of the will, taken
together and applied to the
subject-matter, it can be col-
lected that the testator intend-
ed to give a fee, it ought to be
so construed, in order to give
effect to such intention.
See : Denn v. Gaskin, 2 Cowp.
657;
Loveacres v. Blight, 1 Cowp. 852;
Hogan V. Jackson, 1 Cowp. 299 ;
Roe V. Blackett, 1 Cowp. 235 ;
Right ■u.Sidebotham, 2 Doug. 759.
' Proprietors of Battle Sq. Church
V. Grant, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 142;
s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 725.
See : Post, § 368.
Stitutes have been passed in many
of tlie states of the Union for
the better effecting of the will
of a testator, which have done
little more than change the
presumption as to what estate
is intended by a devise without
words of inheritance.
Consult : 1 Stimson on Stats.,
passim.
2 Busby V. Busby, 1 U. S. (1 Dall.)
236 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 111.
2 Construction of wills — Growth of doc-
trine.—As to growth of the
doctrine of the construction*
of wills,
See : Clayton v. Clayton, 3 Binn.
(Pa.) 476 ;
French v. Mcllhenny, 3 Binn.
(Pa.) 13 ;
Steele v. Thompson, 14 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 84.
* Jackson ex d. Herrick v. Bab-
cock, 12 John. (N. y.) 389.
^ 8 Ohio 366, 868.
Chap. VI. §§ 347, 348.] PRECATORY DEVISE. 303
abolished, real and personal property are placed more
nearly on a footing with each other, and the heir is no
longer a favorite with the courts. The necessity of
naming the heirs of the donee, in order to pass the inher-
itance, was unknown to the Eoman law. It was unknown
even in England before the Norman Conquest, when the
introduction of fiefs first gave rise to the practice. The
necessity for naming the heirs originated at a subsequent
period, where the rulers of Gothic dynasties granted
lands under condition of military service. These grants
were sometimes made to the feudatory for life, and
sometimes to his heirs. Whenever they were not spe-
cially named, the grant was only construed to be for life.
Although this state of things in Great- Britain has long
since passed away, yet it has influenced, more or less,
the interpretation even of devises. In America we have
always been relieved from this artificial system, and
from all the consequences which have followed in its
train.
•
Sec. 347. Same— Precatory devise.— In a will, by emploj^-
ing the words " I wish the county in which I die and am
buried to have and enjoy, for the benefit of public
schools, two- thirds of the land in the county I am buried
in," taken in connection with the words " my land" and
" the land I own," used in other parts of the will, show
an intention on the part of the testator to devise an
estate in lands, and there being no words limiting its
quantity, will be held to convey an estate in fee-simple.^
Sec. 348. Same— Eules for interpretation of deeds not ap-
plieatale.— The artificial rules for the interpretation of
deeds, contracts, and other deliberate instruments are not
applicable to the construction of wills. They never have
been so considered at any period of the law. On the con-
trary, many constructions have been given to words in a
will in order to effectuate the manifest intention of the
testator, which would not have been permitted in a deed ;
and the same words have received different construc-
See : Bell Co. v. Alexander, 33 Tex. 350 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 368.
30i WORDS OF LIMITATION. [BOOK m.
tions in different wills. ^ In ancient times, if a man de-
vised lands to another in perpetuum, or to give and sell,
or in feodo simplici, or to him and his assigns forever ;
in those cases a fee-simple passed by the intent of the
devisor.^ Yet these words would not have been suffi-
cient in deeds. In modern times, words not appropriated
to real estate, such as property, interest, effects, and even
legacy, have been adjudged sufficient to pass a fee.^
Sec. 349. Same— Words of limitation.— The rule of law is
that where, in a devise of real estate, there are no words
of limitation superadded to the general words of bequest,
nothing passes but an estate for life ; * but since, in most
cases, this rule goes to defeat the probable intention of the
testator, who, in general, is unacquainted with technical
phrases, and is presumed to mean to make a disposition
of his whole interest, unless he uses words of limitation,
courts, to effectuate this intention, will lay hold of gen-
eral expressions in the will, which, from their legal im-
port, comprehend the whole interest of the testator in the
thing devised. But if other words be used, restraining
the meaning of the general expressions in the will, which,
from their legal import, comprehend the whole interest
or not, the rule of law which favors the right of the heir
must prevail.^ Justice Story says that "where there
are no words of limitation to a devise, the general rule of
law is, that the devisee takes an estate for life only, un-
less, from the language there used, or from other parts
of the will, there is a plain intention to give a larger
estate. We say a plain intention, because, if it be doubt-
1 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 204a. in the case of Jenkins v.
See : Hogan v, Jackson, 1 Cowp. Clement. Harper's (S. C.) Eq.
399. 73; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 703,
« 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 96a. decided in 1834, the Court
3 Harper v. Blean, 3 Watts (Pa.) of Pleas in Equity, in the con-
471 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 267, 368. struction of the clause, held
•• See : Peyton v. Smith, 1 McC. (S. that a devise without words of
C.) L. 476 : sc. 11 Am. Dec. 758. perpetuity or inheritance passed
Devise without words of perpe- a fee.
tuity. — In HaU v. Goodwm, 3 See : Wright v. Denn ex d. Page,
Nott. & McC. (S. C.) L. 383, 23 U. S. (10 Wheat.) 204, 228 ;
decided in May, 1830, the con- bk. 6 L. ed. 803, 309 ;
stitutional court held that a Lambert's Lessee v. Paine, 7 U.
devise of land without words S. (3 Cr.) 97, 130 ; bk. 3 L. ed.
of inheritance or perpetuity 377, 388.
vested only a life estate ; and
Chap. VI. § 350.] HEIRS NOT NECESSARY IN DEVISE. 305
ful or conjectural upon the terms of the will, or if full
legal effect can be given to the language without such an
estate, the general rule prevails. It is not sufficient that
the court may entertain a private belief that the testator
intended a fee ; it must see that he has expressed that
intention with reasonable certainty on the face of the
will. For the law will not suffer the heir to be disin-
herited upon conjecture. He is favored by its policy ;
and though the testator may disinherit him, yet the law
will execute that intention only when it is put in a clear
and unambiguous shape." ^
Sec. 350. Same — " Heirs " not necessary to pass fee. — The
general rule of law in this country is that, in a will, the
word "heirs," or other express word or words of inher-
itance, is not necessary to create an estate of inheritance
in the devisee ; but if by the terms of the devisee, ex-
pounded with reference to all the other provisions in the
will, it appears affirmatively that it was the intent of the
testator to give an estate in fee-simple, the devise will be
so construed as to pass such an estate.^ Though if such
> Wright V. Denn ex d. Page, 23 Brown v. "W'ood, 17 Mass. 73 ;
U. S. (10 Wheat.) 204, 227, 228 ; Wier v. Michigan Stove Co., 44
bk. 6 L. ed. 303, 309, 310. Mich. 506 ; s.o. 7 N. W. Rep.
2 Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass. 78 ;
(18 Pick.) 537, 539 : Tatum v. McLellan, 50 Miss. 1 ;
• Baker v. Bridge, 29 Mass. (12 Fogg v. Clark, 1 N. H. 163 ;
Pick.) 27. Newkerk v. Newkerk, 2 Cai. (N.
See : Markiuie v. Ragland, 77 lU. Y.) 345 ;
93 . Jackson ex d. Pearson v. Housel,
SiUard v. Robinson, 3 Litt. (Ky.) 17 John. (N. Y.) 281 ;
415 . Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N.
Lindsay u McCormack^ 2 A. K. Y.) 185, 189; s.c. 5 Am. Dec.
Marsh. (Ky.) 229 ; 213 ; „ , „ -o- ^ x
Sears v Cunningham. 122 Mass. Morrison v. Semple, 6 Bmn. (Pa.)
538;
94;
Crossman v. Field, 119 Mass. 170, Waterman •y.Greene, 12 R.I. 483 ;
1^2 • Jenkins v. Clement, 1 Harp. (b.
Lyonw. Marsh, 116 Mass. 232 ; C.) Eq. 72 ; ,„ „ . ,
Spooneru. Lovejoy, 108 Mass. Davis v. Bawcum, 10 Heisk.
529 532 • (Tenn.) 406 ;
Lincoln v. Lincohi, 107 Mass. King v. Aokei^an 67 U. S (2
590 . Black.) 408 ; bk. 17 L. ed. 292 ;
Bacon v. Woodvs^ard, 76 Mass. Finlay v. King's Lessee, 28 US.
(12 Gray) 876, 379 ; (3 Pet.) 346 ; bk. 7 L. ed 701 ;
Tracy t'. Kilborn, 57 Mass. (3 Lambert's Lessees. Paine, 7 U.S.
&.) 557 ; (3 Cr.) 97, 180 ; bk. 2 L. ed. 377,
Putnam ■«. Emerson, 48 Mass. (7 ^8^ '„ r^ ■, . „ m ^ Ain
lvrptT330 833 • RandaU v. Tuchm, 6 Taunt. 410;
Kdlogg'^ Blair, 47Mass. (6 Met.) s.c. 2 Marsh. 117 ; 1 Eng. C. L.
323. 325 ; ^^^^
20
306
WHAT WORDS CAREY FEE.
[Book III.
an intent can be found in the will, either expressed or
implied in its terms, or drawn by fair inference from
other manifest intentions expressed in the will, in favor
of the heir at law, it must be construed to pass only an
estate for life.^
Sec. 351. Same— What words carry a fee.— It is now the
well-settled rule of law in this country that in a devise of
lands, words of perpetuity or inheritance are not neces-
sary to pass a fee ^ where there are other words which,
though not technical in form, clearly indicate the inten-
tion of the testator to dispose of his entire estate in the
real estate devised.^ Such words and reference as the
" Heirs " not only word of devise.
• — ^Although the word " heirs "
is the raost apt, it is not the
only word to devise a fee.
Jackson ex d. Herrick v. Bab-
cock, 13 John. (N. Y.) 189, 194.
' Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass.
(18 Pick.) 537, 539 ;
Farrar v. Avres, 32 Mass. (5 Pick.)
404;
KeUett V. KeUett, 3 Dow. 348.
' Lindsay v. McCormack, 3 A. K.
Marsh. (Ky.) 239 ; s.c. 13 Am.
Dec. 887 ;
Niles V. Gray, 13 Ohio St. 330,
338-330;
Lessees of Thompson v. Hoop, 6
Ohio St. 481 ;
Smith V. Berry, 8 Ohio 365 ;
Wood V. Hill, 19 Pa. St. 513 ;
Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St. 87 ;
s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 684 : 1 Am. L.
Reg. 386 ;
McCuUough V. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St.
370;
Peppard v. Deal, 9 Pa. St. 140 ;
MiUer v. Lynn, 7 Pa. St. 443 ;
McClure v. Douthitt, 3 Pa. St.
446;
French v. Mcllhenny, 3 Binn.
(Pa.) 13 ;
Campbell v. Carson, 13 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 54;
Cassell V. Cooke, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
368 ; s.c. 11 Am. Deo. 610 ;
Harper v. Blean, 3 Watts (Pa.)
471 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 367 ;
Doughty V. Browne, 4 Yeates (Pa.)
179;
Callwell V. Furgeson, 3 Yeates
(Pa.) 350 ;
Jenkins v. Clement, 1 Harp. (S.
C.) Eq. 73 ; s.c. 17 Am Dec.
698;
Peyton v. Smith, 4 McC. (S. C.)
L. 476 ; s.p. 17 Am. Dec. 758 ;
Hope ex d. Brown v. Taylor, 1
Burr. 270 ;
Hogan V. Jackson, Cowp. 399 ;
Tilley v. Simpson, 2 T. R. 659 ;
Grayson ■;;. Atkinson, 1 Wils. 333.
Reason for the rule — Aliolition of
primogeniture. — In the case of
Smith V. Berry, 8 Ohio 365,
the Supreme Court of Ohio
say: "It was said with great
force that the act abolishing the
right of primogeniture, and the
placing real and personal prop-
erty on the same footing with
personal, ought to change the
rigor of the rules which require
words of inheritance or perpe-
tuity to pass a fee."
' Generic terms — Construed to pass
fee. — The words "estate,"
"property," "all my prop-
erty," " the rest of my prop-
erty," and the like, are generic
terms which are construed to
include both real and personal
property, unless it is manifest
from some other portion of the
will that the testator used these
words in a different sense.
Beall V. Holmes, 6 Harr. & J.
(Md.) 305, 310 ;
Laing v. Barbour, 119 Mass. 523 ;
Hunt V. Hunt, 70 Mass. (4 Gray)
190 ;
Kellogg r. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met.)
333;
Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass.
(18 Pick.) 537 ;
Chap. VI. § 351.] WORDS CARRYING FEE.
307
following have been held to pass a fee: "absolutely,"
following a devise to a widow of "so much of my
estate as the law allows her under the intestate laws,"
where these laws give a life estate in, one half of the
husband's realty ; 1 " all and singular my goods and ef-
fects ; "2 "all his other property," in a residuary clause
of the will, comprehends lands as well as personal prop-
erty;^ "all I am worth;"* "all I possess indoors and
outdoors ; " ^ "all my estate ; "^ "all my estate, real and
ackson ex d. Pearson v. Housel,
17 John. (N. Y.) 281 ;
Jackson v. Delaney, 13 John. (N.
Y.) 536 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 403 ;
Mayo V. Carrington, 4 Call (Va.)
473 ; S.C. 2 Am. Dec. 580 ;
Kennon v. McRoberts, 1 Wash.
(Va.) 96 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 428 ;
Doe d. Evans ■;;. Evans, 9 Ad.
& El. 719; S.C. 36 Eng. C. L.378;
Doe exd. Morgan v. Morgan, 6
Barn. & C. 512; s.c. 9 Dow. &
R. 633 ; 13 Eng. C. L. 235 ;
Hawksworth v. Haveksworth, 27
Beav. 1 ;
lie Greenwich Hospital Improve-
ment Act, 20 Beav. 458 ;
Meeds v. Wood, 19 Beav. 215 ;
Patterson v. Huddart, 17 Beav.
210;
Edwards v. Barnes, 2 Bing. N. C.
253 ; s.c. 39 Eng. C. L. 524 ;
Doe V. Gilbert, 3 Brod. & B. 85 ;
Tanner v. Morse, Cas. temp.
Talb. 384;
Midland Co. R. Co. v. Oswin, 1
CoU. 74 ;
Scott V. Alberry, 1 Com. 337 ; s.c.
8 Via. Abr. 228, pi. 14 ;
Jongsma v. Jongsma, 1 Cox Eq.
362;
Footner v. Cooper, 2 Drew 7 ;
D'AJmaine v. Moseley, 1 Drew
629;
Doe V. Langlands, 14 East 370 ;
Doe V. Lainchbury, 11 East 290 ;
Doe V. Tofield, 11 East 246 ;
O'Toole V. Browne, 3 El. & Bl.
573; s.c. 77Eng. C.L.573;
Smith V. Coffin, 3 H. Bl. 444 ;
s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 435 ;
Doe ex d. Burkett v. Chapman,
1 H. Bl. 233 ; s.c. 2 Rev. Rep.
755 *
Lloyd' v. Lloyd, L. R. 7 Eq. Cas
458;
Mayor of Hamilton v. Hodsdon,
6MooreP. C. C. 76;
Saumarez v. Saumarez, 4 My. &
Cr. 331;
Day V. Daveron, 13 Sim. 300 ;
ChurchiU v. Dubben, 9 Sim. 447
King V. Shrives, 5 Sim. 461 ;
Tilley v. Simpson, 2 T. R. 659
s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 577 ;
Fletcher v. Smiton, 2 T. R. 656
s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 575 ;
Beachcrof t v. Beachcrof t, 2 Vem.
690;
Church V. Mundy, 15 Ves. 396 ;
Rashleigh v. Master, 1 Ves. Jr.
201.
' Oswald V. Kopp, 26 Pa. St. 516.
^ Lessees of Ferguson v. Zepp, 4
Wash. C. C. 645.
' Mayo V. Carrington, 4 Call (Va.)
473 ; s.c. 3 Am. Deo. 580 ;
Read v. Payne, 3 Call (Va.) 325 ;
s.c. 2 Am. Dec. 550.
■* Huxtep V. Brooman, 1 Bro. Ch.
437.
= Tolar V. Tolar, 3 Hawka. (N. C.)
74 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 575.
' Hammond v. Hammond, 8 GUI
& J. (Md.) 487 ;
Briggs V. Shaw, 91 Mass. (9 AUen)
517;
Leland v. Adams, 75 Mass. (9
Gray) 171 ;
Brown v. Wood, 17 Mass. 68 ;
Bell V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ;
s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ;
Leavitt v. Wooster, 14 N. H. 550;
Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 163 ;
Jackson v. MerrUl, 6 John. (N.
Y.) 185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 213 ;
Shinn v. Holmes, 35 Pa. St. 143 ;
Mayo V. Carrington, 4 Call (Va.)
473 ; s.c. 2 Am. Dec. 580 ;
Johnson v. Kerman, 1 Rol. Abr.
834;
Doe V. Williams, 1 Exch. 414 ;
Cliff V. Gibbons, 2 Ld. Raym.
1324;
Hopewell v. Ackland, 1 Salk.
389;
308
WORDS CAERYING FEE.
[Book III-
personal,"^ "not disposed of as above mentioned;"^
"all my goods and effects, both real and personal ;''^
"all my inheritance;"* "all my lands ;"^ " all my
landed estate;"*' "all my landed property;"^ "all and
singular my lands," "to be truly possessed and en-
joyed;"^ "all my property ;" ^ "all my property, both
real and personal, of whatever name or kind ;"^° "all
my real estate ;"i^ "all my real property;"^ or "the
remaining part of my realty ; " ^^ " all my real and per-
sonal estate ; " " "all my real and personal property ; " ^^
Randall v. Tuohin, 6 Taunt. 410 ;
s.c. 1 Eng. C. L. 677 ; 2 Marsh.
117;
Doe V. Allen, 8 T. R. 503 ;
Grayson v. Atkinson, 1 Wils.
333 •
4 Kent Com. (ISth ed.) 535.
Compare : Hart v. "White, 26 Vt.
260.
1 Brown v. Wood, 17 Mass. 68 ;
BeU V. Soammon, 15 N. H. 381 ;
s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ;
Arnold v. Lincoln, 8 R. I. 384 ;
Culbertsonv. Duly, 7 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 195.
°- KeHogg V. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met.)
322, 325.
"All mj estate, both real and
personal," "to be at 's
absolute disposal," vests a fee.
Jackson ex d. ■;;. Babcock, 12
John. (N. Y.) 389, 393.
^ Lessees of Fergvison v. Zepp. 4
■ Wash. C. C. 645 ;
Tanner v. Wise, 3 Pr. Wms. 395.
^ Jackson ex d. Pearson v. Housel,
17 John. (N. Y.) 281.
5 NUes V. Gray, 12 Ohio St. 320,
331 •
Abbott V. The Essex Co., 59 TJ.
S. (18 How.) 202; s.c. bk. 15 L.
ed. 352, 355 ; 2 Curt. C. C. 126.
« Myers v. Myers, 2 MoO. (S. C.)
Eq. 214 ; s.c. 16 Am. Dec. 648.
' Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 163 ;
Foster v. Stewart, 18 Pa. St. 23 ;
Meyers v. Meyers, 2 McC. (S. C.)
Eq. 214; s.c. 16 Am. Dec. 648 ;
Sharp V. Sharp, 6 Bing. 630 ; s. c.
19 Eng. C,L. 285;
Nicholls V. Butcher, 18 Ves. 193.
* Distinction between " lands " and
"estate." — This was held to
pass a fee, upon the known
distinction between ' ' all my
lands" and " all my estate."
Doe V. Baiues, 2 Cromp. M. & R.
231.
"My last purchase." — The same
is true of " my late purchase,"
where the purchase was in fee.
Neide v. Neide, 4 Rawle (Pa.)
75.
* Jackson ex d. Pearson ■;;. Housel,
17 John. (N. Y.) 281, 283 ;
Stoever v. Stoever, 9 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 434, 445 ;
Rosseter v. Simmons, 6 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 452.
"> Grossman v. Field, 119 Mass. 170,
172.
" Grossman v. Field, 119 Mass. 170,
173;
Spooner v. Lovejoy, 108 Mass.
533;
Bacon v. Woodward, 78 Mass. (13
Gray) 376, 379 ;
Putnam v. Emerson, 48 Mass. (7
Met.) 333 ;
Kellogg V. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met.)
335;
Parker v. Parker, 46 Mass. (5
Met.) 134, 138 ;
Abbott V. Essex, 2 Curt. C. C. 126,
132; s.c. 59 U. S. (18 How.) 202;
bk.lSL. ed. 352, 355.
'2 Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 163;
Foster v. Stewart, 18 Pa. St. 23;
Sharp V. Sharp, 6 Bing. 630; s.c.
19 Eng. C. L. 285 ;
Nicholls V. Butcher, 18 Ves. 193.
'» NUes V. Gray, 12 Ohio St. 320,
329.
" Godfrey v. Humphreys, 35 Mass.
(18 Pick.) 537; s.c. 29 Am. Dec.
621.
'^ See : Hungerford v. Anderson, 4
Day (Conn.) 368, 371;
Smith V. Berry, 8 Ohio St. 366,
368;
Morrison v. Semple, 6 Binu (Pa.)
94.
Chap. VI. § 351.] WORDS CARRYING FEE.
309
"all my real effects;"^ "all my rights ;"2 "all my
worldly substance;"^ "all right, title, and interest
in the house;"* "all the estate, real- and personal;"^
' ' all the rest and residue of my real and personal es-
tate;"® "all the rest of my lands and tenements;"^
"effects;"^ "I give my lands;"® "in fee-simple;"^"
"my landed property ; " " " my late purchase ; " ^ " my
plantation ; " ^^ " my property ; " ^* "my real property ; " ^
"my whole estate;"^® a devise of "profits, rents, and
' Mayo i\ Carrington, 4 Call (Va.)
472 ; s.o. 3 Am. Dec. 580.
' Newkerk v. Newkerk, 3 Cai. (N.
Y.) 345.
^ Mayo V. Carrington, 4 Call (Va.)
473; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 580.
' Cole V. Rawlinson, 3 Brown Pari.
Cas.7.
See : Merritt v. Abendroth, 24
Hun (N. Y.) 318.
'BeUv. Soammon, 15 N. H. 381;
S.C. 41 Am. Dec. 706.
' Donovan v. Donovan, 4 Harr.
(Del.) 177;
McConnel v. Smith, 23 111. 611;
Parker v. Parker, 46 Mass. (5 Met.)
188;
Davenport •;;. Coltman, 9 Mees. &
W.481;
Farmer v. Francis, 2 Sim. & S.
505.
Compare : Doe d. HurreU v. Hur-
rell, 5 Barn. & Aid. 18; s.c. 7
Eng. C. L. 23.
' Must be in residuary clause. — But
does not carry a fee where not
the residuary clause.
Wright V. Denn ex d. Page, 28
U. S. (10 Wheat.) 204, 239 ; bk.
6 L. ed. 303, 310.
' Hope ex d. Brown v. Taylor, 1
Burr. 370;
Hogan V. Jackson, 1 Cowp. 399.
» Smith V. Berry, 8 Ohio 866, 368.
Compare : Wright v. Denn ex. d.
Page, 33 U. S. (10 Wheat.) 304,
306-331, 333, 338 ; bk. 6 L. ed
803, 819.
Giving land to be divided. — In
Whaley and Others v. Jenkins,
8 Des. (S. C.)Eq. 80, there were
no words of inheritance, and
no word which had before been
construed to carry a fee-simple.
The testator merely gave his
two tracts of land, to be equally
divided between his two sons,
and these words were held suf-
ficient to pass the fee. This
was followed up by the cases of
Clarke v. Mikell, 8 Des. (S. C.)
Eq. 168, and Waring v. Middle-
ton, 3 Des. (S. C.) Eq. 249, in
which the principle of the
former decision was reiterated
and enforced.
"> Bridgewater v. Bolton, 6 Mod.
106, 109;
" Foster v. Stewart, 18 Pa. St. 23.
" Neide v. Neide, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 75.
'^ Lessees of Thompson v. Hoop, 6
Ohio St. 481;
Price V. Taylor, 38 Pa. St. 95; s.c.
70 Am. Dec. 105;
French v. McIUiermy, 2 Binn.
(Pa.) 13 ;
CasseU v. Cook, 8Serg. &R. (Pa.)
268; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 610;
Waring v. Middleton, 3 Des. (S.
C.) Eq. 249 ;
Clarke v. Mikell, 3 Des. (S. C.) Eq.
168;
Jenkins v. Clement, 1 Harp. (S.
C.) Eq. 72; s.c. 14 Am. Dec.
698;
Peyton v. Smith, 4 McC. (S. C.)
476 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. 758.
Compare: Steele v. Thompson,
14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 84.
" Jackson ex. d. Pierson v. Housel,
17 John. (N. Y.) 281.
" Niles V. Gray, 12 Ohio St. 320 ;
Morrison v. Semplc, 6 Binn. (Pa.)
94 ■
Dice V. Sheffer, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.)
419.
'" Hammond v. Hammond, 8 GiR &
J. (Md.) 437 ;
Briggs V. Shaw, 91 Mass. (9 Allen)
517;
Leland v. Adams, 75 Mass. (9
Gray) 171 ;
Jackson «. Merrill, 6 John. (N. Y.)
185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 313 ;
Shinn v. Holmes, 25 Pa. St. 142 ;
Doe V. Williams, 1 Exch. 414 ;
310
WORDS CAEEYING FEE.
[Book III.
income " of land ; ^ or of "property,"^ or "leasehold,"
where the intention is clear ; ^ the devise of a " remain-
der " or a " reversion, " after the disposition of a particular
estate ;* or of the "residue of the real estate ; " ^ " res-
idue or remainder " of "my estate, real and personal ; " ®
"rest and residue of all my property, real, personal,
and mixed;"'' all "right and title to" property, the
devisor having a fee;^ "right to certain rents ;" ^
"share," where preceded by words showing intention
to dispose of the whole estate ; " ^° a devise to several
to enjoy and holds as tenants in common ; " ^^ "to have,
hold and enjoy forever, for the free use of her and no
other person, excepting by her assignment and will ;" ^^
' ' to my wife the land her father gave me ; " ^ " undivided
half" of land described ;" '^ devise to "use forever. "^^
Johnson v. Kerman, 1 Eol. Abr.
834;
Eandall v. Tuchin, 6 Taunt. 410 ;
B.C. 2 Marsh. 117 ; 1 Eng. C. L.
677.
Compare : Hart v. Wliite, 26 Vt.
260.
' Earl V. Grim, 1 John. Ch. (N. Y.)
494 •
Drusadow v. WUde, 63 Pa. St.
170;
Anderson v. Greble, 1 Ashm. (Pa.)
136, 138 ;
Carlyle v. Cannon, 3 Eawle (Pa.)
489.
A devise of "income, lands, and
use," followed by a devise over,
does not convey the fee, but a
hfe estate only.
France's Estate, 75 Pa. St. 230.
And the same is true where they
are given for a limited time
only.
Earl V. Grim, 1 John. Ch. (N. Y.)
494.
« Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 168.
See : Jackson ex d. Pearson v.
Housel, 17 John. (N. Y.) 281 ;
Mayo V. Carrington, 4 Call (Va.)
473;
Wilce V. Wilce, 7 Bing. 664 ; s.c.
30 Eng. C. L. 396 ;
Billing V. Billing, 5 Sim. 333.
The word property, in its most
strict and proper nse, relates
solely to the quantity of estate
in the land, and, unless words
restraining its significance are
added, always means the whole
interest. The word property
in such connection is synony-
mous with the word estate or
interest, and includes every-
thing in the land which the
testator possessed.
Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 163.
s Saylor v. Kocher, 8 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 163.
* Annable v. Patch, 30 Mass. (3
Pick.) 360 ;
Cruger v. Haywood, 3 Des. (S. C.)
Eq. 94.
See : Lippen v. Eldred, 3 Barb.
(N. Y.) 130 ;
Bee d. Lean v. Lean, 1 Ad. & E.
N. S. 339 ; s.c. 41 Eng. C. L.
515.
Compare: Peiton v. Banks, 1
Vern. 65.
' Forsaith v. Clark, 21 N. H. 409.
" Peppard -v. Deal, 9 Pa. St. 140 ;
Doughty V. Browne, 4 Yeates
(Pa.) 179.
' Lincoln v. Lincoln, 107 Mass. 590.
" Merritt v. Abendroth, 34 Hun
(N. Y.) 318.
" Newkerk v. Newkerk, 2 Cai. (N.
Y.) 845.
'"McClure's Heirs v. Douthitt, 3
Pa. St. 446.
" Croskyy. Dodds, 87 Pa. St. 359.
'* Denn d. Bolton v. Bowne, 18 N.
J. L. (3 Harr.) 210.
'3 PuroeU V. WiLson,4 Gratt. (Va.) 16.
" Waterman v. Greene, 12 R. I. 483.
'^ Gift to nse where title not re-
qnired.— Where the land is
given for a certain use which
Chap. VI. § 352.] WORDS CARRYING FEB.
311
And where the devise in terms imposes a personal charge
upon the devisee,^ invests him with the power of ap-
pointment,^ and the like, the devise passes the fee ; but
the mere use of the word "tract," excluding a portion
previously devised for life, will not carry a fee-simple by
implication.^ At common law a devise "of the rest of
my lands, in possession, reversion, or remainder," does
not carry a fee.* There has been said to be nothing in
the words "I devise all my real estate" incompatible
with the intention to devise for life only.^
Sec. 352. Same—" Estate " is genus generalissimum. — The
word ' ' estate " includes every kind of property, and when
used in a will is genus generalissimum,^ and carries a fee,
unless tied down and controlled by particular expressions, '^
does not require the title, the
testator will be pi-esumed to
have given a inere easement.
Sa^ston V. Mitchell, 78 Pa. St. 481.
1 See : Post, § 380.
' See : Pout, § 369, et seq.
3 Wilson V. WUson, 4 T. B. Mon.
(Ky.) 159.
i Wright V. Denn ex d. Page, 23
U. S. (10 Wheat.) 304 ; bk. 6 L.
ed. 303.
5 Terry v. Wiggins, 47 N. Y. 513,
515;
Helmer v. Shoemaker, 23 Wend.
(N. Y.) 137.
^ Thornton v. Mulquinne, 13 Iowa
549 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 548, 551.
' Thornton v. Mulquinne, 13 Iowa
549 ; s.o. 79 Am. Deo. 448 ;
Tracy v.Kilborn, 57 Mass.(3Cush.)
557;
Putnam v. Emerson, 48 Mass. (7
Met.) 330, 333 ;
Kellogg V. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met.)
322, 325 ;
Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass.
(18 Pick.) 537 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec.
621;
Terry v. Wiggins, 47 N. Y. 513 ;
Jackson ex d. Herrick v. Bab-
cock, 13 John. (N. Y.) 389, 393 ;
Lambert's Lessee v. Paine, 7 U.
S. (3 Cr.) 97, 130 ; bk. 2 L. ed.
377, 388.
See : Butler v. Little, 3 Me. (3
Greenl.) 339 ;
Brown v. Wood, 17 Mass. 68;
Jackson «. DeLanoy, 13 John. (N.
Y.) 537 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 403 ;
Jackson v. DeLancy, 11 John.
(N. Y.) 365 ;
Thurbett v. Thurbett, 3 Yeates
(Pa.) 187 ; s.c. 2 Am. Deo. 369 ;
Busby V. Busby, 1 U. S. (1 DaU.)
226 ; bk. 1 L. ed. Ill;
Blagge V. Miles, 1 Story C. C.
436, 438 ;
Fletcher v. Smiton, 3 T. B. 656 ;
s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 575 ;
Holdfast V. Marten, 1 T. B. 411 ;
s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 243 ;
Murry v. Wyse, 2 Vern. 564 ;
Tanner v. Wise, 3 Pr. Wms. 295.
"Estate" in devise refers to title
— ^When descriptive of corpus. —
It is said in the case of Terry
V. Wiggins, 47 N. Y. 512, that
the word ' ' estate " used in a de-
vise refers to the testator's title,
and indicates an intent to give
all the estate or interest in the
property which the testator can
dispose of by wiU, unless by ex-
press terms or by necessary
implication it appear that it
was used as descriptive of, or
referring to, the corpus of the
property, but it may be con-
trolled by other portions of the
will.
It is said in the case of Putnam
V. Emerson, 48 Mass. (7 Met.)
330, 333, that a devise of the
testator's whole estate will pass
a fee, on being seized of such
an estate, is unquestionable,
unless given in such words as
go merely to describe the lands
312
' ESTATE " A GENERAL TERM.
[Book III.
or by the context of the will ; ^ therefore a devise of all a
man's estate, where there are no words to control or re-
strain its operation, will be construed not merely to mean
his lands, but the quantity of interest which he has in
them, so as to pass an estate of inheritance if he has one.^
Justice Johnson says in the case of Lambert's Lessee v.
Paine : ^ " I consider the doctrine as well established, that
the word' estate, made use of in a devise of realty, will
carry a fee, or whatever other interest the devisor pos-
sesses. And I feel no disposition to vary the legal effect
of the word, whether preceded by my or the, or followed
by at or in, or in the singular or plural number. The in-
tent with which it is used is the decisive consideration ;
devised, and not the extent of
his interest therein.
Citing : Kellogg v. Blair, 47 Mass.
(6 Met.) 325 ;
Godfrey ■;;. Humphrey, 35 Mass.
(18 Pick.) 537 ; s.o. 39 Am. Deo.
621;
Brown v. "Wood, 17 Mass. 73 ;
Randall v. Tuchin, 6 Taunt. 410 ;
s.o. 2 Marsh. 117 ; 1 Eng. C. L.
677.
Donovan v. Donovan, 4 Harr.
(Del.) 177 ;
Doe V. Kinnev, 3 Ind. 50 ;
Doe V. Harter, 7 Blackf. (Ind.)
488;
Leland v. Adams, 75 Mass. (9
Gray) 171 ;
Kellogg V. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met.)
335;
Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass.
(18 Pick.) 537 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec.
631;
Jackson v. MerriU, 6 John. (N. Y.)
185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Deo. 213 ;
Arnold v. Lincoln, 6 R. I. 384.
Words of locality and description
refsrring to corpus. — And this
is true although the word is
accompanied by other words of
locality and description,or other
expression exclusively referable
to the corpus of the property.
Leland v. Adams, 75 Mass. (9
Gray) 171, 175 ;
Doe d. Knott v. Lawton, 4 Bing.
jSr. C. 455,461 ; s.c. 6 Scott 318 ;
33 Eng. O. L. 802, 805 ;
Randall v. Tuchin, 6 Taunt. 410 ;
s.c. 2 Marsh. 117 ; 1 Eng. C. L.
677.
Same — Estate of " Marrowbone. " —
Such as "all the estate called
Marrowbone, in the county of
Hanover, containing by estima-
tion 2,500 acres of land."
Lambert's Lessee ^j. Paine, 7 U. S.
(3 Or.) 97, 130 ; bk. 2 L. ed. 377,
' 388.
2 Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass.
(18 Pick.) 537, 539 ; s.c. 29 Am.
Deo. 621.
See : Thornton v. Mulquinne, 13
Iowa 549 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 548 ;
Hammond v. Hammond, 8 Gill
& J. (Md.) 487 ;
Briggs V. Shaw, 91 Mass. (9 Allen)
517;
Leland v. Adams, 75 Mass. (9
Gray) 71 ;
Bell V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ;
s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ;
Jackson v. MerriU, 6 John. (N.
Y.) 185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 213 ;
Shinn v. Holmes, 25 Pa. St. 143 ;
Zimmerman v. Anders, 6 Watts
& S. (Pa.) 318 ; s.o. 40 Am. Dec.
553;
Myers v. Myers, 2 McC. (S. C.)
Eq. 314 ; s.c. 16 Am. Dec. 648 ;
Doe V. WiUiams, 1 Exch. 414 ;
Bridgewater v. Bolton, 6 Mod.
106, 109 ;
Johnson v. Kerman, 1 Rol. Abr.
834;
Randall 'v. Tuchin, 6 Taunt. 410 ;
s.c. 3 Marsh. 117 ; 1 Eng. C. L.
677;
Holdfast V. Marten, 1 T. R. 411 ;
s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 343.
Compare : Hart v. White, 36 Vt.
360.
'IV.S. (3 Cr.) 97, 130 ; bk. 2 L. ed.
377, 388.
Chap. VI. § 353.] PASSING FEE IN REVERSION. 313
and I should not feel myself sanctioned in refining away
the operation of that intent by discriminations so minute
as those which have been attempted at different stages of
English jurisprudence. The word estate, in testament-
ary cases, is suflaciently descriptive both of the subject
and the interest existing in it. It is unquestionably true
that its meaning may be restricted by circumstances or
expressions indicative of its being used in a hmited or par-
ticular sense, so as to confine it to the subject alone ; but
certainly, in its general use, it is understood to apply
more pertinently to the interest in the subject."
Sec. 353. Same — What passes fee in reversion. — Where a
testator devises to the legatee certain real property, de-
scribing it, together with certain personal property, and
adds, ' ' with whatsoever is not named that I have any
right or claim to either in right or equity, " will vest in
such legatee the reversion in fee to real property ; ^ and
where a particular estate is given to a person in one part
of a will, and the testator afterwards devises to him in
more general terms, a fee will pass the same as though
there had not been a gift of the particular estate.^ Thus
in Hogan v. Jackson ^ the testator gave to his mother his
home and lands at G. during her natural life, and, after
several legacies to others, devised to his mother all the
remainder and residue of his effects, both real and per-
sonal, which he should die possessed of, and the court
held that by the residuary clause the mother took a fee
in the real estate. In Chester t\ Chester * a father, on
the marriage of his son, settled part of his lands on him
in tail, and being seized in fee of the reversion of the
lands so settled and of other lands in possession, subse-
quently devised all his lands and hereditaments not
otherwise disposed of, and the court held that the rever-
' Harper r. Blean, 3 Watts (Pa.) given to a person in one part of
471 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 367. a will, and the testator after-
Approved : Geyer v. Wentzel, 68 wards devises to liini in more
Pa. St. 88 ; general terms, he shall not reap
Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St. 89 ; any benefit from the general
Brown r. Boyd, 9 Watts (Pa.) 129. devise.
' Lord Mansfield says that it would Hogan v. Jackson, 1 Cowp. 299,
be going a great ways to lay 308.
down as a general rule, that ' 1 Cowp. 399.
when a particular estate is ■'3 Pr. Wms. 56.
311 WHEN FEE VESTS. [BOOK III.
sion in the lands settled on the son in tail passed. And
in a case where a testator gave to his wife an estate for
life in part of his real estate, and, after disposing of the
balance in fee, bequeathed to her the residue and re-
mainder. Lord Hardwicke held that the residuary clause
carried the inheritance.^
Sec. 354. Same— When the fee vests.— "Where real estate
is devised to a legatee without words of limitation, the
fee vests immediately upon the death of the testator ;
and when the enjoyment of the estate is divided into
successive periods, all the fragments of it vest at the
same time.^ Where there is a devise of real estate to
one for life, and after his death to another, or to two or
more persons, or the survivor or survivors of them, their
heirs and assigns, forever, the remaindermen take a vested
interest at the death of the testator ; ^ and where a de-
vise of real estate thus made is to take effect immediately
upon the death of the testator, words of survivorship
refer to that time, and a fee vests, on the happening of
the event, in the survivors to the exclusion of the per-
sonal representatives of such that may have died before the
testator.* But where the gift is of an estate to a trustee
to be held until the youngest child of such testator should
attain majority, and providing that the property shall
then be equally divided among his children, at the death
of the testator the trustee takes an estate for years, ^ and
those children living at the time of the testator's death
take a vested fee-simple estate subject to the trust ; and
should one of the devisees die before the expiry of the
trust estate his interest will descend to his heirs, if not
aliened or otherwise disposed of.* Where such an estate
' Ridout V. Paine, 3 Atk. 488. Bro. C. C. 386 ;
■• King V. King, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) Taylor v. Langford, 3 Ves. 119.
305 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 459 ; ^ Moore v. Lyons, 35 Wend. (N. Y.)
Scurfield v. Howes, 3 Bro. C. C. 119 ;
90 ; * Branson v. HiU, 31 Md. 181 ; s.c.
Benyon v. Maddison, 2 Bro. C. C. 1 Am. Rep. 40 ;
75 ; Doe ex d. Long v. Prigg, 8 Barn.
Monkhouse v. Hohne, 1 Bro. C. C. & C. 331 ; s.c. 15 Eng. C. L. 131.
398 ; 6 Doe ex d. Player v. NichoUs, 1
Blamii-e v. Geldart, 16 Ves. 314, Barn. & C. 336 ; s.c. 8 Eng. C.
319 ; L. 144.
Balmaia v. Shore, 9 Ves. 500 ; « Hempstead v. Dickson, 30 111. 193;
Attorney-General v. Crispin, 1 s.c. 71 Am. Dec, 360.
Chap. VI. § 355.] SURVIVORSHIP IN WILLS. 315
is not immediate, there being a prior life carried out, and
words of perpetuity qualify those of survivorship, the sur-
vivor will not take the whole gift to the exclusion of the
heirs or representatives of his co-legatee.^
Sec. 355. Same — Words of survivorship in wills — Doctrine
of early English cases.— An examination of the earlier
English cases shows that the courts uniformly thought
that words of survivorship in wills of hoth real and per-
sonal estates referred to the death of the testator. Some
of the cases are based upon the particular phraseology
and context of the wills, and others upon the principal
intention of the testator, making allowances for the defi-
ciency and inaccuracy of the expressions so commonly to
be found under testamentary interests to the abolishing
of the law which favors the vesting of estates, and others
again upon the presumption that the testator did not
intend to cut off from the provisions of his will the
children and descendants of such of the former legatees
or devisees as might happen to die before the termination
of the intermediate estate.^
See : Everts v. Chittendon, 3 Day Williamson v. Field's Ex'rs, 2
(Conn.) 388 ; s.c. 2 Am. Dec. 97 ; Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) 533 ;
King V. King, 1 Watts & S. (Pa.) Minnig v. Batdorflf, 5 Pa. St. 508 ;
205 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 459 ; Kinsey v. Lardner, 15 Serg. & R.
Doe ex d. Long v. Prigg, 8 Barn. (Pa.) 196 ;
& C. 231 ; s.c. 15 Eng. C. L. Rivers v. Friff, 4 Rich. (S. C.) Eq.
121 ; , 376 ;
Doe ex d. Player v. Nicholls, 1 Doe d. Cadogan v. Ewart, 7 Ad.
Barn. & C. 336 ; s.c. 8 Eng. C. & El. 636 ; s.c. 34 Eng. C. L.
L. 144 ; 337 ;
Doe ex d. Wheedon v. Lea, 3 T. Goodtitle v. Whitby, 1 Burr. 228;
R. 41 : s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 631. Doe ex d. Wheedon v. Lea, 3 T.
Stanley v. Stanley, 16 Ves. 491. R. 41 ; s.c. 1 Rev^ Rep 681 ;
' Branson v. HiU, 31 Md. 181 ; s.c. Boraston's Case, 3 Coke 21a, 21b.
1 Am. Rep. 40. * Doe ex d. Long v. Prigg, 8 Barn.
See : Scott v. Logan, 03 Ark. 351, & C. 331 ; s.c. 15 Eng. C. L.
352 • 121 !
Watkins V. Quarles. 33 Ark. 179 ; Rose v. Hill, 3 Burr. 1881 ;
Danforth v. Talbot, 7 B. Mon. Goodtitle u Whitby, 1 Burr. 338 ;
(Kv ) 623 ■ Brown v. Bigg, 7 Ves. 279b ;
Roberts v. Brmker, 4 Dana (Ky.) Maberly v. Strod, 3 Ves. 450 ; s.c.
570 573 • 4 Rev. Rep. 61 ;
Allen V. Vkn Meter, 1 Met. (Ky.) Perry v. Woods, 3 Ves. 204 ;
3g4. Habergham v. Vincent, 3 Ves.
Meyer v. Eisler, 39 Md. 28, 32 ; Jr. 304 ;
Bredell-y. Collier, 40 Mo. 287; Marryat v. Townly, 1 Ves. Sr.
Roome V. Phillips, 24 N. Y. 463, 102.
465;
316 SURVIVORSHIP— AMERICAN DOCTRINE. [Book III.
Sec. 366. Same— Same — Doctrine of later English cases.—
The later English cases manifest a disposition to break
away from the array of authorities, extending in un-
broken phalanx over more than two centuries, in favor
of the rule of construction above set out, especially in
those cases where there is a gift of personal estate to a
donee for life, and after the termination of such interest
to certain persons nominatim ; in which case there is a
strong inclination to refer the words of survivorship to
the period of distribution, or to the termination of the
intermediate estate ; that is to say, the legatees surviving
at that time take to the exclusion of the personal repre-
sentatives of such as may have died before that period.^
Sec. 357. same— Same — Doctrine of the American eases.—
In this country the weight of authority seems to be in
favor of the earlier rule, which refers the words of sur-
vivorship to the death of the testator, and without
recognizing any distinction between real and personal
property.^
Sec. 358. Same— Limited remainder — "Vesting of. — In the
case of Moore v. Lyons ^ the devise was " to Mary for life,
and from and after her death to her three daughters, or
to the survivors or survivor of them, their or her heirs
and assigns forever." The chancellor, in commenting
upon this devise, remarks ■ that where a remainder is so
limited as to take effect in possession, if ever, immedi-
ately on the termination of a particular estate, which
is to determine by an event which must unavoidably
happen by the efflux of time, the remainder vests an in-
terest as soon as the remainderman is in esse and
1 Goddard I!. Lethbridge, 16 Beav. Neatwayw. Reed, 17 Jur. 169; s.o.
539 ; 17 Eng. L. & Eq. 151.
Smith y. Osborne, 6 H. of L. Cas. ' Branson v. Hill, 31 Md. 181 • s o
391 ; 1 Am. Rep. 40 ;
Cripps V. Wolcott, 4 Madd. 11 ; Blanchard v. Blanchard, 83 Mass.
Pope V. Whitcombe, 3 Russ. 124 ; (1 Allen) 233 ;
Turing v. Turing, 15 Sim. 139, Moore v. Lyons, 35 Wend. fN. Y.)
510; 119;
Newton V. Aysoough, 19 Ves. Ross v. Drake, 37 Pa. St. 373 ;
534 ; Hansford v. Elliot, 9 Leigh (Va.)
Brograve v. Winder, 3 Ves. Jr. 79.
634 ; s 35 Wend. (N. Y.) 119, 144.
Chap. VI. § 359.] VESTING OF REMAINDER.
3ir
ascertained ; provided nothing but his own death before
the determination of the particular estate will prevent
such remainder from vesting in possession. But, if the
estate is limited over to another, in the event of such
death before the particular estate determines, his vested
estate is subject to be divested by that event, and the
interest of the substituted remainderman, which was
before either an executory devise or a contingent remain-
der, will, if he is in esse and ascertained, be immediately
changed into a vested remainder. ^
Sec. 359. Same — Devise with power— Carries fee when. —
It is a well-established rule that where an estate is de-
vised to a person generally, or indefinitely, with an un-
limited power of disposition, the absolute fee passes to
the devisee.^ The only exception to this rule is when the
testator gives the first taker an estate for life only, by
certain express words, and annexes to it a power of dis-
posal.^ Thus where a testator devised lands to his wife
See : Williamson v. Field's Ex'rs,
2 Sandf, Ch. (N. Y.) 533, 551.
Todd V. Sawyer, 147 Mass. 570 ;
s.c. 17N.E.Rep. 537;
Cummings v. Shaw, 108 Mass.
159.
See : Denson v. Mitchell, 26 Ala.
860;
Cook V. Walker, 15 Ga. 457 ;
Fairman v. Beal, 14 111. 344 ;
Benesch v. Clark, 49 Md. 497 ;
Kelley v. Meins, 135 Mass. 331 ;
Gibbins v. Shepard, 125 Mass.
541, 543 ;
Whitcomb v. Taylor, 133 Mass.
343, 248 ;
Lyon V. Marsh, 116 Mass. 233 ;
Bowen v. Dean, 110 Mass. 438 ;
Hale V. Marsh, 100 Mass. 468 ;
Jackson v. Robins, 16 John. (N.
Y.) 588 ;
Second Reformed Pres. Church
V. Disbrow, 54 Pa. St. 319 ;
Morris v. Phaler, 1 Watts (Pa.)
389;
Smith V. Starr, 3 Whart. (Pa.)
■ 63 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 498 ;
Pulliam V. Byrd, 3 Strobh. (S. C.)
Eq. 134 ;
Burwell v. Anderson, 3 Leigh
(Va.) 348, 356 ;
Robinson v. Dusgate, 3 Vern.
181;
Paice V. Archbishop of Canter-
bury, 14 Ves. 364, 370 ;
Post. § 368.
Estate for li&, with power of dis-
position,— It is said in Rubey v.
Bamett, 12 Mo. 3 ; s.c. 49 Am.
Dec. 112, that where an ex-
press estate for life is given by
wiU, and a power of disposition
is afterwards conferred, the
devisee takes but a life estate,
with a power of disposition,
and if no disposition is made,
the reversion will go to the
heirs of the devisor. But if
there is no previous devise of a
life estate, but a simple power
of disposition is given, then the
devisee takes an absolute estate.
And this rule applies both to
the real and personal estate.
' Smith V. Starr, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 63 ;
s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 498, 500.
See : Cook v. Walker, 15 Ga. 457 ;
Moore v. Webb, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.)
282;
Stevens v. Winship, 18 Mass. (1
Pick.) 318; s.c. 11 Am. Dec.178;
Jackson v. Robins, 16 John. (N.
Y.) 588 ;
Flinthan's Case, 11 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 16.
Post, % 369.
318 DEVISE WITH POWEE— CAREIES FEE. [Book III.
for life, and gave her power, in case of need, to sell all
the estate, both real and personal, for her comfortable
support, it was held that she took only a life estate
with the power of sale depending on a contingency.^
Judge Agnew says, in the case of Dodson v. Ball,^ that
" the rule laid down is, that when an estate for life only
is given, followed by a general power of appointment,
and on failure to appoint to children, or to specified heirs,
the power to appoint will not enlarge the estate of the
cestui que trust to a fee ; and on the failure to appoint,
the children or specified donees in remainder take by
purchase from the donor, and not by way of limitation
as heirs of the cestui que trust. " ^ But it is thought that
a limitation to heirs on the failure to appoint unquestion-
ably enlarges the life estate to a fee by union of estates. *
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in the case
of Hale V. Marsh,^ say that where a gift is of a life estate,
with a full power of disposition, both by deed and will,
over the entire property, at the pleasure of the devisee,
without limitation or restriction as to the time, mode, or
purpose of the execution of the power, the life estate and
unlimited power of disposition over the remainder coa-
lesce and form an estate in fee, and that a devise over
of what may remain is void, because inconsistent with the
unlimited power of disposition given to the first taker.®
' Stevens v. Winship, 18 Mass. (1 « 60 Pa. St. 492 ; s.c. 100 Am. Deo.
Pick.) 318 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 586, 590.
178. 8 See : Girard Life Ins. & Trust Co.
See: Warren v. Webb, 68 Me. v. Chambers, 46 Pa. St. 490;
133 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 513 ;
Lamed v. Bridge, 34 Mass. (17 Smith v. Starr, 3 Whart. (Pa.)
Pick.) 339. 63, 66 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 498 ;
Estate for life with limited power Anderson v. Dawson, 15 Ves. 532 ;
of disposal.— The distinction 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 663.
between such cases as this and * Nice's Appeal, 50 Pa. St. 143 ;
those where a life estate is given Physick's Appeal, 50 Pa. St. 128 ;
with an unlimited power of EaJston v. Wain, 44 Pa. St. 279.
disposal is clearly pointed out '• 100 Mass. 468.
in Hale v. Marsh, 100 Mass. 468, " See : Jones v. Bacon, 68 Me. 34 ;
wherein it is held that in tlie s.c. 28 Am. Rep. 1 ;
cases of the latter kind tlie life Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, 21 Me.
estate and the power of disposal 288;
coalesce in the form of a fee, CummingsuShaw, 108 Mass.159;
so that the devise over is void, Dodge v. Moore, 100 Mass. 335 ;
the whole estate vesting in the Gleason v. Fayerweather, 70
first taker. To the same effect Mass. (4 Gray) 348, 351 ;
is Jones v. Bacon, 68 Me. 34; Harris v. Baiapp, 38 Mass. (21
s.c. 28 Am. Rep. 1. Pick.) 412 ;
Chap. VI. §§ 360, 361.] WHEN FEE DOES NOT PASS. 319
Sec. 360. Same— Same— When fee does not pass.- Where
an express estate for life is given by a will, and the power
of disposition is afterward conferred, the devisee takes
but a life estate, notwithstanding the naked and dis-
tinct power of disposition of the reversion.^ The distinc-
tion between a gift for life, with the power of disposition
superadded, and a gift to a person indefinitely, with a
superadded power to dispose by deed or will, is perhaps
slight ; but that distinction is perfectly established, and
in the latter case the property vests. Thus a gift to A,
and to such person as he shall appoint,- is absolute property
in A, without an appointment ; but if it is given to him
for life, and after his death to such person as he shall
appoint by will, he must make an appointment in order
to entitle that other person to anything. ^
Sec. 361. Same— Same— Same— Reason for the rule. — The
reason for this rule is said to be that the express estate
for life negatives the intention to give an absolute prop-
erty, and converts these words into words of mere power,
which, standing alone, would not have been construed to
convey an interest.^ There is an exception to this rule,
Lamed v. Bridge, 34 Mass. (17 Burwell v. Anderson, 3 Leigh
Pick.) 339 ; (Va.) 348, 356 ;
Stevens v. Wlnship, 18 Mass. Brant v. Virginia Coal & Iron
a Pick.) 318 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. Co., 93 U. S. (3 Otto.) 336 ; bk.
178 ; 23 L. ed. 927 ; s.c. 16 Am. L.
Ide D.'ide, 5 Mass. 500 ; Reg. 403 ;
Brant v. Gelston, 2 John. Cas. Anonymous, Cart. 233 ;
(N. Y.) 384 ; Dighton v. Tomlinson, 1 Com.
Stroud v. Morrow, 7 Jones (N. C.) 194 ; s.c. sub.nom. TomUnson^.
L. 463 ; Dighton, 1 Pr. Wms. 149 ;
Second Reform Pres. Church v. Liefe v. Salingstone, 1 Mod. 189 ;
Disbrow, 52 Pa. St. 219. s.c. 1 Freem. 149, 163 ;
' Bubey v. Barneit, 12 Mo. 3 ; s.c. Reid v. Shergold, 10 Ves. 370 ;
49 Am Dec. 112. Nannock v. Horton, 7 Ves. 391 ;
See : Denson v. MitcheU, 36 Ala. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 319 ;
360- 2 Story's Eq. Jur. (13th ed.)
Cook '«. Walker, 15 Ga. 457, 462 ; §1393;
Haralson v. Redd, 15 Ga. 148 ; 1 Sugd. on Powers 121.
Funk V Eggleston, 92 111. 515 ; ^ Bradly v. Westcott, 13 Ves. 445,
Fairman «. Beal, 14 III. 344 ; 453 ; s c. 9 Rev. Rep 307 ;
Benesch v. Clark, 49 Md. 497 ; Reidv Shergold, 10 Ves. 370.
French v. Hatch, 28 N. H. 331, See: Gilman i). Bell,99 111 144,150 ;
350;
Fairman v. Beal, 14 111. 244 ;
Jackson V. Robins, 16 John. (N. Pulham v. Byrd, 3 Strobh. (S. C.)
Y ) 588 • Eq. 134, 142.
Second Reformed Pres. Church ^ Burwell v. Anderson, 3 Leigh (Va.)
V. Disbrow, 53 Pa. St. 219 ; 348, 357. •
Pulliam V. Byrd, 2 Strobh. (S. C.) See : Denson v. MitoheU, 26 Ala.
Eq. 134 ; . 360.
320
LIMITATION OVER— FEE.
[Book III.
however, in all those cases where the general words in
the devise, implying a life estate, if limited to such an
estate, would manifestly defeat the intention of the tes-
tator, when under the rule heretofore referred to ^ the
intention of the testator must be permitted to control
and enlarge the estate to a fee.^
Sec. 362. Same— Devise with limitation over— Contingent
fee.— The general rule respecting limitations over in case
of failure to designate heirs, which has obtained in
England since the case of Pells v. Brown,^ decided during
the reign of King James I., in the year 1620, is that
where an estate is devised by a person generally, without
words of limitation, it is not enlarged to a fee-simple by the
mere fact that it is a devise after a life estate ; * and if the
devise over be contingent on the death of the devisee
without heirs, or a specified line of heirs, with the limit-
ation over to the collateral line of the devisee, such
devise vests in the devisee a determinable fee-simple,®
1 See : Ante, 8 345.
» See : Benesoh v. Clark, 49 Md.497;
Burleigh v. Clough, 52 N. H.
367, 274 ; s.c. 13 Am. Hep. 33 ;
Second Reformed Pres. Church
V. Disbrow, 53 Pa. St. 219 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 319.
Cro. Jac. 590.
PeUs V. Brown "the magna ciarta
of this branch of the law." —
It is said lq Abbott v. The
Essex Co., 59 U. S. (18 How.)
202 ; bk. 15 L. ed. 353, 355 ;
s. c. 3 Curt. C. C. 136, that
notwithstanding the expres-
sions in Plunket v. Homes, Sid.
47, derogatory of the case of
Pells V. Brown, it has always
been considered ' ' a leading
case, and the foundation of this
branch of the law." In Porter
V. Bradley, 3 T. R. 143 ; s.c. 1
Rev. Rep. 675, where lands
were devised to A and his
heirs, and if he die leaving no
issue behind him, then over, it
was decided that the limitation
over was good by way of exec-
utory devise ; and Lord Ken-
yon acknowledges the case of
Pells V. Brown to be " the
foundation and magna oharta
of this branch of the law."
■* In Wheaton v. Andress, 23 Wend.
(N. Y.) 452, Judge Cowan, ia
delivering his opinion, said :
" No case holds that the intro- .
ductory clause manifesting an
intent to dispose of the entire
estate of the testator, ■ simply
connected with the words free-
ly to be enjoyed, etc. , the whole
will carry a fee. To do this
where there are no words of
express limitation, all the cases
agree that the will should con-
tain some provision in respect
to the land, necessarily incon-
sistent with the estate being for
life. Freelyto be enjoyed, etc.,
may come much short of this."
His honor pointed out that in
Denn ex d. Gaskin v. Gaskin,
Cowp. 657, and Wright ex d.
Shaw V. Russell, Id. (cited by
counsel), a disinheriting legacy
had been given to the heir at
law, and that the authority of
the cases had been weakened
by the opinions and comments
of Lord Ellenborotjgh and
Le Blanc and Dreuey, JJ.,
in Goodright ex d. Drewry v.
Barron, 11 East 220.
« See : Post, chapter IX., " De-
terminable Fees."
Chap. VI. § 363.] LIMITATION OVER— INTERPRETATION. 321
and not a fee-tail ; ^ and on the happening of the contin-
gency on which the fee is to be determined, the estate
passes over, not as a remainder, but by way of executory
devise.^ Under a general devise with remainder over,
upon a limited contingency, as upon the devisee's dying
under twenty-one years of age, the first devisee takes a
fee-simple, for if the intent were to give only a life
estate, with remainder over, there could be no reason for
limiting to the death under age.^
Sec. 363. Same — Same— Limitation over void for uncer-
tainty—Pee in first taker.— A limitation over in case the
legatee die ' ' without lawful issue " must be interpreted
as one to take effect upon the death of the party, with-
out leaving issue at the death, unless the contrary be
' Morris v. Potter, 10 R. I. 58.
» Niles V. Gray, 12 Ohio St. 320, 330.
See : Jordan v. Roaclie, 32 Miss.
481;
Abbott -u. The Essex Co., 59 U. S.
(18 How.) 202 ; bk. 15 L. ed.
352; s.c. SCurt. C. C. 126;
I>03 ex d. King v. Frost, 3 Barn.
& Aid. 546 ; s.c. 5 Eng. C. L.
316;
Ex parte Bavies, 21 L. J. (N. S.)
Oh. 13 0 ; s.c. 9 Eng.L. & Eq. 88.
Estate limit3d to a in;;ii and his
heirs — Constniction of devise.—
It is said by Kenyon, C. J.,
in Porter v. Bradley, 3 T. R.
143 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 675, that
the general rules respecting
limitations of this sort have
been for many years well
settled. The first question that
arises in this case is, whetlier
this is an estate-tail, or in fee ?
The first part of the devise to
Philip, prima facie, carries a
fee, for it is to him, his heirs,
and assigns forever ; but it is
clear that these words may be
restrained by subsequent ones
so as to carry only an estate-
tail. And a long string of cases
may be cited, in order to show
that where an estate is limited
to a man and his heirs forever,
and if he die without leaving
heirs, then to his brother, or to
any person who may be his
heir ; those words shall not have
their full legal operation, but
shall be restrained to heirs of a
21
particular kind, namely, heirs
of the body. If the subsequent
part of this devise had been,
" and in case he shall die
without issue, then over," it
would liave given to Philip an
estate-tail, which he might have
barred by the recovery. And
so it would, under the con-
struction of. the words " die
without issue," then prevalent
in England, but since changed
by act of Parliament there, and
never adopted here.
But here the words were, ' ' but
in case he shall happen to die,
leaving no issue behind him ; "
which makes a material differ-
ence, and brings it within the'
case of Pells v. Brown,, which
is the foundation and, as; it
were, the magna cliarta of tliis
branch of the law. This ques-
tion arose soon after executory
devises were first taken notice
of, which was in the reign of
Queen Elizabeth. And that
doctrine has never been since
doubted by the court of law.
8 "Williams v. Dickerson, 2 Root
(Conn.) 191 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 66 ;
Lippett V. Hopkins, 1 Gall. C. G
454, 455.
See : Gray v. "Winkler, 4 Jones
(N. C.) Eq. 308 ;
Carter v. Reddish, 32 Ohio St. 1 ;
Cassell V. Cooke, 8 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 268 ; s.o. 11 Am. Dec. 610 ;
Scanlan v. Porter, 1 Bail. (S. C.)
L. 427.
322
LIMITATION OVER— VOID.
[Book III.
plainly declared in the will.-' Such limitation over upon
the indefinite failure of issue of the first taker is void as
an executory devise, hecause too remote,^ unless there is
' Spruill V. Moore, 5 Ired. (N. C.)
Eq. 284 ; s.c. 49 Am. Dec. 438.
Ste: Williams v. Dicker.son, 3
Eoot (Conn.) 191 ; s.c. 1 Am.
Deo. 66.
Dying withoTit issue is to be un-
derstood to relate to the time of
the devisee's death, unless a
different intent appears.
Williams v. Diokerson, 3 Boot
(Conn.) 191 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 66 ;
Spruill V. Moore, 5 Ired. (N. C.)
Bq. 284; s.c. 49 Am. Deo. 478.
Slstinction lietween devise of lands
and of personalty. — In the case
of Downing v. Wherrin, 19
N. H. 9 ; s.c. 49 Am. Dec.
139, 144-145, it is said that a
distinction has been made be-
tween a devise of lands and a
devise of personalty upon a
person dying without issue. In
the former case the words are
always taken to mean when-
ever there is a failure of issue,
and the lintlitation over is void.
In the latter case they are con-
strued in the ordinary sense,
and mean dying without leav-
ing issue at the time of the
death. This distinction was
first taken in Forth v. Chap-
man, 1 Pr. Wms. 663, and the
decision has given rise to much
litigation. Its soundness has
been affirmed and denied by
many eminent lawyers, some
adhering to it, and others hold-
ing that there is no difference
between a limitation of real
and persona] property. Among
those who do not recognize the
distinction are Lord Lough-
borough, in Chandless v. Price,
3 Ves. 99 ; Lord Axvanly, in
Rawlins v. Goldfrap, 5 Ves.
440 ; Lord Bjenyon, in Porter
V. Bradley, 3 T. R. 146 ; s.c. 1
Rev. Rep. 675, and in Roe v.
Jeffeiy, 7 T. E. 595 ; Sir Wm.
Grant, in Barlow ■;;. Salter, 17
Ves. 479, and in the case of
Dansey v. Griffiths, 4 Maul. &
Sel. 63. On the other side are
Denn v. Shenton, 1 Cowp. 410,
and Crooke v. De Vandes, 9
Ves. 197, and Doe d. Cadogan
V. Ewart, 7 Ad. & El. 636 ; s.c.
84 Eng. C. L. 337.
^ Bell V. Scammon, 15 N-. H. 381 ;
s.c. 41 Am. Deo. 706.
See : Proprietors of Battle Square
Church V. Grant, 69 Mass. (3
Gray) 143, 157 ; s.c. 63 Am.
Dec. 735, 736 ;
Ide V. Ide, 5 Mass. 500 ;
Downing v. Wherrin, 19 N. H. 9;
s.c. 49 Am. Dec. 139 ;
Hall 1-. Chaffee, 14 N. H. 315,
330;
Tator V. Tator, 4 Barb. (N. Y.)
431;
Ferris v. Gibson, 4 Edw. Ch. (N.
Y.) 707 ;
Conklin v. Conklin, 3 Sandf . Ch.
(N. Y.) 64 ;
Miller v. Macomb, 36 Wend. (N.
Y ) 339 •
Paterson v. Ellis, 11 Wend. (N.
Y.) 359 ;
Shepard v. Shepard, 3 Rich. (S. C.)
Eq. 142 ; s.c. 46 Am. Dec. 41 ;
Ring V. Hardwiok, 3 Beav. 353 ;
Tenny v. Agar, 13 East 353 ;
Doe V. EUis, 9 East 383 ;
Kampf V. Jones, 2 Keen 756 ;
Massey v. Hudson, 3 Meriv. 135 ;
NichoUs V. Skinner, Prec. Ch.
538;
Busby V. Saulter, 2 Prest. Abs.
164;
Attorney-General v. Gill, 3 Pr.
V/ms. 369 ;
Nottingham v. Jennings, 1 Pr.
Wms. 33, 25 ;
Puref oy v. Rogers, 3 Saund. 388a,
388b;
Purefoy v. Rogers, 3 Saund. 388 ;
Romilly v. James, 6 Taunt. 263 ;
s.c. 1 Eng. C. L. 606 ;
Doe V. Morgan, 3 T. R. 765 ;
1 Fearne Cont. Rem. 467 ;
1 PoweU on Dev. 178, 179.
Devise over — Includes real estate
as well as personalty. — In the
case of Jackson v. Staats, 11
John. (N. Y.) 337 ; s.c. 6 Am.
Dec. 376, where, after sundry
devises in fee and bequests to
his children, exhausting the
estate, the testator added, "if
any one or more happens to die
without heirs, then his or their
parts or shares shall be equally
Chap. VI. § 364.] FEE IN FIRST TAKER.
323
something in the will to restrict the term " death without
issue " to lives in being and twenty-one years thereafter ; ^
but if the limitation is made to take effect at the death of
the devisee, in case there is no issue living at that time,
it is a good executory devise.^ Yet a limitation by way of
executory devise, which may possibly not take effect
within a term within the life or lives in being at the
death of the testator and twenty -one years thereafter, or
in case of a child eii ventre sa mere twenty-one years
and nine months, is void as being too remote, and tending
to create perpetuities.^
Sec. 364. Same— Same— Same— Fee in. first taker.— Where
a limitation over is void for remoteness and uncertainty,
it vests in the first taker an absolute fee,* even though
divided among the rest of the
children," it was held that the
devise over applied to real
as well as personal property,
and was not confined to the
bequests of the personal estate,
immediately preceding this
clause. It was also held that
the devise over was good as an
executory devise, and carried a
fee, tliis limitation over neces-
sarily referring to the estate
before devised.
Contingent limitation — Eemoteness —
Virginia doctrine. — In Shultz
V. Shultz, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 358 ;
s.c. 60 Am. Dec. 335, it is
said that a contingent limita-
tion in a wOl made to depend
upon a person dying un-
married and without children,
is not too remote under the
Virginia statute, and cannot be
regarded as a contingent limit-
ation, made to depend on an
indefinite failure of issue of
children, but must be regarded
as confined to the time of the
death of the person or the stat-
utory period of ten months
thereafter.
• Presley v. Davis, 7 Rich. (S. C.)
Eq. 105 ; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 396,
See : Bell v. Scammon, 15 N. H
381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706.
2 Downing v. Wherrin. 19 N. H. 9
s.c. 49 Am. Dec. 139 ;
BeU V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381
s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ;
Shepard v. Shepard, 3 Rich. (S.
C.) Eq. 143 ; s.c. 46 Am. Dec.
41.
^ Proprietors of Battle Square
Church V. Grant, 69 Mass. (3
Gray) 143 ; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 735.
See : Locke v. Barbour, 62 Ind.
577, 586 ;
Levering v. Worthington, 106
Mass. 86, 88 ;
Fosdick V. Fosdick, 88 Mass. (6
Allen) 41, 43 ;
Smith V. Harrington, 86 Mass. (4 '
Allen) 566, 567 ;
Sears v. RusseU, 74 Mass. (8 Gray)
86, 94 ;
Nightingale v. BurreU, 33 Mass.
(15 Pick.) Ill ;
Den ex d. TrumbuU v. Gibbons,
33 N. J. L. (3 Zab.) 117 ; s.c. 51
Am. Dec. 358 ;
Shepard v. Shepard, 3 Rich. (S.
C.) Eq. 143 ; s.c. 46 Am. Dec.
41;
Cadell V. Palmer, 1 Q. & Find.
373, 431^33 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 367.
■" Battle Square Church v. Grant, 69
Mass. (3 Gray) 143 ; s.c. 63 Am.
Dec. 735.
See : Tator v. Tator, 4 Barb. (N.
Y.) 431 ;
Ferris v. Gibson, 4 Edw. Ch. (N.
Y.) 707 ;
Conklin v. Conklin, 3 Sandf. Ch.
(N. Y.) 64 ;
Iililler V. Macomb, 36 Wend. (N.
Y.) 339 ;
Ring V. Hardwick, 3 Beav. 353 ;
324
DEVISE TO PERSON AND CHILDREN. [BOOK III.
such a construction of the will defeats the manifest inten-
tion of the testator ; for no principle is better settled than
that the intention of the testator, however clear, must
not be permitted to govern where it cannot be carried
out without a violation of the well-known rules of law.^
Seo. 365. Same — Devise to a person and his children. — At
com.m.on law, where lands were devised to a person and
his children, and he had no children at the time of- the
devise, the devisee took an estate- tail ; ^ if he had chil-
Kampf V. Jones, 3 Keen 756 ;
Busby •;;. Saulter, 2 Prest. Abs.
164;
Attorney-General v. . Gill, 3 Pr.
Wms. 369 ;
Nottingham v. Jennings, 1 Pr.
Wms. 33, 35 ;
Purefoy v. Rogers, '3 Saund. 388a,
388b.
' Seers v. Russell, 74 Mass. (8 Gray)
94, 97 ;
Battle Square Church v. Grant,
69 Mass. (3 Gray) 143 ; s.c. 63
Am. Dec. 735, 737.
' Coursey v. Davis, 46 Pa. St. 35 ;
S.C. 84 Am. Dec. 519 ;
Broadhurst v. Morris, 3 Bam. &
Ad. 1 ; s.c. 30 Eng. C. L. 1, over-
ruling Jeffrey v. Honywood, 4
Madd. 398 ; affirmed sub nom.
Byng V. Byng, 31 L. J. Ch. 470 ;
Wild's Case, 6 Co. 16b.
See : Carr v. Estill, 16 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 309.
Jeffrey v. Honywooi overruled. —
Mr. Jarman says, in his v?ork
on wills, vol. 3, page 371, that
"the case of Jeffrey v. Hony-
wood, 4 Madd. 398, seems to be
inconsistent with, and must
therefore be construed as over-
iTiled by, the case of Broadhurst
V. Morris, 3 Barn. & Aid. 1."
And in the case of Webb v.
Byng, 3 Kay & J. 669, Vice-
Chancellor Wood says that the
contention in that case was,
' ' that the devise was to the
mother for life with remainder
to her children as joint tenants
in fee. The only authority for
such a construction is the case
of Jeffrey v. Honywood, 4
Madd. 398, and even that has
been overruled by Broadhurst
V. Morris, 3 Barn. & Aid. 1."
Same — Distinguished. — In Cour-
sey V. Davis, 46 Pa. St 05 ; s.c.
84 Am. Rep. 519, 533, it is said
that "it is clear that Webb
V. Byng, 3 Kay & J. 673, was
decided upon the intention of
the testatrix, which required
the devise to be held to create
an estate-taU, and it in no man-
ner conflicts with the case of
Jeffrey v. Honywood, 4 Madd.
398 ; nor does Broadhurst v.
Morris, 2 Barn. & Adol. 1,
which was a case where the
father was not married until
after the death of the testator."
In arguing this case. Cowling
said : " If the devise stopped at
the words ' lawfully begotten
forever,' the case would Le gov-
erned lay the rule in Wild's
Case, 6 Coke 16b, viz., that
where lands are devised to a
person and his children, and he
has no child at the time of the
devise, the parent takes an es-
tate-tail ; " and so little was it
supposed to interfere with Jef-
freys. Honywood, 4 Madd. 398,
that it was neither cited nor
referred to by either Mr. Cowl-
ing or Mr. Preston, both gentle-
men of great learning and
research. In Bowen v. Scow-
croft, 3 Younge & C. 640, Mr.
Campbell, in argument (p. 656),
said : ' ' There is a total distinc-
tion between this and Wild's
Case, 6 Coke 16b. In that case
the devise was to A and his
children ; in the present the
words are, ' to the children and
their heirs.' This distinction
was taken in Ives v. Legge,
cited in 1 Feame on Rem. 377 ;
and the principle was acted
upon in Jeffrey v. Honywood,
4 Madd. 398. " Baron Aldekson
(p. 661) adopted this construc-
tion, and said ; " Lastly, as to
Chap. VI. § 366.] "WHAT CHILDREN INCLUDED. 325
dren at the time, he took a Hfe estate and the children
were vested with the fee in remainder. The effect of
such a bequest in this country depends entirely upon the
local statutory regulations. In the absence of any stat-
utory regulations, the rules of the common law will
apply. It has been held in Georgia that a bequest in
that state to a woman, and to the children of her body,
creates a joint estate in them, and not an estate-tail.^
In Kentucky it has been said that on a devise to a woman
"and her children," she being unmarried and having no
children at the time, where she afterwards marries and
has children, confers upon her, under the statutes of that
state, an estate for life with remainder to her children,
and not an estate-tail, as in England.^ In New York, a
devise to one for and during his natural life, and to the
children of his body, lawfully begotten, to have and to
hold unto the said devisee, for and during his natural
life, and after his decease to the heirs of his body law-
fully begotten, and to their heirs and assigns forever,
gives a life-estate to the devisee with a remainder in fee
to his children.^
Sec. 366. Same — Same — What children included. — A devise
to one for life, and then to his children, will include all
his children up to the time of his decease, whether born
after the decease of the testator or not. Whenever the
distribution among children is postponed to any particu-
lar period by a will, all the children will be included who
are in existence when such period arrives.*
Lucy Bowen's share. It was ' Rogers v. Rogers, 3 Wend. (N. Y.)
ontended as to this that she 503 ; s.c. 20 Am. Dec. 716.
lOok an estate-tail, having no * Thompson v. Garwood, 3 Whart.
children at the time of the tes- (Pa.) 387 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 502.
tator's death. But I think that The court in this case say that
is not so, and that it is distiu- when the devise or gift to the
guishable from Wild's Case, 6 children is general, and not
Co. 16b, on the same grounds limited to a particular period,
as were taken by Sir John it is then confined to the death
Leach, in JefErey r. Honywood, of the testator.
4 Madd. 398. Indeed, on this Northey v. Burbage, Free. Ch.
point of the case, Jeffrey v. 470 ;
Honywood seems precisely in Heathe v. Heathe, 2 Atk. 121 ;
point." Horsley v. Chaloner, 2 Ves. Sr. 83 ;
' Hoyle V. Jones, 35 Ga. 40 ; s.c. 89 Hodges v. Isaac, Amb. 348.
Am. Deo. 273. But when such devise or gift is
« Carr v. Estill, 16 B. Men. (Ky.) to one for life, or when the dis-
809 ; s.c. 63 Am. Deo. 548. tribution is postponed to a fut-
326
RESIDUARY CLAUSE IN WILL.
[Book IIL
Sec. 367. Same— Residuary clause carries foe when.— The
residuary clause in a will must be given such a con-
struction as will effectuate the intention of the testa-
tor/ and a devise in general terms in this clause will
carry the fee to real estate.^ The absence of a residuary
clause in a will in which it was manifestly the intention
of the testator to dispose of his whole estate has been
allowed the effect of enlarging the devise into an estate
in fee.^
ure time, then, children born
during the life, or before the
time of distribution, are let in.
Harding v. Glynn, 1 Atk. 468, 470;
Graves v. Boyle, 1 Atk. 509 ;
Haughtonu. Harrison, 2 Atk. 329;
Ellison V. Airey, 1 Ves. Sr. 111.
' See : Harper v. Blean, 3 "Watts
(PaO 471 ; s.c. 27 Am. Deo. 267,
2 See: Harper v. Blean, 3 Watts
(Pa.) 471 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 367 ;
Ridout V. Paine, 3 Atk. 486, 488 ;
TeiTel V. Page, 1 Ch. Cas. 262 ;
Hogan V. Jackson, 1 Cowp. 399 ;
Chester v. Chester, 3 Pr. Wms.
56;
TiUey v. Simpson, 2 T. R. 659 ;
s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 577 ;
Grayson v. Atkinson, 1 Wils. 333.
This rule is not restricted to wills
alone, having been applied to
deeds in Mc Williams v. Martin,
12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 269 ; s.c. 14
Am. Dec. 688.
3 Shinn v. Holmes, 35 Pa. St. 142 ;
Doe ex d. Harrington v. DUl, 1
Houst. (Del.) 398.
CHAPTER VII.
CREATION OF FEE-SIMPLE BY DEVISE — continued.
Sec. 368. Enlargement of devise.
Sec. 369. Same — When estate not enlarged.
Sec, 870. Same — Intent of testator — Construction by comparison.
Sec. 371. Same — Same— Eeference to other devises in vrill.
Sec. 372. Same — Introductory clause.
Sec. 373. Same — Same — Words in introductory clause enlarging es-
tate to fee.
Sec. 374. Same— Conclusion of will— Intention of testator declared by.
Sec. 375. Same — Where fee necessary to carry out intention of tes-
tator.
Sec. 376. Same— Estates in trust.
Sec. 377. Same — Use devisee is to make of lands.
Sec. 378. Same — By implication — Control over lands.
Sec. 379. Same — Same — Exceptions to the rule.
Sec. 880. Same — Charge on devisee.
Sec. 381. Same — ^ame — Nature of charge on devisee.
Sec. 383. Same — Same — Reason for the rule.
Sec. 883. Same — Same — Failure or refusal to perform
Sec. 384. Same — Where charge on the estate.
Sec. 385. Cutting down fee.
Sec. 386. Same — Fee not cut down when.
S^c. 387. Same — Doctrine of the American courts^-Jackson v. Bull.
Sec. 388. Same — Same — Doctrine of Smith v. BeU.
Sec. 389. Statutory regulations.
Sec. 890. Construction of devises since the statutes.
Section 368. Enlargement of devise.— In the construc-
tion of a will the intention of the testator is the object
of inquiry, and must govern where not contrary to the
established rules of law/ and this intention is not to be
1 Wright V. Hicks, 12 Ga. 155 ; s.c. Church v. Grant, 69 Mass. (8
56 Am. Deo. 451; Gray) 142; s.c. 63 Am. Dec.725;
Wynne v. Wynne, 28 Miss. 251 ; Montgomery v. Millikin, 5 Smed.
s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 139 ; &M. (13 Miss.) 151 ; s.c. 43 Am.
Armorer v. Case, 9 La. An. 288 ; Deo. 507 ;
s.c. 61 Am. Dec. 209; German v. German, 27 Pa. St.
Proprietors of Battle Square 116 ; s.c. 67 Am. Deo. 451 ;
327
328
ENLARGEMENT OF DEVISE.
[Book III.
defeated simply because the testator fails to clothe his
ideas in technical language.^ A devise without words of
limitation may be enlarged to a fee-simple by the use of
words which have been held to be equivalent to a devise
in fee, which we have heretofore referred to specifically.^
The rules of the common law which govern in respect to
the quantity of interest conveyed by a will do not apply
in these states where by statutory provision an estate
in lands, created by will, is deemed to be an estate in
fee-simple, unless a less estate is limited by express
words.^
Sec. 369. Same— when estate not enlarged.— We have al-
ready seen * that a limitation to heirs on failure to ap-
point has the effect of enlarging a life estate into a fee-
simple ; ^ but where a life estate only is given, followed
by a general power of appointment ; and on failure to ap-
point, the children, or specified donees in remainder, take
by purchase, and not by way of limitation as heirs of
the cestui que trust ; ^ and where an express estate for
Baskin's Appeal, 3 Pa. St. 304;
s.c. 45 Am. Deo. 604 ;
Stoner's Appeal, 2 Pa. St. 428 ;
S.C. 45 Am. Dec. 608.
See : Ante, § 345.
• BeU Co. V. Alexander, 22 Tex.
350 ; s.c. 73 Am. Deo. 368.
Inartistic language — "Give and be-
cause."— In the case of John-
son V. Johnson's Widow, 1
Mmif . (Va.) 549, the wiU of the
testator was expressed in most
inartistic language, reading "I
give and because . . . And 120
acres, . . . one cow, one calf,"
etc.; and the court held that
the testator evidently being an
illiterate person and using the
same words to designate the
desire to bequeath his real as
well as his personal property,
that his evident intention was
to give an absolute interest in
both, and that a fee-simple
would be taken in the land.
Same — "land in the county I
am buried in." — In the case of
Bell Co. V. Alexander, 22 Tex.
350 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 268, it
was held that in a will, by em-
ploying the words ' ' I wish the
county in which I die and am
buried to have and enjoy, for
the benefit of public schools,
two-thirds of the land in the
county I am buried in," taken
in connection with the words
"my land" and "the land I
own," used in other parts of
the will, show an intention on
the part of the testator to devise
an estate in lands, and there
being no words limiting its
quantity, will be held to convey
an estate in fee-simple.
« See : Ante, 8§ 351-353.
' BeU Co. V. Alexander, 22 Tex. 350 ;
S.C. 73 Am. Dec. 368.
See : Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa.
St. 87 ; S.c. 57 Am. Deo. 634 ;
1 Am. L. Reg. 227 ;
McClure v. Douthitt, 3Pa. St. 446.
* See : Ante, § 359.
= See : Ralston v. Wain, 44 Pa. St.
279;
Nice's Appeal, 50 Pa. St. 148;
Physiok's Appeal, 50 Pa. St. 128.
«Dodson V. Ball, 60 Pa. St. 492;
s.c. 100 Am. Dec. 586.
See : Gerard Life Ins. & Trust
Co. V. Chambers, 46 Pa. St.
490 ; s.c: 86 Am. Dec. 518 :
Chap. VII. § 370.] CONSTRUCTION BY COMPARISON 329
life is given in trust and the remainder is not to heirs or
issue generally, a power of appointment will not enlarge
the estate to a fee.^
Sec. 370. Samo — Intention .of testator — Construction by
comparison.— It is a well-established rule of law that de-
vises and legacies in a will' may receive a character by
construction and comparison with other legacies and de-
vises in the same will, different from the literal and
direct effect of the words made use of in such devise ; ^
and this is true because the sole duty of the court, in
giving a construction, is to ascertain the real intent and
meaning of the testator ; ^ which can better be gathered
by adverting to the whole scope of the provisions made
by him for the objects of his bounty, than by confining
attention to one isolated paragraph, probably drawn up
without a knowledge of technical words, or without
recollecting the advantage of using them.* Where a
reading of the whole will produces a conviction that the
testator must necessarily have intended an interest to be
given which is not bequeathed by express and formal
words, the court must supply the defect by implication,
and so mold the language of the testator as to carry into
effect, as far as possible, the intention which it is of opin-
ion that he has on the whole will sufficiently declared.^
Thus when a devise made to a son without words of in-
heritance, and a legacy is left to the children of a deceased
son, " which (legacy) is his proportion of the estate," and
from the preamble of the will there is a manifest inten-
tion on the part of the testator to make a disposal of
the entire estate, the devise to the son will be construed
Smith V. Starr, 3 Whart. (Pa.) 62, ^ See : Phelps v. Phelps, 143 Mass.
66 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 498 ; 570, 574 ; s.c. 10 N. E. Rep.
Anderson v. Dawson, 15 Yes. 452 ;
533 . Metoalf v. Farmingham Pansli,
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 668. 128 Mass. 370 ;
' See : Springer v. Arundel, 64 Pa Cook v. Holmes, 11 Mass. 528.
St 228 ; 531.
Dodson V. Ball, 60 Pa. St. 492 ; ■" Cook v. Hobnes, 11 Mass. 528,
s o 100 Am. Dec. 586 ; 531.
WiiUams's Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 388. « Phelps v. Phelps, 143 Mass. 570,
« Cook V. Holmes, 11 Mass. 528, 574 ;
53]^ . Metcalf v. Farmmgham Parish,
Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. 128 Mass. 370, 374.
334 ; s.c. 5 Am. Deo. 66.
330 REFERENCE TO OTHER DEVISES. [BOOK III.
to be a fee-simple, because otherwise the children of the
deceased son would receive more than their father's pro-
portion, which was all the testator intended to give
them, as such intention is discovered from the will.^
Sec. 3Y1 . Same— same— Reference to other devises in will.—
In a case where the devise under consideration refers to
another devise in the same will, and expresses an intent
that the devisees should be equally benefited, if the legal
construction of the other devise carries a fee, as in the
case of Cook v. Holmes,^ the law will supply the omitted
words of inheritance.^ The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts say, in the case of Baker v. Bridge/ that,
" by the general terms of this will, all the propertj'
given to each son or daughter and their children, taken
together, was to be estimated in the division among
the four branches. For this purpose the life estate to
Nathan Bridge, together with a remainder to his chil^
dren, being estimated and charged in the division at the
value of the whole estate in fee, it follows conclusively
that it was the intent of the testator that such remainder
to the children should be a remainder in fee." ^
Sec. 372. same— introductory clause.— Where the inten-
tion of the testator is ambiguous and does not manifest
what that purpose was as to the intent regarding the ex-
tent of the estate in a devise, the introductory words or
preamble are to be considered in order to ascertain the
intention of the testator.^ If this clause of itself be
suflBcient to give a fee, the intention expressed therein is
always carried down to the devising clauses to show the
interest, and may have the effect of enlarging the estate
• See : Butler v. Little, 3 Me. (3 < 29 Mass. (12 Pick.) 27, 33.
Greenl.) 239 ; ^ If this view of the apportionment
Clayton v. Clayton, 3 Binn. (Pa.) and valuation be correct, the
476 ; case is brought clearly within
Hall V. Dickinson, 1 Grant Cas. theauthorityof Cook i;. Holmes,
(Pa.) 340. 11 Mass. 528, which was rec-
^ 11 Mass. 528. ognized in the late case of
' Farrar v. Ayres, 33 Mass. (5 Pick.) Farrar v. Ayres, 32 Mass. (5
404, 408. Pick.) 404.
See : Butler v. Little, 3 Me. (3 " Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St. 87 ;
Greenl.) 339 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 634 ; 1 Am.
Baker v. Bridge, 29 Mass. (12 L.' Reg. 327.
Pick.) 33.
Chap. VII. § 372.] INTEODUCTOEY CLAUSE.
331
to a fee.^ The introductory clause, where one is inserted
in a will, does not so far attach itself to a subsequent de-
vising clause as per se to enlarge the latter to a fee,
where the words would not ordinarily import it.^ The
most that can be said is, that where the words of a devise
admit of passing a greater interest than for life, courts
will lay hold of the introductory clause, to assist them in
ascertaining the intention of the testator.^ The intention
1 Cassell V. Cooke, 8 Serg. & R. (Pd.)
3tf6 ; S.C. 11 Am. Dec. 610.
See: Franklin v. Harter, 7 Blackf.
(Ind.) 488 ;
Butler V. Little, 3 Me. (3 Greenl.)
239;
WiQchester v. TUghman, 1 Harr.
& McH. (Md.) 453 ;
Fogg V. Clark, 1 N. H. 163 ;
Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N.
y.) 185, 191 ; S.C. 5 Am. Dec.
213 ;
Fox V. Phelps, 17 "Wend. (N. Y.)
393 ; s.c. 20 Id. 437 ;
Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St. 87 ;
s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 634 ; 1 Am.
L. Reg. 227 ;
McCoUough V. Gilmoro, 11 Pa.
St. 370 ;
Johnson v. Morton, 10 Pa. St.
245;
Harden v. Hays, 9 Pa. St. 151 ;
Peppard v. Deal, 9 Pa. St. 140 ;
Miller v. Douthitt, 3 Pa. St. 443 ;
French v. McIIhenny, 2 Bimi.
(Pa.) 13 ;
Campbell v. Carson, 12 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 54 ;
Doughty V. Browne, 4 Yeates
(Pa.) 179 ;
Caldwell v. Ferguson, 2 Yeates
(Pa.) 250, 280 ;
Watson V. PoweU, 3 Call (Va.)
265, 306 ;
Wyatt V. Sadler's Heirs, 2 Munf.
(Va.) 537 ;
Kennon v. McRoberts, 1 Wash.
(Va.)96;
Busby V. Busby, 1 U. S. (1 Dal.)
226 ; bk. 1 L. ed. Ill ;
Frogmorton v. Holday, 3 Burr. 1,
618; s.c. 3W. Bl. 889;
Denn v. Gaskin, 1 Cowp. 660 ;
Loveacres v. Blight, 1 Cowp. 533.
Introductory clause — Judge Cowen's
comments. — In speaking of the
introductory clause, manifest-
ing an intention to dispose
of the entire estate of the
testator, Judge Cowen says
in this case that " no case holds
that simply connected with the
words freely to be enjoyed, etc. ,
the whole wlU carry a fee. To
do this where there are no
words of express limitation, all
the cases agree that the will
should contain some provision
in respect to the land, neces-
sarily inconsistent with the
estate being for life. Freely to
be enjoyed, etc., may come
much short of this." His
honor pointed out that in Denn
ex d. Gaskin v. Gaskin, Cowp.
657, and Wright ex d. Shaw v.
Russell, Cowp. 660, a disinher-
iting legacy had been given to
the heir at law, and that the
authority of the cases had been
weakened by the opinions and
comments of Lord Ellen-
borough and Le Blanc and
Dkeuby, JJ., iuGoodright ex
d. Drewry v. Barron, 11 East
320.
= Such a doctrine would be repug-
nant to the modern as well as
ancient authorities.
See : Wright v. Denn, 33 IT. S.
(10 Wheat.) 304, 338; bk. 6 L.
ed. 303, 310 ;
Merson v. Blackmore, 3 Atk. 341;
Denn v. Gaskin, 2 Cowp. 660 ;
Doe V. Allen, 8 Durnf . & E. 497 ;
Doe V. Wright, 8 Durnf. & E.
64;
Right V. Sidebotham, 2 Dougl.
759;
Frogmorton v. Wright, 2 W. Bl.
889 ; s.c. 3 Burr. 618.
8 Wright V. Denn ex d. Page, 33
U. S. (10 Wheat.) 204, 328, 333 ;
bk. 6 L. ed. 303, 310, 319.
Introductory clause — When re-
sorted to. — It is said by Chan-
cellor Dbssaustjrb, in Waring
V. Middleton, 3 Des. (S. C.) Eq.
249, in speaking of the intro-
ductory clause that " one of the
332
INTENTION FROM INTRODUCTION.
[Book III.
to dispose of the entire estate being shown in the intro-
ductory clause, it will determine the court to decide an
estate to be enlarged to a fee, in a case where there exists
in the devise expressions which, taken in connection with
the words in such introductory clause, tend to show an
intent on the part of the testator to devise a fee, but
which, taken by themselves, would not be considered as
showing with sufficient clearness an intention to give
such an estate. Particularly is this the case where, if
the doubtful devise were construed as giving a life estate
only, the testator would have died intestate as to part of
his property.^
Sec. 373. Same— Same— "Words in introductory clause en-
larging estate to fee.— Where there are no words of limita-
tion in the instrument, courts resort to other parts of the
will in order to ascertain from them the intention of the
testator, and the fee is frequently held to be conveyed by
implication ; but this is done only to supply defects of ex-
pression.^ Among those words or phrases which, when
scales must have been inclining
downward, or no use can effect-
ively be made of it." And in the
case of Steele v. Tliompson, 14
Serg. & R. (Pa.) 84, Chief
Justice TiLGHMAN says regard-
ing introductory clauses :
" There have been various
opinions concernitig the infer-
ences which may be drawn
from the introduction of a wiU,
where it exj^resses an intent to
dispose of the whole estate. In
connection with other circum-
stances, such an introduction
may be worthy of consideration,
but the better opinion seems to
be, that there is not much in it,
because it is generally consid-
ered by the drawer of the will as
matter of form, and put down
before he begins to express the
wiU of the testator ; and be-
cause it cannot be doubted that
most men, when they make
their wiUs, do intend to dispose
of their whole estate, whether
they say so or not."
Steele v. Tliompson criticised. —
The latter case is criticised in
Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St.
87; s.o. 57 Am. Dec. 634: 1
Am. L. Reg. 227, in which it is
said that " the case of Steele- v.
Thompson is an exceptional
case, in opposition to prior ones,
attempting to overrule one of
them."
' Beall V. Holmes, 6 Harr. & J.
(Md.) 205, 210 ;
Butler V. Little, 3 Me. (3 Greenl.)
239;
Harvey v. Olmsted, 1 N. Y. 483 ;
s.c. 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 102 ;
Van Derzee v. Van Derzee, 36 N.
Y. 331 ; s.c. 30 Barb. (N. Y.)
331 ; affirming Jackson v.
Harris, 8 John. (N. Y.) 141 ;
Hogan V. Andrews, 23 Wend. (N.
Y.) 452 ;
Barheydt v. Barheydt, 20 Wend.
(N. Y.) 576 ;
Fox V. Phelps, 17 Wend. (N. Y.)
393 *
Rupp'i). Eberly, 79 Pa. St. 141 ;
Mclntyrow. Ramsey,33Pa.St.317;
Cassell V. Cooke, 8 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 268 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 610;
Lippett V. Hopkins, 1 Gall. C. C.
454, 455 ;
Lessee of Ferguson ■;;. Zepp, 4
Wash. C. C. 645.
■" BeU V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ;
s.c. 41 Am. Deo. 706, 708.
Chap. VII. § 373.] INTRODUCTION ENLARGING ESTATE. 333
used in the introductory clause or preamble of a will, in
connection with words in doubtful devising clauses, have
been held to manifest an intention to dispose of the tes-
tator's entire estate, and have been construed to enlarge
the estate given to the devisee into a fee-simple, are the
following: "all my temporary estate;"^ "all my
worldly substance and property shall be disposed of in the
following manner ; " ^ "as for such estate ... I give the
same in the following manner ; " ^ " as to such worldly es-
tate wherewith it hath pleased God to bless me in this life,
I give and dispose of the same in the following manner ; " *
" as to my worldly estate,^ I dispose of it as follows ; " ®
See : Stevens v. Winthrop, 18
Mass. (1 Pick.) 326 ; s.o. Am.
Doc. 178 ;
Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass.
175;
Tannery). Livingston, 12 "Wend.
(N. Y.)83, 95;
Doe V. Fyldes, Cowp. 841.
1 Watson V. Powell, 3 Call (Va.)
265, 306.
2 McCoUough V. Gilmore, 11 Pa. St.
370.
See : Shinn v. Holmes, 25 Pa. St.
144 ■
Wood'i). Hills, 19 Pa. St. 515 ;
Hall V. Dickinson, 1 Grant Cas.
(Pa.) 241 ; s.c. 2 Phila. (Pa.)
133 •
Smith V. Schriver, 3 Wall. Jr. C.
C. 219, 226.
Carrying words down to corpus. —
The court say in the case of
McCollough V. Gilmore, 11 Pa.
St. 370, that " these words, and
the like of them, are generally
carried down into the corpus
of the will to show that the
testator meant to dispose of his
whole interest and in a par-
ticular devise, unless words
are used which plainly indicate
an intent to limit."
See : Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa.
St. 87 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 634,
637 ; 1 Am. L. Reg. 227, 232.
" French v. Mcllhenny, 2 Binn.
(Pa.) 13.
See : Jolmson v. Morton, 10 Pa.
St. 345 ;
Campbell v. Carson, 12 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 54 ; ^ „
Cassell V. Cooke, 8 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 289 ; s.c. 11 Am. Dec. 610.
■> Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. St. 87 ;
s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 634 ; 1 Am.
L. Reg. 337.
Peppard v. Deal, 9 Pa. St. 140.
"As to my worldly estate." — In
Peppard v. Deal, supra, in
speaking of the devise of a
house and the words " as to my
worldly estate," the court say :
"The language in the intro-
duction is carried down to the
devising clause, to explain the
intent." In Harden v. Hays, 9
Pa. St. 151, the court say : "It
is very evident, from the intro-
ductory clause, that the testa-
tor had no intention to die in-
testate, but that in this case, as
in almost all others, he supposed
he was devising his whole
estate." Where a testator pro-
posed to make a will ' ' as touch-
ing such worldly estate " and
then devised to his wife all his
lands by her " freely to be pos-
sessed and enjoyed," the court
held that she took his life estate
only.
Wheatonv. Andress, 23 Wend.
(N. Y.) 452.
« McCIure v. Douthitt, 3 Pa. St. 446.
In this case the court say " that
we should liave done at first in
regard to words of inheritance
what our Legislature has done
at last by declaring every de-
vise to be a fee which is not
specially to be restricted."
Words in preamWe — Brought down
to show intent. — In Miller
V. Lynn, 7 Pa. St. 443,
the court, in speaking of
similar words, say: "The
334. CONCLUSION OF WILL— INTENT. [Book HI.
"estate;"^ "my estate ;"2 "my worldly affairs ;"3
"my worldly estate;"* "temporal case;"^ "touch-
ing my worldly effects, real and personal, I dispose
thereof in the following manner ; " ^ " touching such
worldly estate, I give the same in the following man-
ner ; " ^ " worldly effects, both real and personal ; " ^
"worldly goods,'' ^ and the like.
Sec. 374. Same— Conclusion of -will— intention of testator
declared by.— The courts will not only go to the introduc-
tory clause for indicia of intent on the part of the tes-
tator to dispose of his entire property, to enlarge the
estate given to a fee, but will look to the conclusion also,
where a doubtful devise, without words of limitation, is
followed by a clause which unmistakably shows that the
testator thought he had disposed of all his property.
Thus, in Davies v. Miller,^" where the testator, at the con-
clusion of the instrument, said: "This is my will, and
the way I desire my estate to be disposed of," the court
held that a fee passed.
Sec. 375. Same — Wliere fee necessary to carry out inten-
tion of testator.- Where the words of a devise, according
to their natural and fair import, construed in connection
with all other parts of the will, manifestly show that it
words m. the preamble mate heldtobeafee-sim^ple ; andthis
it apparent that he intended to is carrying out the intention of
dispose of his whole estate. the testator ninety-nine cases
Although, therefore, there are out of one hundred. Here the
no words of limitation or per- word estate in the introduction
petuity added to the devise to was coupled with the devising
the children, yet as there is clause exactly as in this case —
no limitation over, we bring " I give and dispose the same
down the w^ord ' estate ' in the as follows."
preamble and connect it with ' Walker v. Walker, 28 Pa. St. 40.
the devise in order to effectu- ^ Peppard v. Deal, 9 Pa. St. 140.
ate the intent." ^ Goodrich v. Harding, 3 Eand.
See : Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. (Va.) 280.
St. 87 ; s.o. 57 Am. Dec. 634, ' Dougherty v. Browne, 4 Yeates
636 ; 1 Am. L. Eeg. 227, 231. (Pa.) 179.
^ See : Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. ' Calwell v. Ferguson, 3 Teates
St. 87 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 634 ; 1 (Pa.) 250, 280.
Am. L. Eeg. 227. ^Doughtyy. Browne, 4 Yeates (Pa.)
2 Davis V. MiUer, 1 Call (Va.) 127. 179.
" Estate • — Coupled with devise ' Wyatt v. Saddler's Heirs, 1 Munf .
carries fee. — In this case the (Va.) 537 ;
court say that when the word Kennon v. McEoberts, 1 Wahs.
estate is coupled with a devise (Va.) 96 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec. 438.
of real estate, it is uniformly i» 1 CaU (Va.) 137.
Chap. VII. § 376.] ESTATES IN TRUST. 335
was the intention of the testator to give an estate in fee ;
and where the general purpose to the particular intent of
the testator, as expressed in or gathered by fair or plain
implication from the will itself, cannot be carried into
effect without such construction, whatever may be the
words in which the devise is expressed, the law holds that
it passes an estate in fee.^ Thus, where a testator gives
his whole estate, interest, or property, in such words as
go not merely to describe the land itself, but the extent
of his interest therein ; or where a devise is made on con-
dition that the devisee pay a sum of money, or an an-
nuity or other charge,^ and where the devise might be
onerous and not beneficial unless the devisee should take
the whole interest, that is an estate in fee ; or where the
devise is of the' remainder or reversion subject to a prior
life estate, under such circumstances that, without the
devisee take a fee, the devise might not be beneficial.^
Sec. 376. Same— Estates in trust.— At common law an
estate in lands created by devise will be enlarged to and
held to be an estate in fee-simple, where the land is
charged with a trust which cannot be performed, or
where the will directs an act to be done which cannot be
accomplished, unless a greater estate than one for life be
taken.* Trustees take exactly that quantity of interest
' Kelloeff V. Blair, 47 Mass. (6 Met. ) Abbott v. Essex Co. , 3 Curt. C. C.
333, 325 ; 136, 132 ; s.o. 59 U. S. (18 How.)
Godfrey v. Humphrey, 35 Mass. 308 ; bk. 15 L. ed. 353.
(18 Pick.) 537, 539 ; s.c. 39 Am. ' See : Post, § 380.
Dec. 631 ; ' Baker v. Bridge, 29 Mass. (12
Baker v. Bridge, 29 Mass. (13 Pick.) 27, 31 ;
Pick.) 37, 30, 31 ; Norton v. Ladd, 1 Lutw. 763 ;
Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N. Bailis v. Gale, 3 Ves. Sr. 48.
Y ) 193. See : Kellogg v. Blair, 47 Mass. (6
See : Lindsay v. McCormack, 3 Met.) 333, 326 ;
A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 229 ; s.c. 13 Wait v. Belding, 41 Mass. (24
Am. Dec. 387 ; Pick.) 129, 138, 139.
Grossman v. Field, 119 Mass. 173 ; " Kirkland v. Cox, 94 111. 400 ;
Spooner v.Lovejoy, 108 Mass.532; Pearce v. Savage, 45 Me. 90 ;
Bacon v. Woodward, 78 Mass. (13 Deering v. Adams, 37 Me. 364 ;
Gray) 379 ; Inman v. Jackson, 4 Me. 337 ;
Putnam v. Emerson, 48 Mass. (7 Bell Co. v. Alexander, 33 Tex.
Met.) 333 ; 350 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 368 :
Parker v. Parker, 46 Mass. (5 Hardy v. Redman's Adm'r, 3 Cr.
Met.) 138 ; C. C. 635 ;
Jenkins u Clement, 1 Harp. (S. Gibson w. Montfort, 1 Ves. Sr. 485:
C^ Ea 73; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. Poad r". Watson, 37 Eng. L. & Eq.
698: 113.
33G USE TO BE MADE OF LANDS. [Book III.
in the estate devised wliich the purposes of the trust
require ; ^ and in the absence of any express limitation,
sufficient to carry the legal inheritance, the estate of the
trustee may be enlarged and extended into such an in-
terest as the nature of the trust may require.^ Whether
trustees take a legal estate or not depends chiefly on the
fact whether the testator has imposed on the trustees a
trust or duty, the performance of which requires that
the legal estate should be vested in them.^ But where
an express estate for life is given in trust, and the
remainder is to heirs or issue generally, a power of
appointment will not enlarge the estate to a fee.*
Sec. 377. Same— Use devisee is to make of lands. — An
estate created by will ixiay be enlarged to an estate in
fee-simple by the use to which the lands are to be put,
or the necessities of the case. Thus at common law an
estate in lands will be enlarged to and held to be an
estate in fee-simple where the will directs an act to be
done which cannot be accomplished unless a greater
estate than a life estate be taken. ^ Hence where the
words used in a will imply a life estate only, and limiting
the quantity of interest devised to such an estate would
manifestly defeat the intention of the testator, the estate
will be enlarged to a fee." Thus a fee-simple passes with-
out words of inheritance in a devise if the testator, not
having perfected his title, evinces an intention that the
devisee shall take the same in his own name from the
government ; "^ and a devise of wild uncultivated lands,
' Mui-dook V. Johnson, 7 Coldw. Ellis v. Fisher, 3 Sneed (Tenn.)
(Tenn.) 611 ; 231 ; s.c. 65 Am. Dec. 53.
Williamson v. Wickersham, 3 * Williams's Appeal, 83 Pa. St. 388 ;
Coldw. (Tenn.) 55 ; Springer v. Arundel, 64 Pa. St.
Harding v. St. Louis Life Ins. Co. , 323 ;
3 Coop. Ch. (Tenn.) 468 ; Dodson v. Ball, 60 Pa. St. 493 ;
Hooberry v. Harding, 10 Lea s.c. 100 Am. Deo. 586.
(Tenn.) 397 ; » BeU Co. v. Alexander, 23 Tex.
Henderson v. Hill, 9 Lea (Tenn.) 350 ; s.c. 73 Am. Deo. 368.
33 ; " Benesoh v. Clark, 49 Md. 497 ;
Tuiiey v. MassengiU, 7 Lea Burleigh ■;;. Clough, 53 N. H. 367
(Tenn.) 356 ; 374 ; s.c. 13 Am. Rep. 23 ;
Ellis V. Fisher, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) Second Pres. Church v. Disbrow,
831 ; s.c. 65 Am. Dec. 52. 53 Pa. St. 319 ■
'■ Ellis V. Fisher, 3 Sneed (Tenn.) 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 319.
331 ; s.c. 65 Am. Dec. 53. ' Lindsay v. MoCormack, 3 A. K
3 Hooberry v. Harding, 3 Coop. Marsh. (Ky.) 399; s.c. 13 Am
Ch. (Tenn.) 680 ; Dec. 387.
Chap. VII. § 378.] FEE BY IMPLICATION. 337
covered with woods, carries a fee-simple without words
of inheritance,^ on the principle that the devise is always
intended by the devisor to be for the benefit of the
devisee,^ and a life estate in wild lands cannot be con-
sidered of any value, because the devisee would not
receive, nor could he obtain, any benefit whatever from
the land. He cannot cut down the trees, from the sale
of which the chief, if not the only, value of wild lands
arises, because he would be liable to the remainderman
for waste. No one would undertake to bring into a state
of cultivation wild lands, where his estate might be
terminated before he should be reimbursed his labor and
expenses.^
Sec. 378. Same — By implication— Control over land.— A
devise for hfe without words of limitation may be en-
larged into an estate in fee-simple by implication (1) by the
use of words equivalent to a devise in fee,* or (2) from the
control given over the land. A devise with power of ab-
solute disposition, unless a life estate is expressly limited
to the devisee, passes a fee by implication. ° An estate
given by a general devise, without words of limitation,
will not be enlarged to a fee-simple by the addition of
the power of disposal ; but a devise for life expressly,
with a power of disposition, gives to the devisee simply a
life estate with a power annexed.^ Thus a general devise,
' RusseU V. Elden, 15 Me. 193 ; the estate of the devisee is not
Sargent v. Towne, 10 Mass. 303 enlarged.
Holmes v. Pattison, 25 Pa. St. Terry v. Wiggins, 47 N. Y. 513 ;
484. Doe v. Howland, 8 Cow. (N. Y.)
■' Sargent v. Towne, 10 Mass. 303. 377 ;
See : Farrar v. Ayres, 23 Mass. (5 Jackson v. Robins, 16 John. (N.
Pick.) 404, 409. Y.) 588 ;
' See : Russell v. Elden, 15 Me. 193 ; Doe ex d. Thorley v. Thorley, 10
Ridgway v. Parker, 10 Mass. 305; East 438 ; s.c. 10 Rev. Rep. 352 ;
Sargent v. Towne, 10 Mass. 303 ; distinguished in Humble v.
Caldwell V. Ferguson, 2 Yeates Bowman, 47 L. J. Ch. 62, 64 ;
(Pa.) 380. Tomlinson v. Dighton, 1 Pr. Wms.
* TaggartV Murray, 53 N. Y. 333, Bradly v. Westoott, 13 Ves. 445 ;
338. s.c. 9 Rev. Rep. 207.
Power of disposition limited on event. « Funk v. Eggleston, 93 III. 515 ; s.c.
—But where a power of dis- 34 Am. Rep. 136. _„,„,,
position bywiU is given and See: Fairmanw. Beal 14 111. 344 ;
limited upon the event of the Benesch v. Clark, 49 Md. 497 ;
devisee "leaving no heirs,' Andrews v. Brumfield, 44 Miss,
and also no disposition by will, 49, 57 ;
22
338 CONTROL OVER LANDS— CARRIES FEE. [Book III.
to use and dispose of as the devisee may please, will be
enlarged into a fee-simple, notwithstanding a devise over
on the first devisee's death; ^ also a devise to be "at her
entire disposal, " even though there be a devise over after
the death of the first taker ;2 or "for her sole and ab-
solute use and disposal, " without anything to qualify the
words ; ^ or to be disposed of at the pleasure of the
devisee;* or "to be fully possessed and enjoyed;"^ or
"to give and sell at his pleasure ; " ^ "to give away at her
death to whom she pleases ;"'' "to use and dispose of at
her pleasure,"* all pass a fee. A devise of lands with
power to the devisee to dispose of while she survives, and
any disposition she may make at her death to be duly
and strictly attended to, and stand good in law, gives a
fee.* A devise to a person "so long as she continues
my widow ; but if she marry no more than the law
allows ; but if she continues my widow, she is to hold,
enjoy, or dispose of at her discretion as I do at present,"
gives a fee determinable on marriage-^" But a bequest
of real estate to a devisee to have and to hold during life,
and " to do with as the devisee sees proper before death,"
gives but a life estate in the land.^^
Dean v. Nunnally, 36 Miss. 358 ; John. (N.Y.) 391.
Rail«. Dotson, 33Miss. (14Smed. = Campbell v. Carson, 13 Serg. &
& M.) 183 ; R. (Pa.) 54.
Bryant v. Christian, 58 Mo. 98 ; " Freely possessed and enjoyed "
Rubey v. Barnett, IS Mo. 3 ; s.o. — Ccmstrtiction of phrase. — In
49 Am. Dec. 113 ; this case the Supreme Court
Downey v. Borden, 36 N. J. L. (7 of Pennsylvania adopted the
Vr.) 74, 460 ; meaning given to every enjoy-
Jaokson v. Robins, 16 John. (N. ment by Lord Mansfield, in
Y.) 588 ; Loveaores v. Blight, 1 Cowp.
Smith V. Fulkinson, 35 Pa. St. 853, where he held that the
109 ; absolute estate passed free
Flinthan's Appeal, 11 Serg. & R. from impeachment every waste
(Pa.) 18. from incumbrances, rejecting
' Benkert v. Jaooby, 36 Iowa 373. the meaning given in later
» McLean v. MacDonald, 3 Barb. (N. English cases.
Y.) 534 ; 8 Whiskon v. Cleyton, 1 Leon. 156.
Jackson v. Babcock, 13 John. (N. ' Timewell v. Perkins, 3 Atk. 103.
Y.) 389, 393 ; 8 Jackson ex d. Bush v. Coleman,
McDonald v. Walgrove, 1 Sandf. 3 John. (N. Y.) 891 ;
Ch. (N. Y.) 374. Sutton v. Robertson, F. Moore 56;
3 Terry v. Wiggins, 47 N. Y. 513. Goodtitle v. Otway, 3 Wils. 6.
Or "to be at the absolute dis- "Moore v. Webb, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.)
posal" of the devisee. 383.
Jackson v. Babcock, 13 John. (N. " Swope v. Swope, 5 Gill (Md.) 335.
Y.) 389, 393. See : Ante, § 306.
* Jackson ex d. Bush v. Coleman, 3 " Brant v. The Virginia Coal &Iron
Chap. VII. §§ 379, 380.] EXCEPTIONS TO RULE.
339
Sec. 379. Same— Same— Exceptions to the rule.— An ex-
press devise for life will not be enlarged to a fee by the
mere addition of the power of sale ; ^ and the addition of
the power of disposition of the power to re-invest the
proceeds without accountability will not enlarge a plain
life estate into a fee-simple.^ Where the testator gives
property to his wife " to and for her own use and dis-
posal absolutely," with remainder after her decease to
his son, the wife took a life estate only ; ^ in a devise of
lands " to be at her own disposal and for her own proper
use and benefit during her natural life," the words " dur-
ing her natural life " restrict the power of disposal to
such a disposition as a tenant for life could make.*
Sec. 380. Same— Where charge on devisee.— A testator
may devise lands with a view to legacies, or the payment
of debts, and m.ake them a charge on the land, or on the
person of the devisee, or on both.^ Where the charge is
on the person of the devisee in respect to the estate in his
Co., 93 U. S. 336 ; bk. 23 L. ed.
927 ; S.C. 16 Am. L. Reg. 403.
See : Boyd v. Strahan, 36 lU. 355 ;
Giles V. Little, 104 U. S. 291 ; bk.
76 L. ed. 745 :
Bradly v. Westoott, 18 Ves. 449.
To widow for life, with power of
disposition. — In Brant v. Vir-
ginia Coal & Iron Co., 93 U. S.
326 ; bk. 23 L. ed. 927 ; s.c. 16
Am. L. Reg. 403, the words of
the wUl were : '• I give and be-
queath to my beloved wife,
Nancy Sinclair, all my estate,
both real and personal, that is
to say, all my lands, cattle,
horses, sheep, farming utensils,
household and kitchen furni-
ture, with everything that I
possess, to have and to hold
during her life, and to do with
as she sees proper before her
death." By virtue of this
power, the widow undertook to
convey the fee of the land.
But this court, speaking by Mr.
Justice Field, said : " Tlie in-
terest conveyed by the devise
to the widow was only a life
estate. The language admits
of no other conclusion ; and the
accompanying words, ' to do
with as she sees proper before
her death,' only conferred
power to deal with the prop-
erty in such manner as slie
might choose, consistently with
that estate and perhaps without
liability for waste committed.
The words used in connection
with a conveyance of a lease-
hold estate would never be
understood as conferring a
power to sell the property so as
to pass a greater estate. What-
ever power of disposal the
words confer is limited by the
estate with which they are
connected."
> Maltby's Appeal, 47 Conn. 349 ;
Lewis V. Palmer, 46 Conn. 454 ;
Dean v. NunnaUy, 36 Miss. 358 ;
Sawyer v. Dozier, 7 Jones (N. C.)
L. 7.
' Cockrill V. Money, 2 Tenn. Ch.
49.
' Smith V. BeU, 31 U. S. (6 Pet.) 68 ;
bk. 8 L. ed. 233. See criticism
of this case: Post, 8 336.
■• Boyd V. Strahan, 36 111. 355.
'■ Wright V. Denn ex d. Page, 23
U. S. (10 Wheat.) 204, 206 ; bk.
6 L. ed. 303, 309.
See : Roe ex d. Peter v. Day, 3
Maul. & S. 518.
340
CHARGE ON DEVISEE.
[Book III.
hands, he takes a fee-simple, even where there are no
words of inheritance or perpetuity ; ^ as where the devisee
is to pay debts, ^ or certain specified legacies,^ or a gross
sum out of the estate,* and the hke. And it has been
said that a charge upon a devisee in respect to the whole
of a piece of land, of which he receives a portion and
another person another portion, may have the effect of
1 Jackson v. Bull, 10 John. (N. Y.)
148 ; s.c. 6 Am. Deo. 321.
See : Lindsay v, McOormack, 2
A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 229 ; s.c. 12
Am. Dec. 381 ;
Parker w. Parker, 47 Mass. (6 Met.)
134, 138 ;
Baker v. Bridge, 29 Mass. (12
Pick.) 27, 31 ;
Lummus v. Mitchell, 34 N. H. 39,
47;
Bell V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ;
s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706;
Leavitt v. Wooster, 14 H. H. 550 ;
Olmstead v. Ohnstead, 4 N. Y.
56, 58 ;
Heard v. Horton, 1 Denn. (N. Y.)
165; 8.C. 43 Am. Dec. 569;
Jackson v. Staats, 11 John. (N.
Y.) 837 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 376 ;
Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N. Y.)
185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 218 ;
Spraker'y.Van Alstyne, 18 Wend.
(N. Y.) 200 ;
Fox V. Phelps, 17 Wend. (N. Y.)
393;
Van Alstyne v. Spraker, 13 Wend.
(N. Y.) 578 ;
Findlay v. Smith, 6 Mtinf. (Va.)
184 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 733 ;
Doe V. Clarke, 2 Bos. & P. (N. R.)
343;
Moor V. Denn, 2 Bos. & P. 247
Doe V. SnelUng, 5 East 87 ;
Groodtitle v. Maddern, 4 East
496;
Doe V. Holmes, 8 T. R. 1 ;
Collier's Case, 6 Co. 16.
* See : Bell v. Scammon, 15 N. H.
381 ; s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ;
Heard ■;;. Horton, 1 Denn. (N. Y.)
165 ; s.c. 43 Am. Dec. 659 ;
Jackson •;;. Martin, 18 John. (N.
Y.) 31 ;
Jackson v. MerriU, 6 John. (N. Y.)
185; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 213;
Goodtitle v. Maddern, 4 East 496 ;
Phihps V. Hele, 1 Rep. Ch. 101 ;
Doe V. Holmes, 8 T. R. 1 ;
Corner's Case, 6 Co. 16.
' See : Lithgow v. Kavenagh, 9
Mass. 161, 175 ;
BeU V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ;
s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ;
Jones' Ex'rsv. Jones, 13 N. J. Eq.
(2 Beas.) 236 ;
Olmstead v. Olmstead, 4 N. Y.
56, 58 ;
Jackson v. Harris, 8 John. (N. Y.)
141;
Spraker?;. Van Alstyne, 18 Wend.
(N. Y.) 200 ;
Coane v. Parmentier, 10 Pa. St.
73;
Doe ex d. Thorn v. Phillips, 3
Barn. & Ad. 758 ; s.c. 33 Eng.
C. L. 380 ;
Doe V. Richards, 3 T. R. 856 ;
Ackland v. Ackland, 2 Vem.
687.
Nature of estate devised. — When
a testator devised his lands as
follows: "To my grandson,
William Wheeler, his heirs and
assigns, forever, on condition
that he pay to my grand-
daughter, Hannah Wheeler,
two hundred pounds old tenor
bills, when he arrives at lawful
age ; but in case said WiUiam
dies without issue lawfully be-
gotten of his body, then I give
said lands and house to my six
sons-in-law and my grand-
daughter, Hannah Wheeler,
to be equally divided between
them," it was held that the
devise over was an absolute
estate.
Holmes v. Williams, 1 Root
(Conn.) 835; s.c. 1 Am. Dec.
49.
' See : Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John.
(N. Y.) 185; S.C. 5 Am. Dec.
218;
Willis V. Buoher, 2 Binn. (Pa.)
455 ;
Doe V. Fyldes, Cowp. 841 ;
Collier's Case, 6 Co. 16.
A general devise to pay a gross
sum out of the estate devised
does not carry a fee.
Funk V. Eggleston, 93 lU. 517 ;
s.c. 34 Am. Rep. 136.
Chap. VII. §§ 381, 382.1 NATURE OF CHARGE. 34I
enlarging the estates of both devisees to fees, as in the
case of Barheydt v. Barheydt,^ where the devise of the
"upper half " of certain land to A and the "lower half "
to A's minor son, on condition that A paid certain
legacies, was held to give an estate in fee to both A
and his son.
Sec. 381. Same— Same— Nature of charge on devisee.—
Where there is a devise of lands with directions
that the devisee shall pay a gross sum out of it, the de-
visee takes an estate in fee, without any other words,
notwithstanding the fact that the sum to be paid may
not amount to a year's rent.^ The charge upon the
devisee may not be a direct money charge, but the impo-
sition in obligation or duty, such as to provide firewood
or grain for the support of the person designated,^ edu-
cate a minor,* allow the use of a room in a house devised
to the testator's widow, ^ surrender a claim to an expect-
ancy,^ and the like.
Sec. 382. Same— Same— Reason for tlie doctrine.— This
rule is founded on the well-known principle that the
devise is intended for the benefit of the devisee,^ and if
' 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 500, 576. Education and support of a child
2 Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N. Y.) — Ho trust or charge. — A resid-
185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 313. uary devise and bequest to the
Amount of charge — Time of pay- testator's wife, " to her own
ment — Contingency. — The ef- use, and to be disposed of at
feet upon the estate of the lier decease according to the
charge upon the devisee will terms of any will that she may
not be interfered with by the leave," vests the whole of the
fact that such charge is a very residue in her absolutely ; and
small amount (Jackson v. Mer- a subsequent clause, that " she
riU, 6 John. (N. Y.) 185 ; s.c. 5 is of course to charge herself
Am. Dec. 213 ; Gibson v. Hor- with the education and support
ton, 5 Harr. & J. (Md.) 177 ; of our daughters, so long as
King V. Cole, 6 R. I. 584); or they shall remain unmarried,"
that the time of its payment is raises no trust or charge upon
postponed (Doe d. Harrington the property,
■y. Dill, IHoust. (Del.) 398; Har- Spooner v. Lovejoy, 108 Mass.
den V. Hays, 9 Pa. St. 151); or 529.
that it is contingent on the ' Jackson ex d. Ruggles v. Martin,
arrival at a certain age of the 18 John. (N. Y.) 31.
person to whom the payment ' Such as a devise to a person " pro-
is to be made (Doe d. Harring- vided he give up his right to
ton V. DiU, 1 Houst. (Del.) 398). aU my land in C."
» Jackson ex d. Ruggles v. Martio, Gibson v. Horton, 5 Harr. & J.
18 John. (N. Y.) 31. ' (Md.) 177.
< Dumond v. Strungham, 26 Barb. ' Jackson V.Merrill, 6 John. (N. Y.)
(N. Y.) 104 185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 213.
342
FAILUEE TO PERFORM.
[Book III.
the devisee did not take a fee, he might be a loser by
taking under the will and paying the debts, the specified
legacies, or the gross sum, if the estate were limited to a
life estate, for it might expire before he had been able to
reimburse himself, from the land, the amount of the
charge put upon him by his acceptance of the devise
under the will.''' But the charge must be upon the per-
son of the devisee in respect to the land, and must be
absolute and certain, ^ to create a fee by implication, be-
cause a charge upon the estate is not within the reason
of the rule.^
Sec. 383. Same — Same — Failure or refusal to perform. —
Where the charge is on the person, the devisee takes the
estate on condition of paying the charge. If he die in the
lifetime of the testator the charge ceases ; and if he re-
fuses to perform, the devise is void, and the heir may
' Lindsay v. McCormack, 3 A. K.
Marsh. (Ky.) 339 ; s.o. 13 Am.
Deo. 387 ;
"Wait V. ]3eldmg, 41 Mass. (34
Pick.) 139 ;
Farrar v. Ayres, 33 Mass. (5 Pick.)
404;
Cook V. Holmes, 11 Mass. 538 ;
Lightgow V. Cavenagh, 9 Mass.
161;
BeU V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ;
B.C. 41 Am. Deo. 706 ;
Leavitt v. Wooster, 14 N. H. 550 ;
Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N. Y.)
185 ; s.c. 5 Am. Deo. 313 ;
Fox V. Phelps, 17 Wend. (N. Y.)
393, 403 ;
Harden v. Hays, 9 Pa. St. 151 ;
King ■;;. Cole, 6 R. I. 584 ;
Doe V. Richards, 3 T. R. 356.
Death of devisee or refiisal to per-
form.— ^When the charge is on
the person, the devisee takes
the estate on condition of pay-
ing the charge, and if he die in
the lifetime of the testator,
the charge ceases ; and if he
refuse to accept and perform,
the devise is void, and the heir
may enter.
Jackson v. BuU, 10 John. (N. Y.
148 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 331.
'Jackson v. Martin, 18 John. (N.
Y.) 31.
See : Parker v. Parker, 46 Mass.
(5 Met.) 138 ;
Wait V. Belding, 41 Mass. (34
Pick.) 139, 139 ;
Cook V. Holmes, 11 Mass. 538 ;
Bell V. Scammon, 15 N. H. 381 ;
s.c. 41 Am. Dec. 706 ;
Heard v. Horton, 1 Den. (N. Y.)
165 ; s.c. 43 Am. Dec. 659 ;
Jackson v. Martin, 18 John. (N.
Y.) 31 ;
Jackson ■;;. . Harris, 8 John. (N.
Y.) 143 ;
Jackson v. Merrill, 6 John. (N.
Y.) 185 ; s.o. 5 Am. Dec. 313 ;
Barheydt v. Barheydt, 20 Wend.
(N. Y.) 576 ;
Spraker v. Van Alstyne, 18 Wend.
(N. Y.) 300 ;
Schoonmaker v. Stockton, 37 Pa.
St. 361.
Compare: Doe ex d. Thorn v.
Phillips, 3 Bam. & Ad. 758 ;
s.c. 33 Eng. C. L. 330 ;
Abrams v. Winshup, 3 Russ. 350.
' See : Mesick v. New, 7 N. Y. 163 ;
Olmstead v. Ohnstead, 4 N. Y.
56, 58 ;
Harvey v. Olmsted, 1 N. Y. 483;
Vandervs^erker v. Vanderwerker,
7 Barb. (N. Y.) 231 ;
Jaekson v. Bull, 10 John. (N. Y.)
148 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 321 ;
Spraker v. Van Alstyne, 18
Wend. (N. Y.) 300.
Chap. VII. § 384.] CHARGE ON THE ESTATE. 343
enter.^ But a fee will not be implied from a general
charge on the testator's real estate,^ with a direction to
pay debts ^ or funeral expenses, out of proceeds of the
estate devised.* And where the devisee has received
advancements from the testator to an amount exceeding
the sum of the latter's debts, and the fact is adverted to
in the will, and a bequest of the surplus of advancements
is made to the devisee, then a devise will not be enlarged
to a fee by a direction that the devisee shall pay the
debts, for there is really no charge upon the devisee at
all, but the direction is a mere application of the testa-
tor's own funds to the payment of his debts.^
Sec. 384. Same— Where charge on the estate.— Where the
charge is upon the estate and not upon the devisee per-
sonally, and there are no words of limitation, a life estate
only passes.^ The distinction which runs through the
cases is that where the charge is upon the estate, and
there are no words of limitation, the devisee takes only
an estate for life, because the reason for the rule enlarg-
ing the estate granted to a fee fails.^ Justice Stoey says
that "the clearly established doctrine on this subject is,
that if the charge be merely on the land, and not on the
person of the devisee, then the devisee upon a general
devise takes an estate for life only. The reason is
obvious : If the charge be merely on the estate, then the
devisee (to whom the testator is always presumed to in-
tend a benefit) can sustain no loss or detriment in case
the estate is construed but a life estate, since the estate
is taken subject to the incumbrance. But if the charge
be personal on the devisee, then if his estate be but for
life, it may determine before he is reimbursed for his
' Jackson v. Bull, 10 John. (N. Y.) = Tanner v. Livingston, 13 Wend.
148 ; s.c. 6 Am. Deo. 321. (N. Y.) 83.
■' Jackson v. Bull, 10 John. (N. Y.) « Jackson v. Bull. 10 John. (N. Y.)
148 ; B.C. 6 Am. Deo. 321. 148 ; s.c. 6 Am. Deo. 321.
' Mooberry v. Marye, 2 MuUf. (Va.) '' See : Doe v. Clarke, 5 Bos. & P.
453. •' •' N. R. 343 ;
* Doe V Harter, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) Moore v. Dean, 2 Bos. &. P. 247 ;
488 ; Collier's Case, 6 Co. 16 ;
Jackson v. Harris, 8 John. (N. Y.) Doe v. SneUing, 5 East 87 ;
141 Goodtitle v. Maddern, 4 East
496.
344
CUTTING DOWN FEE.
[Book III.
payments, and thus he may sustain a serious loss. " ^ It is
said in the case of Jackson v. Staats ^ that the charge of
the estate with a payment of money in the hands of the
devisee does not prevent its limitation over by way of
executory devise.
Sec. 385. Cutting down fee.— An estate given to a per-
son generally, or indefinitely, with an absolute power of
disposition in the first taker, carries a fee ; ^ nothing that
follows can affect the estate devised,* therefore words
granting a fee will not be restricted unless by necessary
implication.^ But when, by limiting the character of the
first estate, the second may be preserved, it is the duty
of the court to do so, unless such construction is subver-
sive of the general scheme of the will, or forbidden by
some inflexible rule of law.^ A subsequent repugnant
limitation is void.'' Butif thejMS disponendi is condi-
tional, a provision as to a remainder is not repugnant.^
The Court of Appeals of New York, in the case of Byrnes
' Wright V. Demi ex d. Page, 33
V. S. (10 Wheat.) 304, 231, 233 ;
bk. 6 L. ed. 303, 310, 319.
See : Loveacres v. Blight, 1 Cowp.
353 *
Doe V. Holmes, 8 Dumf . & E. 1 ;
Denn ex d. Moor v. Meller, 5
Durnf. & E. 558 ; s.c. 2 Bos. &
P. 247 ;
Doe v. Richards, 8 Dumf. & E.
356;
Goodtitle v. Maddem, 4 East
496;
Canning v. Canning, Mor. Ch.
240.
2 11 John. (N. Y.) 837 ; B.C. 6 Am.
Deo. 376.
' Stewart v. Walker, 73 Me. 146 ;
s.c. 39 Am. Rep. 811, 316 ;
Shaw V. Hussey, 41 Me. 495 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 535.
* See : Ward v. Amory, 1 Curt. C.
C. 435.
' Giiford v. Choate, 100 Mass. 343,
345.
Interest of trustee — Cutting down
by implication, — The case of
Curtis V. Price, 13 Ves. 89 ;
s.c. 8 Eev. Rep. 303, has been
said to be a solitary instance of
a limitation ia fee by deed to
trustees being cut down by
implication to an estate par
autre vie.
See : Cooper v. Kynoch, L. R. 7
Ch. 403 ; s.c. 41 L. J. Ch. 396 ;
26 L. T. N. S. 566.
« Wager v. Wager, 96 N. Y. 164,
174.
See : Smith v. Van Ostrand, 64
N. Y. 378 ;
Nori-is V. Beyea, 13 N. Y. 373.
' Giflford V. Choate, 100 Mass. 843,
346.
See : Stuart v. Walker, 72 Me.
146 ; s.c. 39 Am. Rep. 311, 816;
Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 N. Y.
465, 468 ;
Smith V. Van Ostrand, 64 N. Y.
378;
Tyson v. Blake, 23 N. Y. 558 ;
Norris v. Beyea, 18 N. Y. 278 ;
Paterson v. EUis, 11 Wend. (N.
Y.) 359, 360 ;
Attorney-General v. Hall, Fitz-
Gib. 814 ;
Ross V. Ross, 1 Jac. & W. 154 ;
BuE V, Kingston, 1 Meriv. 814.
» Van Home v. Campbell, 100 N.
Y. 387, 800.
See : Campbell v. Beaumont, 91
N. Y. 465 ;
Smith V. Van Ostrand, 64 N. Y.
378.
Chap. VII. § 386.] WHEN FEE NOT CUT DOWN.
345
V. Stilwell/ have held that an estate in fee created by a
will cannot be cut down or limited by a subsequent clause,
unless it is as clear and decisive as the language of the
clause which devises the estate.^ If the property may,
under the terms of the will, be used and spent by the
primary legatee at his pleasure, further limitation is
clearly hostile to the nature and intention of the gift,
and will not be presumed.^ Thus a devise and bequest
of all the property of a testator to his wife, to be enjoyed
by her for her sole use and benefit, will vest in her the
absolute title and power of disposition, unaffected by the
expression in the will of a wish or desire of the testator
that on her decease the property, or such portion of it as
might remain, should be received and enjoyed by her
son.*
Sec. 386. Same— Pee not cut down when.— A fee will not
be cut down by the addition of the words ' ' for life, " so
as to read a devise in fee-simple for life ; ^ or the ad-
> 103 N. Y. 453, 460.
See : Campbell v. Beaumont, 91
N. Y. 464.
« See : Freeman v. Colt, 96 N. Y.
63, 68 ;
Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 N. Y.
467;
Eoseboom v. Roseboom, 81 N. Y.
356 359 '
ThomhUl v. Hall, 2 CI. & Fin. 23.
3 Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 N. Y.
464.
See : Byrnes v. StUweU, 103 N.
Y. 453, 460 : s.c. 51 Am. Rep.
760 ; 9 N. E. Rep. 241 ;
Van Home v. CampbeU, 100 N.
Y. 30;
Wager v. Wager, 96 N. Y. 173 ;
Jones V. Jones, 66 Wis. 310, 817 ;
s.c. 57 Am. Rep. 266 ; 28 N. W.
Rep. 177.
* Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 N. Y.
464.
' Because the words " for life " are
repugnant to the estate already
granted, and therefore of no
effect.
McAUister v. Tate, 11 Rich. (S.
C.) L. 509 ; s.c.73 Am.Dec.ll9.
See : Giles v. Little, 104 U. S.
291 ; bk. 26 L. ed, 748 ;
Smith V. BeU, 31 U, S. (6 Pet.)
68 ; bk. 8 L, ed. 322 •
Bradly v. Westcott, 13 Ves. 445 ;
s.c. 9 Rev. Rep. 207.
"During tieir fives" after grant
of fee-simple. — In the case of
Doe ex d. Cotton v. Stenlake,
12 East 515 ; s.c. 11 Rev. Rep.
, the devise vcas, " I give
unto my daughter, PMUis
Cotton, and her heirs, Moor-
head meadow, during their
hves." Lord Ellenborough,
C. J., said: "The words ' dur-
ing their hves,' after the devise
to the daughter and her heirs,
are merely the expression of
a man ignorant of the manner
of describing how the parties
whom he meant to benefit
should enjoy the property ; for
whatever estate of inheritance
the heirs of his daughter might
take, they could in fact only
enjoy the benefit of it for their
lives."
"Diuring her natiiral Ufa" limits
estate. — In Boyd v. Strahan, 30
111. 355, there was a bequest to
the wife of aU the personal
property not otherwise disposed
of, "to be at her own disposal,
and for her own proper use and
benefit during her natural life,"
and the court held that the
346
NOT CUT DOWN WHEN.
[Book HI.
dition of "for her sole and separate use during her
life ; " ^ or by a devise over on the death of the first taker
without a son, 2 or in case the devisee "shall die with-
out heirs of his body ; " ^ or by a provision that '' should ,
any of my children die without heirs, his bequeathed share
shall revert ; " * or that the profits of the land shall be ap-
plied to a particular purpose ; ^ or by precatory words to
the effect that the devisee will leave the land to certain per-
sons, or to certain uses, should he die without issue, or in
any other contingency,^ because mere words of desire or
recommendation do not create a trust in an absolute devisee
or legatee, '^ unless by express words of the testator it ap-
words " during her natural
life " so qualified the power of
disposal as to make it mean
such disposal as a tenant for
life could make.
' The only effect of such a clause,
where a fee has previously been
given to the woman, will be to
exclude the marital rights of
the husband, but will leave the
estate still a fee-simple.
SkiUen v- Loyd, 6 Cold. (Tenn.)
563.
^ Molson V. Doe ex d. Cooper, 4
Leigh (Va.) 408.
3 Roser v. Slade, 3 Md. Ch. 91.
* Shutt V. Rambo, 57 Pa. St. 149.
' Thompson v. Swoope, 24 Pa. St.
474.
^Batchelor v. Macon, 69 N. C.
545;
Second Reformed Pres. Church v.
Disbrow, 35 Pa. St. 219 ;
Pennook's Estate, 20 Pa. St. 268 ;
s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 718.
^ Ancient rule as to precatory words. —
It is said by the Supreme Judi-
cial Court of Massachusetts, in
the case of Hess v. Singler, 114
Mass. 56, 59, that " it is a settled
doctrine of courts of chancery
that a devise or bequest to one
person, accompanied by words
expressing a wish, entreaty, or
recommendation that he will
apply it to the benefit of others,
may be held to create a trust,
if the subject and the objects
are sufiioiently certain. Some
of the earlier English decisions
had a tendency to give to this
doctrine the weight of an ar-
bitrary rule of construction.
But by the later cases, in this,
as in all other questions of the
interpi-etation of wiUs, the in-
tention of the testator, as
gathered from the whole will,
controls the court. In order to
create a trust, it must appear
that the words were intended
by the testator to be impera-
tive ; and when property is
given absolutely and without
restriction, a trust is not to be
lightly imposed, upon mere
words of recommendation and
confidence."
See : Van Duyne v. Van Duyne,
14 N. J. Eq. (1 McCar.) 397 ;
Spooner v. Lovejoy, 108 Mass.
539;
Warner v. Bates, 98 Mass. 274,
277;
Pennock's Estate, 20 Pa. St. 368 ;
s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 718 ;
Knight V. Knight, 3 Beav. 148,
173 ; s.c. sub nom. Knight v.
' Boughton, 11 CI. & Fin. 513 ;
Lambe v. Eames, L. R. 10 Eq.
367; s.c. L.R. 6Ch. 597.
Modem rule as to precatory words.
— It is said in the case of
Pennook's Estate, 20 Pa. St.
368 ; s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 718, 733,
724, that the ancient rule is
fading away even in England ;
that the disrelish with which it
is received by the legal and
judicial minds of that country
may be seen in the doctrine of
extreme certainty required as
to the subject and object of the
recommendation.
Harland v. Trigg, 1 Bro. C. C.
143;
Chap. VII. § 386.] RECOMMENDATION OBLIGATORY.
347
pears that the recommendation was intended to be obli-
gatory, as where there are words expressive of desire as to
the direct disposition of the estate ; ^ or by words re-
Tibbits V. Tibbits, 19 Ves. 664 ;
Wright V. Atkyns, 1 Ves. & B.
313 ; s.c. Turn. & R. 157 ;
Ex parte Payne, 3 You. & C. 636.
Another reason for this falling
away is found in the fact that
it is degraded into the class of
implied or constructive, and
not express, trusts.
Hill V. Bishop of London, 1 Atk.
618;
Jeremy's Eq. Jur. 99 ;
Lewin on Ti-usts, 66 ;
3 Roper on Legacies, 880, etc.;
3 Story's Eq. Jur., § 1074.
is everywhere regarded as
frustrating the wiU of the tes-
tator.
Meredith v. Heneage, 1 Sim. 551 ;
Sale V. Moore, 1 Sim. 540 ;
Wright V. Atkyns, 1 Ves. & B.
815;
3 Story's Eq. Jur., §§ 1069-1074.
Words of eutrea^ty or recommeuda/-
tion are not now regarded
in England as creating a trust,
unless on the whole they ought
to be construed as imperative.
Macnamara v. Jones, 1 Bro. C. C.
481;
Meggison v. Moore, 3 Ves. Jr.
633;
3 Spence's Eq. Jur. 65.
The rule is a mere artificial one,
that is to be strictly limited to
the demands of authority. It
looks upon the words as prima
facie words of trust.
Podmore v. Gunning, 7 Sim. 665;
Berkley v. Ryder, 3 Ves. Sr.
533;
Worsley v. GranvUle, 3 Ves. Sr.
335.
et any words or expressions are
eagerly seized hold of as in-
dications of a contrary intent.
Knight V. Knight, 3 Beav. 178 ;
Harland v. Trigg, 1 Bro.C.C.148 ;
Shaw V. Lawless, 5 CI. & Fin. 147,
153;
Foley V. Parry, 3 Myl, & K. 144 ;
"White V. Briggs, 15 Sim. 33, 800 ;
Meredith v. Heneage, 1 Sim. 550,
553.
Trust not raised when. — ^Where it
is apparent that the kindness
or justice or discretion of the
devisee is relied on, no trust
arises.
Knight V. Knight, 3 Beav. 148,
173, 176 ;
Curtis V. Rippon, 5 Madd. 434 ;
Pope v. Pope, 10 Sim. 1 ;
BardsweU v. BardsweU, 9 Sim.
319;
Young V. Martin, 3 You. & C. (N.
S.) 483, 590 ;
Malim v. Keighley, 3 Ves. Jr.
530, 533 ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 339.
And if it can be implied from the
words that a discretion is left
to withdraw any part of the
subject of the devise from the
object of the wish or bequest,
or to apply it to the use of the
devisee, no trust is created.
FUnt V. Hughes, 6 Beav. 343 ;
Knight V. Knight, 3 Beav. 173,
174;
Sprange v. Bamhard, 3 Bro. C. C.
585;
Wynne v. Hawkins, 1 Bro. C. C.
179 •
Bland' i;. Bland, 3 Cox 354 ;
Bade v. Eade, 5 Madd. 131 ;
Lechmere v. Lavie, 3 Myl. & K.
301;
Pope V. Pope, 10 Sim. 5 ;
Horwood V. West, 1 Sim. & S.
889;
Pushman v. FUhter, 3 Ves. Jr. 7.
Ancient English rule not adopted
in this country. — The court say
in Coates' Appeal, 3 Pa. St.
139, 131, that there is no Am-
erican case Tvherein the anti-
quated Enghsh rule has been
adopted. As to that rule.
See : Flint v. Hughes, 6 Beav.
343;
Sprange v. Barnard, 3 Bro. C. C.
585;
Wynne v. Hawkins, 1 Bro. C. C.
179;
Bland v. Bland, 3 Cox Eq. 354 ;
WUliams v. Williams, 30 L. J.
(N. S.)Ch. 380; s.c. 5 Eng. L. &
Eq. 49 ;
Eade v. Eade, 5 Madd. 118 ;
White V. Briggs, 15 Sim. 33 ;
Meredith v. Heneage, 1 Sim. 543;
Pushman v. Filliter, 8 Ves. Jr. 7;
Ex parte Payne, 3 You. & C.
686.
Burt V. Herron, 66 Pa. St. 403.
34:8
FEE NOT AFFECTED "WHEN.
[Book III.
stricting or forbidding the sale of the land by the devisee,
even where followed by a devise over on the death of the
first taker ; ^ or after giving an estate in fee providing
that under certain circumstances the devisee may sell the
estate ; ^ or by provision that the devisee may dispose of
the estate by will,^ or by a provision that the land de-
vised shall not be left to a certain person ; * or by provid-
ing that if the devisee "shall die seized of the estate
' Kepple's Appeal, 53 Pa. St. 311 ;
Walker v. Vincent, 19 Pa. St.
369;
Eeifsnyder v. Hunter, 19 Pa. St.
41;
McCollough's Heirs v. Gilmore,
11 Pa. St. 370.
2 Grant v. Carpenter, 8 E. I. 36.
That an estate for life has been
limited to a person is not a
sirfficient indication of intent
that the devisee shall have a
life estate only, to prevent a
fee-simple in the same land
being given to him by subse-
quent words.
Geyer v. Wentzel, 68 Pa. St. 85.
' Provision for disposal hy will not
reduce estite. — In Spooner v.
Lovejoy, 108 Mass. 529, 533,
the testator provided as follows:
"I give, bequeath, and devise
aU the rest, residue, and re-
mainder of my property and
estate, whether real, personal,
or mixed, to my beloved wife,
Elizabeth Elliot Spooner, prin-
cipal and income, to her own
use, and to be disposed of at
her decease according to the
terms of any wiU or testament-
ary document that she may
leave," the court held that the
provision allowing her to dis-
pose of the property by her last
will would not reduce her
estate under the general be-
quest to a mere life estate.
Citing: Doe d. Herbert v.
Thomas, 3 Ad. & E. 123 ; s.c.
30 Eng. C. L. 77.
In the latter case a tenant in fee-
simple devised land to his wife,
her heirs and assigns, forever,
" with the intention that she
may enjoy the same during her
life, and by her will dispose of
the same as she thinks proper."
The court held that the wife
took a fee ; though, in a later
part of the ■wiU, the devisor
limited lands in fee by using
the words " heirs and assigns
forever," without any addi-
tional words.
"To her sole use, benefit, and dis-
posal" carry fee. — In Davis v.
MaUey, 134 Mass. 588, a testa-
tor gave to his wife all his real
and personal estate "to her sole
use, benefit, and disposal ; " and
provided that " whatever may
be left of my estate, if any, she
may by will or otherwise give
to those of my heirs that she
may think best, she know-
ing my mind upon that sub-
ject. I am willing to leave the
matter entirely with her, feel-
ing satisfied that she will do as
I have requested her to ia the
matter." The court held that
the wife took all the estate
which the testator could devise,
with the absolute right of dis-
posing of it as she saw fit.
" Unfettered and nnlimited " pre-
clude trust. — In Meredith v.
Heneage, 1 Sim. 542, a devise
of a testator's estate to his wife
"unfettered and unlimited, in
fuU confidence and with the
firmest persuasion that, in her
future disposition and distribu-
tion thereof, she will distin-
guish the heirs of my late
father, by devising and be-
queathing the whole of my said
estate, together and entire, to
such of my said father's heirs
as she may think best deserve
her preference," was held by
the House of Lords, upon the
advice of Lord Eldon and
Lord Eedesdale, not to create
a trust, because the words " un-
fettered and unlimited" pre-
cluded the inference of such an
intention.
" Barnard v. Bailey, 2 Harr. (Del.)56.
Chap. YII. § 387.] AMERICAN DOCTRINE. 349
herein bequeathed, or any part thereof, without lawful
issue, then the estate of him so dying seized is hereby
bequeathed, and shall descend," to other heirs ;^ or the
provision, after a devise of the fee, that the devisee shall
pay certain designated legacies, and, on his failure to do
so, that the executor of the will may sell a part or all of
the land devised for that purpose, where there is no devise
over ; ^ and where an estate has been devised in trust,
the addition of the words ' ' for her and her heirs' sole
use and benefit " will not affect the equitable fee de-
vised.^
Sec. 387. Same— Doctrine of the American courts— Jackson
V. Bull.— It was early laid down in New York, in the case
of Jackson v. Bull,* that where in a devise a charge is im-
posed upon the estate devised, and there are no words of
limitation, the devisee takes only an estate for life, but
that when the charge is on the person of the devisee, in
respect to the estate in his hands, he takes a fee. This
case has been uniformly followed in New York, and
the cases outside of New York are thought to be equally
uniform.
The case of Ide r. Ide,^ decided in 1809, by Chief
Justice Parsoxs, is perhaps the earUest case in this coun-
try upon the subject. In that case the action was eject-
ment. The testator devised real estate to his son P, his
heirs and assigns, forever, and also bequeathed to him
personal estate in words denoting an absolute interest,
and in a subsequent clause declared : "And further, it is
my will, that if my son P. shall die and leave no lawful
issue, what estate he shall leave, to be divided between
my son J. and my grandson N.," etc. P. conveyed the
land in his lifetime and died leaving no issue. The
court held that the limitation over was void for repug-
nancy to the disposing power, and on that ground
decided the case for the plaintiff, making no reference to
' Van Home v. CampbeU, 100 N. ■» 10 John. (N. Y.) 148 ; s.c. 6 Am,
y 287 Dec. 321.
' Banna's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 53. ' 5 Mass. 500.
» Kom V. Cutler, 26 Conn. 4.
350 DOCTRINE IN AMERICAN CASES. [BOOK III.
the fact that P. had exercised the power by a convey-
ance. The power of disposition was held to be implied
from the words, "what estate he shall leave." The next
case in interest, if not in point of time of decision, is that of
Melson v. Doe,^ decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia
in the year 1833. This was a case where a testator devised
land to his son W. and his heirs, and if he should die
without a son, and not sell the land, then to the
testator's son G. It was held that the devise gave W.
absolute power to sell a fee-simple, and therefore,
whether he sold or not, he took a fee-simple and the
devise over was void. The same principle was de-
clared in a prior case in the same state, ^ where the
power of disposition was held to be implied from
the words, "so much of the estate as may remain
undisposed of."
The case of Cook v. Walker ^ involved the construc-
tion of a marriage settlement of real and personal
property, which provided for the devolution of the prop-
erty if the wife " should die intestate, without making
any disposition," etc. Lumpkin, J., in delivering the
opinion of the court, said : ' ' We hold it to be an incontro-
vertible rule that whenever an estate is given in Georgia,
either by deed or will, to a person generally or indefinite-
ly, with an unlimited power of disposition annexed, it
invariably vests an absolute fee in the first taker, and
that neither a remainder nor an executory devise can be
limited on such an estate."
The cases of Flinn v. Davis * and McEee's Administra-
tors V. Means ^ declare the same rule. In Pickering v.
Langdon,® it was held that a gift over of real and per-
sonal estate, of "what remains" on the death of the
first taker, was void ; and in Eamsdell v. Ramsdell,'^ it
was declared that the doctrine of Jackson v. Bull ^ was
the settled law. The doctrine that an absolute power of
disposition in the first taker was fatal to a limitation
' 4 Leigh (Va.) 350. = 34 ^ig,. 350.
'' Riddick v. Cohoon, 4 Rand. (Va.) « 23 Me. 413.
547. ' 21 Me. 288.
3 15 Ga. 459. » 10 John. (N. Y.) 19 ; s.c. 6 Am.
« 18 Ala. 133. Dec. 321.
Chap. VII. § 388.] SMITH V. BELL. 351
over has been declared by the court of North Carolina, ^
and also by the court of Tennessee in two cases. ^
In the case of Van Home v. Campbell, ^ Mr. Justice
Andrews, in delivering the opinion of the court, says :
"After a somewhat diligent examination I have been
unable to find any decision in any court in this country,
adverse to the doctrine declared in Jackson v. Bull, and
I think it may safely be affirmed that the doctrine of
that case is the settled law of the American courts. "
Sec. 388. Same— Same— Doctrineof Smitli v. Bell.— In the
case of Smith v. Bell,* a testator gave a legacy to his
wife " to and for her own use and benefit and disposal ab-
solutely, and the remainder of said estate, after her de-
cease, to be for the use of " the testator's son ; the court
held that the latter clause qualified the former, and
showed the wife took a life estate only. In construing
the language of the devise, Chief Justice Marshall,
after observing that the operation of the words "to and
for her own use and benefit and disposal absolutely,"
annexed to the bequest, standing alone, could not be
questioned, said : " But suppose the testator had added
the words 'during her natural life,' these words would
have restrained those which preceded them, and have
limited the use and benefit, and the absolute disposal
given by the prior words, to the use and benefit and to a
disposal for the life of the wife. The words then are
susceptible of such limitation. It may be imposed on
them by other words. Even the words, disposal abso-
lutely, may have their character qualified by restraining
words connected with and explaining them, to mean such
absolute disposal as a tenant for life may make."
The doctrine of Smith ■?;. Bell has not met with the
approval of the courts, being doubted in Massachusetts,^
' See : Newland v. Newland, 1 ginia Coal & Iron Co., 93 U. S.
Jones (N. C.) L. 463. 336, 333 ; bk. 23 L. ed. 937, 928 ;
« Williams v. Jones, 2 Swan (Tenn.) s.c. 16 Am. L. Reg. 403.
260 ; ' See : Gifford v. Choate, 100 Mass.
Davis V. Richardson, 10 Yerg. 343, 346 ;
(Tenn.) 290; s.c.31 Am.Deo.581. Albee v. Carpenter, 66 Mass. (13
s 100 N. Y. 287, 301-303. Cush.) 382, 383 ;
* 81 U S (6 Pet.) 68 ; bk. 8 L. ed. Homer v. Shelton, 43 Mass. (2
832, foUowed in Brant v. Vir- Met.) 194, 199, 301.
352 STATUTORY REGULATIONS. [Book III.
questioned in New York,^ and denied in Maine.^ The
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts say that the
authority of this decision is somewhat impaired by the
circumstance that no counsel were heard on behalf of
the party against whom it was made, and that the at-
tention of the court does not seem to have been drawn to
the authorities in favor of the opposite conclusion ; that
the decision is made to rest upon the fact that the re-
mainder was the only special provision made by the will
for the testator's only child, and that there were no words
directly extending the wife's interest beyond her life. ^
Sec. 389. Statutory regulations.— Statutes have been
passed in most if not all of the states, which have greatly
modified if they have not entirely overthrown the com-
mon-law rules of construction of devises of realty. They
have all been in the direction of giving greater scope to
the intention of the devisor, and greater latitude to the
courts, when engaged in the construction of wills, than
was allowed by the rules of common law. It is inex-
pedient to refer to these various statutes in detail in this
place. Any one desiring to inform himself accurately as
to the statute law in any state, upon this or any other
subject, must of necessity resort to the statutes them-
selves. It is impracticable, if not impossible, to collate
the statutes of the various states and give briefly their
substance with entire accuracy.* If that feat were ac-
complished at the time a book went to press, " the rest-
less love of change which seems to be inherent in Ameri-
can policy, both as to constitution and laws,"^ would of
necessity soon render it inaccurate, if not misleading.
Sec. 390. Construction of devises since the statutes.— The
interpretation of wills in any state is governed by the
' See : Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 * " Stimson on Statutes " does this
N. Y. 465, 469. as nearly as is possible, and his
' See : Copeland v. Barron, 73 Me. work is commended to all who
306 ; s.c. 39 Am. Rep. 318, 319, will be content with a careful
note. analysis and conscientious sum-
" Giflford V. Choate, 100 Mass. 343, mary of the statute law upon
346. this or any other point.
See : Campbell v. Beaumont, 91 => See : 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 406,
N. Y. 464, 468. note.
Chap. VII. § 390.] CONSTRUCTION SINCE STATUTES. 353
statute upon the subject prevailing at the time the will
was made.^ Under many of these statiites the words
" heirs and assigns " are not necessary to pass a fee, and
their absence from a devise will not be evidence of an in-
tention on the part of the testator to give a less estate
than a fee-simple,^ the presumption under the statute
being in favor of a fee.^ In some of the states this pre-
sumption has been carried so far that a devise to an ad-
ministrator, with power to sell real estate in the absence
of sufficient personalty to pay just demands, has been
construed as giving a fee,* but this is thought to be
carrying statutory construction to a dangerous extreme.
' Some of the early cases in South (S. C.) 476 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec.
Carolina hold that the statute 758 ;
in that state enacting that no HaU v. Goodwyn, 4 McC. (S. C.)
words of limitation shall ' ' here- L. 442.
after be necessary to devise a Compare : Boatwright v. Faust
fee is simply" declaratory of 4MoC. (S. C.) 439.
the law as it existed, and there- ^ Baldwin v. Bean, 59 Me. 481.
fore applies to the construction ' See : Shirey v. Postlethwaite, 73
of wills made before its passage. Pa. St. 39.
See : Peyton v. Smith, 4 McC. * See : McConnel v. Smith, 33 111.
611
CHAPTEE VIII.
DESCENT OF FEE-SIMPLE ESTATES.
Sec. 391. Introductory.
Sec. 392. Local or special customs — Control over descent.
Sec. 393. Same — Gavelkind.
Sec. 394. Same — Same — Where prevails.
Sec. 395. Same — Borough-English.
Sec. 396. Same — Effect on right to take as heir.
Sec. 397. Same— Copyholds.
Sec. 398. Descent as affected by domicile.
Sec. 399. Descent at common law.
Sec. 400. Same — Seisin in law.
Sec. 401. Same — Same — Prevents abeyance of freehold.
Sec. 402. Same — Seisin in deed.
Sec. 403. Same — Same — How acquired.
Sec. 404. Same — Distinction between seisin in law and in fact.
Sec 405. Same — ^When entry not necessary to convert seisin in law into
actual seisin.
Sec. 406. Common-law rules of descent.
Sec. 407. Same— First rule.
Sec. 408. Same — Same — Doctrine of possessio fratris.
Sec. 409. Same — Same — Same — Effect on dower and curtesy.
Sec. 410. Same — Second rule.
Sec. 411. Same — Third rule.
Sec. 412. Same — Fourth rule.
Sec. 413. Same— Fifth rule.
Sec. 414. Same — Sixth rule.
Sec. 415. Same— Seventh rule.
Sec. 416. Same — Eighth rule.
Sec. 417. Same — Same — Feudal origin of primogeniture.
Sec. 418. Rules of descent in the United States.
Section 391. introductory.— By descent is understood
the hereditary succession to an estate in realty, and is
the title whereby a man on the death of his ancestors
acquires his estate by right of representation as his heir
at law/ as contra-distinguished from title by purchase, or
' Mayer v. McLure, 36 Miss. 395 ; Barclay v. Cameron, 25 Tex. 241;
B.C. 72 Am. Dec. 190 • 2 Bl. Com. 201.
354
Chap. VIII. §§ 392, 393.] LOCAL OR SPECIAL CUSTOMS. 355
by the act or agreement of the parties.^ The law itself
casts the estate upon the heir immediately on the death
of the ancestor, 2 and the party cannot disclaim the estate
if he would. ^ Title to real estate thus cast upon the
party is not derived from natural law, but is owing to
statutes regulating the subject which are positive, and
to some degree arbitrary.* The descent of real estate in
the various states of the Union is governed by local
statutes, which must be resorted to by the student and
the practitioner to ascertain the rules of descent in any
particular state. The laws regulating the descent of real
property, like the laws governing many other subjects,
are not constant but "exposed to the restless life of
change which seems to be inherent in American policy,
both as to statutes and laws. " ^
Sec. 392. Localorspeeialcustoms— Control over descent.—
The rules of the common law governing the devolution
of lands in England frequently give way to local cus-
toms, as in the case of gavelkind and borough-English,
which are not modes of tenure, but customary modes
of devolution of lands in particular places, by virtue of
which the inherent descents differ from the course of
descent prescribed by the common law, although the
tenure is in socage, and the words of hmitation used to
create the estate are those used to create common-law
fees.
Sec. 393. Same— Gavelkind.— Gavelkind is a particular
custom in vogue in Kent, which ordains that all sons
alike should succeed to their father's estate.® The word
gavelkind is used, or confused rather, in three different
senses : (1) To denote tenure, which is a species of socage
having peculiar customs connected with it ; (2) to denote
the several parts which together make up the customs of
' Donahue's Estate, 36 Cal. 829. ■• Davis v. Stinson, 53 Me. 493 ;
'2B1 Com. 210. Haven?;. Foster, 26 Mass. (9 Pick.)
=> See : Smiths. Smith, 23 Ind. 202 ; 127 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 353 ;
Baxter v. Bradbury, 20 Me. 260; Gannon v. NoweU, 6 Jones (N. C.)
s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 49 ; L. 436.
Overturf v. Dugan, 29 Ohio St. ' See : 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 408,
230 ; note.
Bimey v. Wilson, 11 Ohio St. " Anderson L. Diet. 486.
426.
356 GAVELKIND AND BOROUGH-ENGLISH. [BOOK III.
Kent ; and (3) to denote only the custom of equal parti-
tion among males upon a descent.^ But it is conceived
that the word is not properly used to denote the tenure ;
for the custom "runs with the land and not with the
tenure. " ^
Sec. 394. Same — Same— Where prevails. — Gavelkind is
found as a custom most commonly, but not exclusively, in
the county of Kent,^ where all lands are presumed to be
gavelkind until the contrary is shown.* It seems that
the word gavelkind is not properly used as to lands affected
by the customs outside of Kent.^ The custom of Kent
must, at all events, from its importance, be regarded as
a normal standard of gavelkind, and all variations from
it as being separate and peculiar customs. By this
custom the descent is among all the sons equally, and in
default of sons to all the daughters equally, and in
default of children to all the brothers equally. The issue
of a deceased son, daughter, or brother, who, if living,
would have been entitled to partake, being also entitled
per stirpes to the share of their deceased parent.®
Sec. 395. Same— Borough-English.— What is known as
borough-English is a custom prevalent in some parts
of England, chiefly in the old boroughs, by which the
youngest son inherits the father's estate, and was so
called to distinguish it from the Norman rule of primo-
geniture.' This custom is chiefly found in connection
with lands held by burgage-tenure within certain
boroughs,^ which species of socage does not seem to be
affected by the statute of Charles 11.^ Various kinds or
' Rob. Gav. 9. together with other less impor-
« Rob. Gav. 80, 87, 90. tant points, some of which are
*See: Litt.,§210; now obsolete in England and
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 140a. never had any force in this
* Rob. Gav. 54. country.
' Rob. Gav. 8, note. See : Rob. Gav. 96.
« Rob. Gav. 113, 115. ' Anderson L. Diet. 133.
Effect of gavelkind on dower. « See : Litt., §165 ;
—The customs of gavelkind 1 Co. Litt.,"' (19th ed.) 110b.
affect lands subject to it in ' 18 Chas. II., c. 34.
other respects than descent ; See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 116a,
namely, dower, curtesy, alien- Hargrave's note 1.
ation by infants, and escheat.
Chap. VIII. § 397.] BOROUGH-ENGLISH AND COPYHOLDS. 357
modifications of the custom, including its extension to
females, also to collateral descents, are met with, and
the custom is also found in some manors. ^
Sec. 396. Same — EflFect on right to take as heir. — The
prevalence of these local customs had a tendency to con-
fuse the question as to who should take as heir at law,
where the man held lands by purchase in boroughs
where different customs prevailed. The phrase " heir at
law " has no meaning except in reference to the estate to
which the person so designated might possibly succeed
by inheritance. The same man, if he should be seized as
purchaser in fee-simple of lands subject to different cus-
toms of descent, might leave several distinct heirs at
law. If he should die intestate leaving sons, his heir at
law, as to lands which are subject to no special custom,
is his eldest son ; as to borough-English lands, is his
youngest son ; and his heir at law, as to gavelkind lauds,
will be composed of all his sons taking together as co-
parceners. And other special customs may lawfully
exist affecting lauds in particular manors or boroughs,
which may multiply still further his capacity for leaving
distinct heirs.
Sec. 397. same— Copyholds.— Special customs affecting
the descent of lands held for a fee-simple are much more
commonly found in connection with copyholds held for
the customary fee-simple, than in connection with lands
held for the fee-simple by common- law tenure. The cause
of this greater frequency is twofold. In the first place,
custom is the life of copyhold tenure, and peculiarities of
custom in connection therewith have always been much
more common than in connection with common-law
tenure. In the second place, customs affecting copyhold
tenure have a much stronger tendency to be remembered
and preserved in practice, because the manorial incidents
of copyhold tenure are generally more valuable, and better
worth insisting upon, than manorial incidents of freehold
tenure. To this must be added the effect of the statute
of Quia Emptores, which has been gradually to extinguish
' Rob. Gav. 391, 393.
358 DESCENT AFFECTED BY DOMICILE. [Book III.
the tenure of freehold lands held for a fee-simple of the
mesne lords, and to concentrate all such tenure in the
crown. ^
Sec. 398. Descent as afiFacted by domicile.— At common
law neither a bastard, ^ nor a monster,*^ "which hath not
the shape of mankind," can be heir or inherit any land,
even though it be brought forth within marriage ; * but
a creature that has deformity in. any part of his body, and
yet has human shape, he may be heir, and inherit real
estate.^ Eules of descent are not dependent solely upon
the rules of personal status in respect to questions of
legitimacy, and of consequent qualification to inherit.
Thus, the law of a man's domicile or origin is conclu-
sive as to his legitimacy in respect to personal status, but
such legitimacy is not conclusive in respect to his right
to inherit under the law of descent. A person may, in
respect to personal status, be legitimate though not born
ex justis nuptiis ; but in relation to the law of descent,
birth ex justis nuptiis is an indispensable requisite to
heirship.^
' See : ChaUis' Real Prop. 178. reddidit membra, ut si curvus
' See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 8a. fuerit aut gibbesus vel membra
' See : 1 ■ Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 7b, tortuosa habuerit, non tamen
39b (o) ; est partus monstrosus. Item
Bract., lib. 5, 437-438 ; puerorum alii sunt masculi, alii
Brit., ca. 66, 83 ; feeminse, alii hermaphroditse.
Fleta, hb. 1, c. 5 ; Id.,lib. 6, cap. Hermaphrodita tarn masoula
54. quam fasmiuee comparatur se-
Lord Coke says, 1 Co. Litt. (lOtli cundumprsevalescentiamsexCls
ed.) 39b: "If a wife be de- incalescentis."
livered of a monster, which * Bract.,Ub. 5, fol. 437, 438 ;
hath not the shape of man- Brit., ca. 66, fol. 167 ;
kinde, this is no issue in the Fleta, lib. 1, ca. 5.
law ; but although the issue ^ 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 7b.
has some deformity in any part " Every heir is either a male or
of his body, yet if he hath a female, or an hermaphrodite,
human shape this sufl&ceth. that is, both male or female.
Hi, qui contra formam humani And an hermaphrodite (wliich
generis converse more procre- is also called Androgyitus)
antur (ut si mulier monstro- shall be heir, either as male or
Slim vel prodigiosum fuerit female, according to the kind
enixa), inter liberos non com- of the sex which doth prevail,
putentur. Partus tamen cui HermajDhrodita, tarn masculo
natura ahquantulum ampli- quam faeminse compara-
verit vel diminuerit non tamen tur, secundum praavalescen-
superbundanter, ut si sex digi- tiam sexfts incalescentis." 1
tos vel nisi quatuor habuerit, Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 8a.
bene debet inter liberos com- ^ Re Don's Estate, 4 Drew 194 ;
memorari. Si inutilia natura 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 7b.
Chap. VIII. §§ 399-401.] SEISIN IN LAW. 359
Sec. 399. Descent at common law.— By the common law,
upon the death of a person entitled to an estate in fee-
simple, the lands necessarily descended to the person next
entitled as heir. The person from whom heirship was
deduced was not the person last entitled, but the person
who, under the title, had last had seisin in deed of the
lands. ^ Such person was accordingly, at the time of
descent cast, said to be the stock, or, more properly, the
root of descent. Actual seisin in deed ^ was absolutely
necessary to make any person the stock from which all
future inheritance by right of blood must be derived.^
Sec. 400. Same— Seisin in law.— Under the common-law
rule, seisin in law did not suffice to make the person so
seized the stock of descent.* It followed from this doctrine
that where the heir to whom the inheritance had been cast
died before acquiring the requisite seisin, the ancestor,
not himself, being the person last seized, was the root of
the stock. ^ There was an exception to this rule where
the ancestor acquired the estate by purchase, in which
case he was sometimes allowed to transmit the estate to
his heirs, notwithstanding the fact that he never had
actual seisin in deed of it himself.^
Sec. 401. Same— Same— Prevents abeyance of freehold.—
The existence of a seisin in law is sufficient to prevent
the seisin, or immediate freehold, from being vacant.
This is evident from the fact that the creation of succes-
sive estates necessarily contemplates the existence of a
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lib. person who last acquired the
^ See : Vanderheyden v. Crandall, land otherwise than by descent;
2 Den. (N. Y.) 9. whereby it has now become
' Chirac v. Reinecker, 37 XJ. S. ('3 superfluous to inquire who last
Pet.) 613, 625 ; bk. 7 L. ed. had seisin in deed of the land.
538, 613. By this change in the law, the
See : ' Jackson v. Hendricks, 3 importance of the distinction
John. Cas. (N. Y.) 214 ; between seisin in deed and
Doe V. Keen, 7 T. R. 386. seisin in law has been much
* 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lib. diminished, but it is not even
Eule suspended in England by now without some practical in-
Desoent Act.— This rule of de- terest, and the correct appre-
scent was suspended in Eng- hension of it is very necessary
land by the Descent Act, 3 & 4 in examining titles.
WUl. IV., c. 106, §2, which in- * Goodtitle v. Newman, 13 Wils.
dicates that in every case de- 516.
scent shall be traced from the « See : Shelley's Case, 1 Co. 98a.
purchaser, that is, from the
360 SEISIN IN DEED. [BOOK III.
seisin in law only, upon the determination of the par-
ticular estate in possession. If a seisin in law were insuf-
ficient to prevent an abeyance of the immediate freehold,
all creation of successive estates would, for that reason,
be void by the common law.^
Sec. 402. Same— Seisin in deed.— Seisin in deed is less
properly, though conveniently, styled actual seisin, and
denotes the seisin of the person having the immediate
freehold as distinguished from the remainderman and
reversioner, who are all said to be " in of the same
seisin." With regard to estates of freehold in corporeal
hereditaments, that is, in lands, seisin in deed is obtained
when the person entitled to possession by virtue of the
estate enters actually and corporeally into possession of
the land, either by himself or his agent. The possession
of a person's tenant for years, or from year to year, or at
will, is in law counted to be his possession ; and for that
reason, if at the time of the descent cast the lands are held
by a tenant for years, the heir acquires the seisin in deed
at once by the descent without entry. ^ The possession of
other persons having chattel interests only, such as a
tenant by elegit, a tenant by statute merchant, or a tenant
by statute staple, was, in contemplation of the common
law, the possession of the person entitled to the freehold
subject to such chattel interest, and was a sufficient
possession in him to convert his seisin in law into a seisin
in deed.^
Sec. 403. Same— Same— How acquired.— Seisin in law is
J ChaUis' Real Prop. 182. which ex vi termini no estate
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 15a; in possession is possible, and
Watk. Desc. 66. therefore no entry could be
' Watk. Desc. 64, 65. made, a seisin in deed, suffl-
Witi regard to incorporeal here- cient to make the person ob-
ditaments, which admit of es- taining it the root of the de-
tates in possession, such as a scent, might be obtained by
rent-charge, seisin in deed is exercising certain acts of
evidenced by, and consists in, ownership, such as by granting
the doing of some appropriate a lease for life to take effect out
act of ownership, such as re- of the remainder or reversion ;
ceiving the rent-charge. by receiving the rent, if any.
See : ChaUis' Real Prop. 181. reserved at the creation of th^
Witk regard to estates in re- precedent estate of freehold,
mainder or reversion, upon an and the like,
estate of freehold, which are See : Watk. Desc. 108.
incorporeal hereditaments in
CHAP; VIII. § 404.] DISTINCTION BETWEEN SEISINS. 361
converted into seisin in deed by making an actual entry,
or entry in deed, upon the land, such entry being expressed
to be made with that intent and in that behalf. Such
an entry made upon any part of the land will give seisin
in deed of all lands situated in the same county of which
the person making the entry has seisin in law. The
actual entry is made so soon as the person desiring to
make an entry has any part of his body upon the land,
and is complete and effectual even though he should
immediately afterwards be dragged off by force. ^ At
common law seisin in deed of incorporeal hereditaments,
such as a rent-charge, could be obtained only by
exercising some appropriate act of ownership, such as
receiving the rent ; and if, by reason of the death of the
heir before the rent became due, a seisin in deed could
not be obtained, this impossibility did not supply the want
of seisin in deed, and the heir failed to become the root of
descent.^
Sec. 404. Same— Distinction between seisin in law and in
fact.— Seisin in law is only a presumption of the law,
which is incompatible with, and is rebutted by, the fact
that the seisin in deed, or actual seisin, is, whether right-
fully or wrongfully, in somebody else. If the person
actually geized by lawful title is disseized by a disseis-
or, the person disseized has not a seisin in law, but only a
right to enter ; so that if, before the entry of the heir, a
stranger should wrongfully enter in fact upon the lands, ^
' Watk. Desc. 61. violence, he may make an
Entry indeed.— Watkins cites the entry in law by approaching as
case that has been so often near as he safely may, and there
made to do duty, when actual making his claim ; which
entry had been made by get- under such circumstances will
ting through the window : Et take effect as an actual entry.
pur ceo qu'il ne purra entrer Watk. Desc. 62.
per le huis, il entra per le fen- " If one dare not enter, but ap-
estre, et quant I'un moitie de proach and is disturbed, this is
son corps fuit deins la meason sufficient seisin." llAss.,pl.ll.
et I'autre de hors, il fuit treit Same.— Proof must be given that
hors ; per q. il poi-tcest assies, an entry in deed could not be
for which seisin in deed was safely made. Booth, Real Ac-
necessary, et fuit agarde q. le, tions, 285.
pi recovera. 8 Ass., pi. 25, f. ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 15b.
jYI, 3 Such a wrongful entry is techni-
Entry in law.— If the person en- cally styled an abatement, and
titled be hindered from making the stranger so entering an
an effectual entry by fear of abator.
362 ENTRY AND SEISIN. [Book III.
the heir no longer has a seisin in law, but only a right to
enter. And if, before the entry of the remainderman or
reversioner, a stranger should in like manner enter, ^ the
remainderman or reversioner no longer has a seisin in
law, but only a right to enter. The distinction between a
right of entry and a seisin in law is that the right to enter
implies ex vi termini that the actual seisin is wrongfully in
somebody else, while a seisin in law implies that there is
no actual seisin in anybody. But an actual entry, which
would suffice to turn a seisin in law into a seisin in deed,
is also sufficient to turn a right of entry into a seisin in
deed. But seisin in law suffices, at common law, to make
the estate assets in the hands of the heir to answer the
ancestor's bond specifying the heirs.^ Seisin in deed
during coverture is still necessary in order to entitle a
husband to curtesy in his wife's lands ; but seisin in law
during coverture was always sufficient to entitle the wife
to dower out of her husband's lands. ^ This distinction
was due to the fact that the husband had power at any
time during the coverture to turn his wife's seisin in law,
which was also his own seisin, into a seisin in deed by his
own sole act ; so that if he had lost his curtesy for want
of seisin. in deed, the loss would have been due to his
own laches. On the other hand, the wife, being disabled
at common law by her coverture, had no corresponding
power to convert her husband's seisin in law into seisin
in deed.*
Sec. 405. Same— When entry not necessary to convert seisin
inlaw into actual seisin.— Where lands are in the possession,
or rather the occupation, of a tenant for years, or from
year to year, entry is not necessary in order to convert a
seisin in law into a seisin in deed, or actual seisin. In
such a case, seisin in deed is ipso facto acquired by the
heir immediately upon the descent cast.** The same is
• Such an entry is technically styled 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 377a.
an intrusion, and the stranger lord Hardwioke's conftflion. — In
an intruder. De Grev v. Richardson, 3
= Watk. Desc. 55. Atk. 469, Lord Habdwicke
' See : Challis' Real Prop. 184, 379. seems, obiter, to have confused
" See : Challis' Real Prop. 184. the reversion upon a lease for
'■ Bushby-w. Dixon, 3 Barn. & C. 398; years v/ith the reversion upon
s.c. 10 Eng. C. L. 143 ; a lease for lives only, of which
Chap. VIII. §§ 406-408.] RULES OF DESCENT. 363
true in regard to the occupation of other persons having
chattel interests/ such as tenants by elegit, and the like.
Sec. 406. Common-la-w rules of descent.— Under the com-
mon law there are certain rules or canons of inher-
itance which have been established for ages, accord-
ing to which estates are transmitted from ancestor to
heir, in so clear and decided a manner as to preclude all
uncertainty as to the course which the descent is to take.'^
These English rules or canons of inheritance are of
feudal origin and growth, and most of their essential
features have been rejected in this country;^ yet a
knowledge of these rules or canons, and of their appli-
cation, is essential to a mastery of the law of real prop-
erty as it exists in this country to-day.
Sec. 407. Same— First rule.— By the common law the
descent of hereditaments is traced from the person who,
under the title in fee-simple, last obtained seisin in deed
thereof.* This rule is often summarized by the maxim,
seisina facit stipitem, seisin makes the root or stock ;^
and the person referred to is styled the stock of descent,
or, more properly, the root of descent.^
Sec. 408. Same — Same — Doctrine of possessio fratris.—
Under this rule of the common law, making seisin in
deed the root of descent, taken in connection with
another rule,^ which forbade collaterals of the half-blood
the latter needed receipt of rent c. 106, § 3.
in order to give seisin indeed. This rule and maxim, relics of the
See : Doe v. Whichelo, 8 T. R. tronWeaome times wlien riglit
311, 313; witiiout possession was worth
Doe V. Keen, 7 T. R. 386, 390. but little, sometimes gave
■ Watk. Deso. 65. occasion to difficulties, owmg
■' See : 3 Bl. Com. 208, et seq. ; to the uncertainty of the ques-
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 374. tion, whether possession had
•' See : Bogert v. Furman, 10 Paige or had not been taken by any
Ch. (N. Y.) 496 ; person entitled as lieir. Thus,
Sweezey v. WiUis, 1 Bradf. (N. where a man was entering a
y ) 495 ; house by a window, and when
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 335, 342. half out and half in, was puUed
■• 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lib. out again by the heels, it was
6 2 Bl Com. 309 ; made a question whetlier this
Broom Max. 537, 528 ; entry was sufficient, and it was
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 388, 389. adjudged that it was. Watk.
« This role is suspended by the De- Desc. 45 (4th ed.) 53.
scent Act, 3 and 4 Will. IV., ' See : Post, % 413.
36i POSSESSIO FEATRIS— DOWEE AND CUETESY. [Book III.
to inherit, it followed that, if a brother had taken as
heir by descent, and had acquired seisin in deed, his
sister, if any, of the whole-blood, on his death intestate
and without issue, would inherit as heir to him, to the
complete exclusion of his or her brothers, if any, of the
half-blood.^ This result of an actual seisin obtained by
the brother is often referred to as the doctrine of posses-
sio fratris, and was applied to the descent of all heredita-
ments, whether legal or equitable, of which seisin in
deed, or such a possession as in equity was equivalent
thereto, could be had.^
Sec. 409. Same— Same— Same— Effect on dower and curtesy.
— The seisin of a widow, to whom land had been assigned
as dower, by that express title, was a continuation of
the seisin of her deceased husband. The heir, therefore,
could not, by entry, obtain seisin in deed of such land, so
long as it remained in dower ; and even though he had
entered into the whole lands before assignment of dower,
yet the assignment, when made, would have defeated his
seisin acquired by the entry. For this reason there could
be no possessio fratris of land actually in dower, unless
the very unusual step had been taken, of granting an
estate for life, or in tail, to take effect out of the heir's
estate ; and under ordinary circumstances, the two-thirds
retained by the heir might, on his death, pass to his sister
of the whole-blood, while the one-third assigned as
dower, on the death of the dowress, passed to the younger
brother of the half-blood, as being the heir to the com-
mon father, the person who has last had seisin in deed of
that one-third.^ The acquisition of a seisin in deed, suf-
ficient to change the course of descent, by a remainder-
man or reversioner, was practically so rare, that some
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 14b. See : 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 281a.
' Watk. Deso. 106, 107. Descents in England being now
This doctrine was not favored, and traced from a specified root of
the claim of the brother to descent, the mere acquisition of
have obtained seisin in deed a possessio /raiSns cannot have
was weighed very rigorously. any practical influence upon
A seisin which was a good the course of descent. ChalUs'
foundation for a writ of right Real Prop. 187.
did not necessarily suffice to ' Watk. Desc. 84, 85.
support a possessio fratris.
Chap. VIII. §§ 410-413.] EULES OF DESCENT. 365
writers^ seem to imply that it did not happen at
all ; but the possibility of such an acquisition is ad-
mitted by all.^ In cases where a tenancy by the curtesy
existed, since the sole actual seisin was vested in the hus-
band immediately on the death of the wife, without any
interval or any need for entry, there was a similar
obstacle in the way of any possessio fratris during the
curtesy.^
Sec. 410. Same — Second rule.— By the common law,
hereditaments descended lineally to the issue of the root
of descent in infinitum, but they could never lineally
ascend.*
Sec. -ill. Same— Third rule.— At common law, for de-
fects of issue, hereditaments descended to the collateral
relations, being of the blood of the first purchaser.^
Sec. 412. Same— Fourth rule.— By tjie common law, the
collateral heir, in order to take by a descent, was required
to be the next collateral kinsman of the whole-blood.®
From this canon sprang the doctrine of possessio
fratris heretofore adverted to.^
Sec. 413. Same— Fifth rule.— According to the common
law, the male issue were admitted before the female.^
In this country, without exception, it is believed, all the
children, both male and female, inherit equally together,
subject in some of the states to the right of the eldest to
' Watk. Desc. 84, 85. = 3 Bl. Com. 220.
2 See : Watk. Desc. 108. " 2 BL Com. 234 ;
» "Watk. Desc. 104. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 14a.
* 3 Bl. Com. 208 ; ' See ; Ante, § 408.
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lib ; This canon was firmly established
Litt., § 3. in the reign of Edward II.
This rale of descent has also been 5 Bdw. II. , Mayn 148 ;
altered in England by the 2 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.)
Descent Act, 3 & 4 WiU. IV.. 317.
c. 106, § 3. See : Hawkins v. Shewen, 1 Sun.
In this country the rule is greatly & S. 357.
changed by local statutes, so as Relations of the half-Wood are ren-
te admit at least father and dered capable of inheriting by
mother as heirs in the event the Descent Act.
of the failure of Uneal descend- See 3 & 4 WiU. IV. , c. 106, § 9.
ants. ' 3 Bl. Com. 313, 213.
See; i Stimson's Statutes, pas- See : English Descent Act, 8 & 4
Sim.
Will. IV., c. 106, § 7.
366 RULES OF DESCENT. Book III.
the homestead, by paying to the others their respective
shares of its value. ^
Sec. 414. Same— Sixtli rule.— At common law, in col-
lateral inheritances, the male stock was preferred to the
female ; that is, kindred derived from the blood of the
male ancestors, however remote, were admitted before
those from the blood of the female, however near ; except
in those cases where the lands Were in fact descended from
the female.^ Under this rule the relations of the father's
side were admitted in infinitum, before those of the
mother's side were admitted at all.^
Sec. 415. Same— Seventh rule.— By the common law the
lineal descendants, in infinitum, of any person deceased,
shall represent their ancestor, and thus stand in the same
place as the person himself would have done had he been
living.* This rule is not universally adopted in this
country, but in many of the states descendants take per
stirpes only, when they stand in different degrees of
relationship to the common ancestor.^
Sec. 416. Same— Eighth rule.— At common law, where
there were two or more males in equal degree, the eldest
son inherited, but the females altogether.® This canon
of descent fixed firmly the doctrine of primogeniture, or
the descent of the land to the eldest son. It is said that,
with the introduction of tenures, primogeniture began to
prevail ; yet it is found that, as late as the reign of
Henry I.,'^ the right of primogeniture was so feeble, that,
if there was more than one son, the succession was
divided, and the eldest son took only the primum patris
' See : Stimson's Stats., •passim. 2 Bl. Com. 317 ;
' 2- Bl. Com. 234. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 391, 392.
' Qere v. Brook, 2 Plow. 443. • See : Davis v. Stinson, 53 Me.
' 2 Bl. Com. 316. 493 ;
TaKng per stirpes and per capita. — Kelly v. KeUy, 5 Lans. (N. Y.)
This canon of descent gave 443.
rise to the succession per = 1 Cooley's Bl. Com. 454, note 8.
oes, or according to the * 2 Bl. Com. 314.
roots, in distinction from the Daughters take the inheritance as
taking per capita, that is, coparceners under this rule, and
where each takes in his own are said to make but one heir,
degree of the ancestor in his Burt. Real Prop., §316.
own direct right. ' Leges, 17.
Chap. VIII. §§ 417, 418.] ORIGIN OF PRIMOGENITURE. 367
fcedum,^ the rest of the property being left to descend to
the younger son or sons. This custom, however, soon
went out of use, or was altered by some statute now lost.
In the reign of Henry II. the eldest son was considered as
sole heir ; and so fixed was his right of succession to the
inheritance held by his ancestors that it could not be
disappointed by alienation.^
Sec. 417. Sams— Same— Feudal origin of primogeniture.—
While the feudal origin of primogeniture is undisputed,
it appears to have taken a deeper root in England
than elsewhere ; the total exclusion of the younger sons
under this doctrine being peculiar in England alone.
In the other countries' that come under feudal laws and
customs a portion of the inheritance, or some charge
upon it, was secured by law to the younger sons.^
From this ancient right arose the modern English custom
of settling family estates on the eldest son. The doctrine
of primogeniture, and the practice of settling family
estates on the eldest son, never were recognized in this
country.
Sec. 418. Rules of descent in the United States.— The
English rules and canons of inheritance, being of feudal
origin and growth, and adapted to the peculiar institu-
tions of that country, are not adapted to the wants of this
country, and have been almost universally rejected by
the various states of the Union. In this country * and
I Hale's Hist. Com. L. 255.
Si See : 1 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d
ed.) 40, 41.
3 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 191a, note 1.
* See : Augusta Ins. Co. v. Morton,
3 La. An. 417, 418 ;
Harper v. Hampton, 1 Har. & J.
(Md.) 633, 687 ;
Blake v. Williams, 23 Mass. (6
Pick.) 386; s.c. 17 Am. Dec.
873;
Cutter ■;;. Davenport, 18 Mass.
(1 Pick.) 81, 86 ; s.c. 11 Am.
Dec, 149 ;
Goodwin v. Jones, 3 Mass. 514,
518 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 173 ;
Andrews v. Herriot, 4 Cow.
(N. Y.) 508, 527, note ;
Holmes v. Bemsen, 4 John. Ch.
(N. y.) 460 ; s.c. 30 Johns. (N.
Y.) 254 ;
Chapman v. Robertson, 6 Paige
Ch. (N. Y.) 637 ; s.c. 31 Am.
Dec. 264 ;
Hosford V. Nichols, 1 Paige. Ch.
(N. Y.) 220 ;
Wills V. Cowper, 2 Ohio 124 ;
Milne a. Moreton, 6 Binn. (Pa.)
853 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 466 ;
Christian Union v. Yount, 101
U. S. 853 ; 35 L. ed. 888 ;
Oakey v. Bennett, 53 U. S. (11
How.) 83 ; bk. 13 L. ed. 593 ;
Darby's Lessee v. Mayer, 23 U.
S. (10 Wheat.)465 ; bk. 6 L. ed.
367;
McCormick v. Sullivant, 28 U. S.
(10 Wheat.) 193; bk. 6 L. ed. 300;
368
DESCENT IN UNITED STATES.
[Book III.
England,^ as well as on the continent of Europe,^ all real
and personal property is exclusively subject to the laws of
the government or state within whose territory the land
is situated ; and a title thereto can be acquired and lost
and devise thereof made only in the manner prescribed by
the law of the place where the land is situated.^ The
Kerr v. Moon's Devisees, 33 U. S.
(9 Wheat.) 565, 566 ; bk. 6 L.
ed. 161 ;
Clark V. Graham, 19 U. S. (6
Wheat.) 577 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 344 ;
United States v. Crosby, 11 U. S.
(7 Cr.) 115 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 387.
' Birtwhistle v. Vardill, 5 Bam. &
C. 438 ; s.c. 9 Bligh 33-88 ; 11
Eng. C. L. 531 ;
Phillips V. Hunter, 3 H. Bl.
402 ; s.c. 2 Rev. Rep. 358 ;
SiU V. Worswiok, 1 H. Bl. 665 ;
s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 816 ;
EUiott V. Minto, 6 Madd. 16 ;
Cookerell v. Dickens, 3 Moore P.
C. 98, 131, 133 ;
Coppin V. Coppin, 3 Pr. Wms.
390, 398 ;
Selkrig v. Davies, 3 Rose 97 ; s.c.
3 Dow. 330;
Hunter v. Potts, 4 T. R. 183 ; s.c.
suh nom. Phillips v. Hunter, 3
H. Bl. 403 ; 3 Rev. Rep. 358 ;
Curtis V. Hutton, 14 Ves. 537,
541;
Brodie v. Barry, 3 Ves. & B. 130;
TuUoch V. Hartley, 1 Younge &
C. (N. R.) 114.
* See : 3 Burge, Comm. on Col. &
For. Law, pt. 3, c. 9, pp. 840-
870;
4 lb., pt. 3, 0. 4, § 5, p. 150;
Ib.,c. 5, n. 11, pp. 71,317;
lb., c. 13, p. 576 ;
FoeUx, Conflict des Lois, Revue,
Estrang. et Franc, torn. I., §8
37-37, pp. 316-350, 307-313 (ed.
1740) ;
Vattel, b. 3, c. 8, §§ 100, 108 ;
Pothier, Coutume d'Orleans, c. 1,
§§ 23-24 ;
Id., c. 3, n. 51 ;
Hertii Opera, torn. I. de CoUis.
Leg., § 4, n. 9, p. 135 (ed. 1737);
Bouthier, Cout. deBourg., c. 23,
§§ 36-63 ;
Le Burn, de la Commimaute, lib.
I., o. 5, pp. 9, 10 ;
D'Agnesseau, CEuvres, torn. IV.,
p. 660 (4to ed.) ;
Cochin CEuvres, torn. I., p. 545
(4toed.);
1 Froland, Mem. , c. 4, p. 49 ;
Id., c. 7, p. 155 ;
Liverm. Dissert., §§ 9-162, pp. 28-
106;
Ersk. Inst., b. 3, tit. 3, § 40, p.
515 •
3 Bell Com. (4th ed.), 8 1366, p.
690;
Henry on Foreign Law, 13, 14.
15; Id., Appx. 169.
' See ; Lingen v. Lingen, 45 Ala.
410, 413 ;
Potter V. Titcomb, 33 Me. 300 ;
White V. Howard, 46 N. Y. 144 ;
Gettings v. Eastman, 1 Clarke
Ch. (N. Y.) 19 ;
Abell V. Douglass, 4 Den. (N. Y.)
805:
MiUs V. Fogal, 4Edw. Ch. (N. Y.)
559;
Ex parte Perkins, 3 Johns. Ch.
(N. Y.) 124 ;
Halley v. James, 7 Paige Ch. (N.
Y.) 213 ;
Chapman v. Robertson, 6 Paige
Ch. (N. Y.) 637, 630 ; s.c. 81 Am.
Dec. 264 ;
Monroe v. Douglas, 4 Sandf . Ch.
(N. Y.) 126 ; s.c. 5 N. Y. 447 ;
Pittsburg & St. Line R. Co. v.
RothschUd (Pa.), 4 Atl. Rep.
385 ; s.c. 4 Cent. Rep. 107, 109 ;
Jeter v. FeUowes, 33 Pa. St. 465 ;
Donaldson v. Phillips, 18 Pa. St.
170 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 614 ;
White V. Howard, 46 N. Y. 444 ;
Watkins v. Holman's Lessee, 41
U. S. (16 Pet.) 25 ; bk. 10 L. ed.
873;
Watts V. Waddle, 31 U. S. (6 Pet.)
889 ; bk. 8 L. ed. 487 ;
Darby's Lessee v. Mayer, 33 U.
S. (10 Wheat.) 465 ; bk. 6 L.
ed. 367 ;
McCormick v. SuUivant, 38 U. S.
(10 Wheat.) 193 ; bk. 6 L. ed.
300;
Kerr v. Moon's Devisees, 33 U. S.
(9 Wheat.) 365 ; bk. 6 L. ed.l61;
Clark V. Graham, 19 U. S. (6
Wheat.) 577 ; bk. 5 L. ed. 834 ;
United States v. Crosby, 11 U. S.
(7 Cr.) 115 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 387 ;
Chap. VIII. § 418.] STATUTES REGULATING DESCENT.
369
various states have passed statutes regulating the descent
of real property and formulated their own rules of inherit-
ance, which, while they differ materially as to details,
are in the main the converse of those which ohtain in
England. These rules will be fully set forth in a suc-
ceeding chapter, when we come to treat of Title by
Descent.^
Root V. Brotherson, 4 McL. C. C.
230;
Perry Mfg Co. v. Brown, 2
Woodb. & M. C. C. 450 ;
Birtwhistle v. VardOl, 5 Barn. &
C. 438 ; S.C. 9 Bligh 33-88 ; 11
24
Eng. Com. L. 531 ;
EUiott V. Minto, 6 Madd. 16 ;
Curtis V. Hutton, 14 Ves. 537,
541.
' See : Post, Book V., chapter on
"Descent."
CHAPTER IX.
DETERMINABLE FEES.
Sec. 419. Definition of determinable fee.
Sec. 430. Distinguished from fee-simple.
Sec. 421, Mode of limitation.
Sec. 423. Limitations creating a determinable fee.
Sec. 433. Kinds of determinable fees.
Sec. 434. Same — Direct limitation.
Sec. 435. Same — Collateral limitation.
Sec. 43Q. Converted into a fee-simple how.
Sec. 437. Determinable limitations and limitations upon condition —
Distinction between.
Sec. 488. Alienation and devise of.
Sec. 439. "Waste an incident of such estates.
Section 419. Deflnitionof determinable fee.— The phrase
"determinable fee " is a generic term embracing all fees
which are liable to be determined by som.e act or event
specified in a qualification subjoined to their creation, or
inferred by law as bounding their extent, but which may
continue forever.^ It is said in an early case that a de-
terminable fee is " such perpetuity of an estate which
may continue forever, though at the same time there is
a contingency which, when it happens, will determine
the estate, which contingency cannot properly be called
an addition but a limitation ; " ^ but this is rather a de-
> Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ohio & M. Car v. EUison, 8 Atk. 74 ;
• E. Co., 94 111. 93 ; Seymor's Case, 10 Co. 97 ;
People V. White, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) Davies v. Warner, Cro. Jac. 598 ;
28 ; Spencer v. Chase, 9 Mod. 39 :
Lott V. WyckofiE, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) Walsmgham's Case, 1 Plowd.
575 ; 557 ;
Union Canal Co. v. Young, 1 3 Bl. Com. 109 ;
Whart. (Pa.) 437 ; Fearne Cont. Rem. 187 ;
McLean v. Borce, 85 Wis. 36 ; 1 Brest. Est. 431, 466 ;
United States u. Reese, 5 Dill. C. Shep. Touch. 97 ;
C. 411 ; 10 Viner's Abr. 183.
Letheullier v. Tracey, Ambl. 304; ^ Walsingham's Case, 1 Plowd. 557.
Chap. IX. §§ 420, 421.] LIMITING DETERMINABLE FEE. 371
scription of what is now known as a conditional limita:
tion.^
Sec. 420. Distinguished from fee-simple.— These modified
fees differ from a fee-simple in their limitation, which is
to the grantee and his heirs, not simply, but subject to
some qualification of a kind permitted by the law, which
gives to the inheritance a more restricted character. In
the case of base fees, the restriction is implied in the cir-
cumstances of their origin ; but in the case of other
modified fees, it is expressed in their limitation. Such
lawful qualification may be of three kinds, to wit :
1. Succession of the heirs, instead of enduring forever,
liable to be cut short by the happening of a future
event, which limitation gives rise to a determinable fee ;
2. The heirs to whom the inheritance can descend may
be restricted to the heirs of the body of a specified person
or persons, which limitation gives rise to a conditional
fee at common law, and to a fee-tail under the statute De
Donis ; and
3. The heirs to whom the inheritance can descend may
be restricted to a particular class, where the class is to
be taken in a peculiar sense, which limitation gives rise
to a peculiar estate sometimes styled a qualified fee-
simple.
Sec. 421. Mode of limitation.— In the limitation of a de-
terminable fee, the limitation is expressed to be made to
the grantee and his heirs until the happening of some
future event, which must be of such a character that it
may by possibility never happen at all. For it is an
essential character of all fees of this kind, that they may
by possibility endure forever. ^ A limitation to a grantee
and his heirs until the happening of some event, which
must in the nature of things happen sooner or later,
passes no fee. If the happening of the event, though
certain, is not fixed in point of time,— that is, if it de-
pends upon the dropping of a life or lives, — the limitation
' See ■ Battle Square Church v. 146, 147 ; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 725,
Grant, 69 Mass. (3 Gray) 142, 727, 728.
' n Brest. Est. 479.
372 CREATING DETERMINABLE TTEE. [Book IH.
will give rise to an estate par autre vie.''- If the happen-
ing of the event is fixed in point of time, the limitation
gives rise to a term of years, which, notwithstanding
the naming of the heir, passes to the executor on the
death of the tenant.^ A limitation to a grantee and his
heirs, at the will of the grantor, passes only a tenancy at
will.3
Sec. 422. Limitations creating a determinable fee.— Limit-
ations creating a determinable fee are partly limitations
at common law, and partly limitations by the way of
use and by way of devise. But in all limitations con-
tained in a deed, however they may take effect, the
words ' ' and his heirs, " and also in a valid clause operating
by way of determinable or collateral limitation, have, so
far as respects the duration of the estate limited, the
same operation ; and this is true also of devises which
contain words of strict limitation. Devises with the
following limitations have been held to be determinable
fees, to wit : As long as a certain tree shall grow ; * as
long as a certain tree stands ; ^ as long as the Church of
St. Paul shall stand ; ® as long as the devisee shall pay a
stipulated sum annually to a designated party ; '' as long
as a designated person has heirs of his body ; ^ until the
marriage of a designated person shall take place ; ^ until
a designated person returns from Rome ; ^* until the
grantee go to Eome," or until he be promoted to a
benefice ; ^ until such time as the grantee, his heirs, ex-
ecutors, or administrators, make default in payment of
any of certain stipulated sums ; ^^ until the grantee pay to
' See : Post, chapter XVI., " Estates Davis v. Warner, Cro. Jac. 593 ;
Par Autre Vie." 1 Co. Ktt. (19th ed.) 18a ;
- 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 388a. 10 Vin. Abr. 223.
■" 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 62b. « 1 Prest. Est. 482, 442.
See :POsf, chapter XII., "Estates Marriage that of grantae. — It is not
at Will." necessary that the marriage
^ Bowles' Case, 11 Co. 79a. should be the marriage of the
" Idle V. Cook, 1 Pr. Wms. 70, 75 ; grantee himself.
s.c. 2 Ld. Raym. 1144, 1148 ; See : Howard v. Norfolk, 2
Shep. Touch. 101. Swanst. 454, 461.
" Walsingham's Case, 1 Plowd. 557. '» Feame Cont. Rem. 13.
' M- See : Duke of Norfolk's Case, 3
« Idle V. Cook, 1 Pr. Wms. 70 ; s.c. Ch. Cas. 1, 46.
2 Ld. Raym. 1144; " Shep. Touch. 125.
Walsingham's Case, 1 Plowd. 557; '^ Id.
Seymor's Case, 10 Co. 97b ; 's Anonymous, 1 Leon. 83.
Ghap. IX. § 424.] KINDS OF DETERMINABLE FEES. 373
the grantor a specified sum of money ; ^ for, during, and
till any son that the feoffor shall beget of the body of his
said wife shall accomplish the age of twenty-one years.^
So also is a conveyance conditioned that the grantees or
the survivor of them, or the heirs of the survivor or
survivors, should, out of the lands by the rents, issues,
and profits, or by the sale of the whole or so much as
should be necessary, raise so much as should be sufficient
for the payment of debts, legacies, funeral expenses, and
then the property to become theirs ; ^ in trust to pay to a
designated person a specified sum until his debts and
legacies were paid ; * in trust till the rents and profits of
the lands shall raise and pay the several legacies and
bequests mentioned in the testator's will ; ^ to the use of
certain persons until they make a good and sufficient
lease of the lands by indenture for a term of forty
years,® and the like.
Sec. 423. Kinds of determinable fees.— This kind of limit-
ation, where words of an express limitation are used to
mark out an estate, which is, by subsequent words, —
being part of the limitation itself, — made liable to deter-
mination upon the happening of a wholly disconnected
future event, may conveniently be styled a determinable
limitation.^ These limitations are of two kinds, ^ to wit :
1. Direct limitations, and
2. Collateral limitations.
Sec. 424. Same— Direct limitation.— A direct limitation
marks the duration of an estate by the life of a person, by
the continuance of heirs, by a space of precise and
measured time ; making the death of the person in the
«
' Shep. Touch. 135. " Bagshasv v. Spencer, 1 Ves. 142,
See : Portington's Case, 10 Co. 144.
41b ; ^ Wellington v. Wellington, 1 W.
Thomson v. Mackworth, Carter Bl. 645, 647.
75 . See : Murthwaite v. Jenkinson. 2
Burg'esv. Curwin, 2Vern. 576 ; Barn. & 0. 359 ; s.c. 9 Eng. C.
3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 248a. L. 162.
' Cocket V. Sheldon, F. Moore 15. ^ Shields v. Atkins, 3 Atk. 560.
See : LetheuUier v. Tracy, 3 Atk. « Lusher v. Banbong, Dyer 290a.
774: s.c. Ambl. 204 ; ' Preston sometimes uses the phrase
Spencer v. Chase, 10 Vin. Abr. " collateral limitation " in this
203 ; S.C. 9 Mod. 38. sense.
8 ChaUis' Real Prop. 198.
374 COLLATERAL LIMITATION. [BOOK III.
first case, the continuance of heirs in the second, and the
length of the given space in the third, the boundary of
the estate, or the period of its duration.^
Sec. 425. Same— Collateral limitatioii.— A collateral limit-
ationj at the same time that it gives an interest which
may by possibility have continuance for one of the times
marked out in a direct limitation, may, on the happening
of some event which it describes, put an end to the right
of enlargement during the continuance of that time.^ A
determinable or collateral limitation is not confined to a
limitation of determinable fees. Any estate including
an estate for life, and a term of years, may be made
liable to determine in like manner. In the latter case,
the future event which is to determine the estate is not
necessarily an event which by possibility may never
happen at all ; which rule, as to fees, arises only from the
necessity that the collateral clause shall not be simply
incompatible with the direct laws, but shall admit by
possibility of the endurance of the estate limited in the
direct clause to its full extent. When such a collateral
is annexed to the limitation of any other fee than a fee-
simple, as, for ihstance, to a fee-tail, it is, of course,
equally necessary that the determining event may be
such as by possibility may never happen.^
Sec. 426. Converted into a fee-simple how. — Determiijable
fees may be divided into two classes, according as the
future event which may determine them, being (1) an
event which admits of becoming impossible to happen, such
as a limitation upon the marriage of a designated person,
which becomes impossible by his death ; or (2) an event
which must forever, if it does not actually happen,
remain liable to happen, such as the death of a designated
tree or the fall of a particular building. In the former
case, if the designated party is not married before the
death, the determinable fee is by such death ipso facto
1 See : Challis' Real Prop. 198. See : 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 234b ;
°- 1 Frest. Est. 43. Also : Willion v. Berkley, 1
' Littleton styles such limitations Plowd. 343.
" conditions in law."
Chap. IX. § 427.] DISTINCTIONS IN LIMITED FEES. 375
enlarged into a fee-simple. In the latter case the deter-
minable fee can never be enlarged into a fee-simple,
except by rules of the possibility of reverter. ^ The future
event can admit of becoming impossible to happen, only
when it is something to be done or suffered by a living
person. In such case the event, if it happen at all, must
happen within the time prescribed by the rule against
perpetuities. Therefore determinable fees of this type
admit of executory limitations to take effect upon their
determination. If any such executory limitation should
exist, the determinable fee cannot, pending the possibility
of its determination, be enlarged into a fee-simple with-
out a release of such executory limitation.^
Sec. 42'r. Determinable limitations and lim.itations upon
condition— Distinction between.— When the future event
which, if it should happen, will determine the estate, — as
an act to be done by the grantee, or depending upon the will
of the grantee, as his marriage, — the doing of the act
under such circumstances bears a close resemblance to a
breach of a condition that the grantee shall not do the act.
These cases of determinable limitation are therefore liable
to be confused with limitations upon or subject to a con-
dition, giving a right of entry upon a breach by the
grantee ; from which they nevertheless differ very widely,
in the following particulars :
1. Where the limitation of a determinable fee is the
doing by the grantee of the act which is to determine
the estate, is made a part of the limitation itself, the
doing of the act will, ipso facto, determine the estate,
without any entry or claim on the part of the person
entitled to the possibility of reverter ; ^ but where an
estate is limited in fee-simple, and the limitation con-
tains no qualification, but, externally to the limitation,
though in the same deed, or in another deed delivered at
the same time, is contained a condition by a breach of
which the fee-simple is liable to be defeated, a breach
does not, ipso facto, avoid the estate, but only renders
1 Challis' Real Prop. 301. » WiUion v. Berkley, 1 Plowd. 343.
'■ 1 Prest. Est. 443, 444.
376 DETERMINABLE FEES— DEVISE AND WASTE. [Book III.
it liable to be avoided by the entry of the person entitled
to a possibility of reverter. No estate of freehold can be
made to cease, without entry, ^pon the breach of a con-
dition.^
2. The conditions which are annexed to or are in
defeasance of a fee-simple are subject to the common
law, and are governed by the learning of common-
law conditions ; because the statutes by which common-
law learning applicable to conditions annexed to estates
has been modified, are restricted to conditions annexed
to estates which are less than a fee.^ It being true that
the rule against perpetuities forms no part of the common
law, it is thought that the contention of some, that such
conditions are within the rule, is not well founded.
Sec. 428. Alienation and devise of.— The power of the
tenant of a determinable fee to alienate or devise it
cannot, properly speaking, be said to be in any way
restricted ; but his alienation will not create a greater
estate than he himself has. He may alien at pleasure,
and the assignee or devisee takes a like estate of inherit-
ance, determinable upon the happening of the event
which would have determined the estate in the hands of
the grantee or donee, or his heirs. ^
Sec. 429. Waste an incident of such estates.— All life
fees confer upon the tenant thereof the same absolute
right of user, and the same right to commit unrestrained
and unlimited waste, as a fee-simple.*
1 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 314b. » See : Challis' Real Prop. 307.
» See : Stats. 33 Hen. VIII., c. 34, * Id.
§1; 23&33Vict.,c. 35, § 8.
CHAPTEE X.
CONDITIONAL FEES.
Sec. 430. Introductory.
Sec. 431. Definition of conditional fee.
Sec. 433. Early history of conditional fees.
Sec. 483. Mode of limitation of conditional fees.
Sec. 434. Nature of heirs special.
Sec. 435. Statute De Bonis.
Sec. 436. In what sense limitation conditional.
Sec. 437. Descent of conditional fees.
Sec. 438. Executory devise after fee conditional.
Section 430. introductory.— The law relating to condi-
tional fees, which can now subsist even in England only in
hereditaments other than in tenements, and, by analogy,
in copyholds of manors in which there is no custom of
entail, is a very obscure subject of research. The most
eminent authorities are sometimes at variance, and the
living tradition of modern practice is almost entirely
wanting. Of the questions which have been raised,
some, even before the statute De Donis, were probably
matters of more curiosity than practical importance ;
and others rather illustrate the difficulty of reconciling
the rules governing these estates with general principles,
than throw any doubt on the rules themselves.^
Sec. 431. Definition of conditional fee.— At common law,
a conditional fee may be defined in limine as a species of
estate limited upon or subject to a condition ; that is, an
estate defeasible upon the breach of, or enlarged upon
performance of, a stipulated condition. This definition,
however, is subject to the observation that the rules gov-
■ See : Bract. 17, et sea.; 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.)
337.
377
378 CONDinOXAL FEES— HISTORY OF. [Book m.
erning these fees rest upon a special basis of their own,
and are not in accordance with the general rule applicable
to estates upon condition.^
Sec. 432. Eaxly history of conditional fees.— Estates of
this kind were called conditional fees, from the condition
expressed or imphed in the condition that if the donee
died without fulfiUing the condition, the land should
revert to the owner. Such fees were strictly agreeable
to the nature of feuds when they ceased to be estates for
life and had not yet become absolute estates in fee-
simple. These estates were usually created by hmiting
the inheritance to particular heirs, exclusive of others ;
as to the heirs of the donee's or grantee's body, and the
lite. Under such limitation, as soon as the grantee had
issue born his estate was supposed to become absolute,
and the grantee could alien it. The practice early sprang
up of aliening the conditional fees as soon as issue was
born and afterwards repurchasing the lands, which gave
a fee-simple absolute that would descend to the heirs in
general, according to the course of the common law.
The courts favored this subtle finesse of construction,
and the nobility, to perpetuate possession in their own
families, and fetter such alienations, procured the pas-
sage of the statute De Donis ConditionaHbvs,^ which
revived some of the feudal restraints placed upon aliena-
tions, and enacted that from thenceforth the " will of the
donor be observed, and that the tenements so given (to a
man and the heirs of his body) should, at all events, go
to the issue, if there were any, or, if none, should revert
to the donor."' Under this statute it was held that the
donor was invested with ultimate fee-simple of the land
expectant on the failure of issue, and the grantee became
tenant in fee-taU, without the power of alienation upon
the birth of specified heirs, who inherited the estate.^
Sec. 433. Modeoflimitationof conditional fees.— The con-
ditions admissible for the purpose of creating a condi-
' See : Anderson's L. Diet. 451. s.c. 14 N. W. Rep. 90 ;
= Stat. 13 Edw., c. 1. 2B1. Com. 110-113.
2 See : Pierson v. Lane, 60 Iowa 60; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 11-15.
Chap. X. § 434.] HEIES SPECIAL— NATURE OF. 379
tional fee are restricted to a single type, which always
takes the form of a limitation expressed to be to the heirs
of the body of the donee or donees, either generally or to
a special class of such heirs. The word heirs limits a
fee, or estate of inheritance, while the imposed restric-
tion prevents the fee from, being a fee-simple in the
proper sense of the term. The different forms assumed
by this kind of limitation are as follows : (1) To the heirs
of the body ; (2) to the heirs male of the body ; (3) to the
heirs female of the body ; (■±) to the heirs of the body of
the donee by a particular spouse ; ^ (5) to the heirs male of
the body of the donee by a particular spouse ; (6) to the
heirs female of the body of the donee by a particular
spouse ; (7) to the heirs of the bodies of two persons law-
fully married, or by possibility capable of lawful mar-
riage, the two persons being both named as donees in the
gift ; (8) the heirs male of the bodies of two such per-
sons ; and (9) the heirs female of the bodies of two such
persons.^
Sec. 434. Nature of heirs special.— Special heirs men-
tioned in a limitation creating a conditional fee import
not only that the heir must be a male or female, accord-
ing to the class specified, but also that he must be able to
deduce his descent solely through the specified class.
Thus it is said by Littleton that " if lands be given to a
man and his heirs males of his body, and he hath issue a
daughter, who hath issue a son, and dieth, and after the
donee dieth ; in this case the son of the daughter shall
not inherit by the force of the entail ; because whoever
shall inherit by the force of a gift in tail made to the
heirs males, ought to convey his descent whole by the
heirs males." ^ In similar restriction to a single sex, if
attempted in a deed or feoffment to be imposed upon the
heirs, as by the limitation to the heirs male, is void, and
the grantee takes a fee-simple.* This construction
' The particular person designated ' See : Challis' Real Prop. 210.
as such spouse need not neces- ''Litt.,S24. „j % os„
sarily be married to the donee See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 35a.
at the time of the gift, but *Litt., §31.
must by possibility be capable See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 27a.
of such marriage.
3S0 STATUTE DE DONIS. [Book III.
is arrived at by rejecting the word male upon the prin-
ciple ut res magis valeat quam. pereat, it may rather
have effect than be destroyed.^ Upon the same principle,
if gavelkind lands be limited to a man and his eldest
heirs, or if common-law lands be limited in a deed, or on
a feoffment, to the person and the eldest heirs female of
his body, the word eldest will be rejected to give effect
to the limitation. In a will, however, a limitation to
such person and his heirs male will, at common law,
create an estate-tail male ; the words ' ' of his body "
being supplied by construction of law.^
Sec. 435. statute De Bonis.— We have before seen that
the principles of the common law have been adopted in this
country only so far as they are applicable to the habits
and conditions of our society, and are in harmony with
the genius, spirit, and objects of our institutions.^ The
direct object of the statute De Bonis was to place re-
straints upon alienation and create perpetuities for the
purpose of maintaining a landed aristocracy.* Such a
purpose is entirely foreign to the genius and policy of
our institutions. The general policy of this country does
not encourage restraints upon the power of alienation of
land.^ For this reason the statute Z>e Bonis is not appli-
cable to the habits and condition of our society, nor in
harmony with the spirit and genius of our institutions,
and consequently is not in force as a part of the common
law of this country.^
Sec. 436. in what sense limitation conditional.— The re-
stricted nature of this limitation was, at a period so early
as to be almost beyond the reach of history, construed
by the courts as being in the nature of a condition, '^ and
the limitation as being therefore in the nature of a limit-
ation upon condition. And the courts seem to have re-
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 37a, 37b. 14 N. W. Rep. 90-93.
See : Kerr's Adjudicated Words * 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.)
and Phrases and Applied Max- 337.
ims, § . "4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 17.
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 37a. Pierson v. Lane, 60 lows. 60 ; s.o.
See : Baker v. WaU, 1 Ld. Raym. 14 N. W. Rep. 90.
185. ' See : 4 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d
' Pierson v. Lane, 60 lovra 60 ; s.o. ed.) 510, et seq.
Chap. X. § 437.] DESCENT OF CONDITIONAL FEES. 381
garded the condition as to some extent uniting in itself
contradictory characteristics ; being partly in the nature
of a condition which, by its performance, would confirm,
or enlarge, the estate; and partly in the nature of a con-
dition always remaining liable, by a breach, to defeat the
estate.^ For as soon as an heir of the designated class
was born, post prolem suscitatam, this was held to be for
some purposes a performance of the condition, and for
some purposes to enlarge the conditional fee into a fee-
simple. Thus it was held to enable the donee (1) to alien
the lands as an estate of fee-simple absolute ; (2) to forfeit
the estate, including under that word escheat by attainder
of felony besides forfeiture for treason ; (3) to charge the
estate with incumbrances, which were as indefeasible as
if created by a tenant in fee-simple ; ^ and, (4) in the case
of a gift either to a donee and his or her issue by a par-
ticular wife or husband, or to two donees and their joint
issue, birth of the prescribed issue had the effect of enlarg-
ing the possible course of descent, so as to make it include
issue of the donee, or of the survivor of two donees, by
another wife or husband. If the donee of the conditional
fee aliened before such issue was born, his alienation
would bar his own issue, if born afterwards, giving the
ahenee an estate which endured so long as such issue
should exist ; but such alienation would not bar the
donor of his possibility of reverter on failure of such
Sec. 437. Descent of conditional fees.— The fulfillment of
the condition specified in the limitation, by having issue
of the prescribed class, was not an absolute fulfillment
once and for all ; the estate was not thereby converted
into a fee-simple for all purposes, and the condition for
some purposes still remained on foot ; for if the donee
after birth of the prescribed heir did not alien, but suf-
fered the estate to descend, it followed the prescribed
course of descent, and none but heirs of the prescribed
class could take ; and these would take to the exclusion
of the heir general, in case such heir happened not to be
' Chains' Real Prop. 210, 311. » 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 19a.
■ 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 19a.
382 EXECUTORY DEVISE— FEE CONDITIONAL. [Book III.
of the prescribed class. ^ That is to say, the special heir,
per formam doni, is not necessarily identical with the
heir general. This proposition involves an anomaly,
seeing that by this means the course of descent by com-
mon law could be diverted into a different channel. For
example, if a man should die leaving two sons, and after-
wards the elder son should die leaving only a daughter,
in this case the daughter is the heir general of the first-
mentioned person ; but the heir male is the younger son,
and after his death his male issue. Under a limitation
to the first-mentioned person and the heirs of his body,
the younger son and his male issue would inherit, to the
exclusion of the heir general. Similarly, if a man should
die leaving a son and a daughter, the son, whether older
or younger than the daughter, is the heir general ; but,
under a limitation to the first-mentioned person and the
heirs female of his body, the daughter, whether older or
younger than the son, would inherit ; in this case also
to the exclusion of the heir general. This doctrine of
descent probably admits of no dispute in regard to con-
ditional fees ; and it undoubtedly admits of no dispute so
far as fees- tail are concerned.^ The heir of the prescribed
class, coming in by descent, had, whether he had issue
or not, exactly the same power or capacity to alienate,
forfeit, and charge the estate, as the original donee had
after birth of the prescribed issue. If the succession of
'the special heirs came to an end without any alienation
having been made, the donor's possibility of reverter
became an interest in possession.
Sec. 438. Executory devise after fee oonditional.— This
species of estate, though still popular in England, never
found favor in this country. It is now rarely met with
in practice, and the learning on the subject is largely
archaic. The local statutes of the various states of the
Union have replaced largely, if not entirely, the common-
law classes of estates. The prevailing estate is a fee-
simple, and the most common estate upon condition is the
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 19a ; and See ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 24ar-
Hars. note 4. 26a.
2 Litt., §§31-25.
Chap. X. § 438.] STATE DECISIONS. 383
one created by mortgage. In some states, however, con-
ditional fees formerly prevailed to a large extent, and a
body of decision sprang up. Thus in the state of South
Carolina it has been laid down by the courts that there
can be no devise after a fee conditional.^ One reason for
this is because such a limitation would be after an indefi-
nite failure of issue ; ^ another reason for the rule is
the fact that the statute De Bonis was never in force in
South Carolina, and for that reason as soon as issue is
born the absolute fee, with power of disposition, becomes
vested in the tenant in possession.
1 Bedon v. Bedon, 2 Bail. (S. C.) L. Adams v. Chaplin, 1 Hill (S. C.)
231 ; Ch. 265, 268 ;
Mazyck v. Vanderhorst, 1 Bail. Buistv. Dawes, 4 Strobh. (S. C.)
(S. C.) Eq. 48 ; Eq. 37.
Deas V. Horrey, 2 Hill (S. C.) Eq. ' Bedon v. Bedon, 2 Bail. (S. C.) L.
244; 331.
CHAPTER XI.
BASE FEES.
Sec. 439. Definition of base fee.
Sec. 440. Creation of base fees.
Sec. 441. Determinable conterminous with base fee.
Sec. 443. Merger of base fees.
Sec. 443. Descent of base fees.
Section 439. Deflnitloq of base fee.— A base fee may be
defined as one which has a qualification annexed to it, and
which must be determined whenever such annexed quali-
fication requires.-^ The proprietor of a base fee has all the
rights of the owner of an estate in fee-simple until his estate
is determined by the qualification sub j oined thereto. ^ The
earliest attempt to define a base fee is that given by
Plowden, who says that " a third estate may be called a
base fee, that is, where A has a good and absolute estate
of fee-simple in land, and B has another estate of fee in
the same land, which shall descend from heir to heir, but
which is base in respect of the fee of A, as being younger
than the fee of A, and not of absolute perpetuity, as
the fee of A is."^ The conditions laid down in this defi-
nition can only be fulfilled by the conversion of a fee-tail
into a fee descendible to the heirs general, by some
method which does not destroy the remainder or rever-
sion previously subsisting upon the fee-tail ; for no fee
descendible to the heirs general which arises by mere
limitation can have subsisting upon it any remainder or
' Anderson's L. Diet. 451 ; 'Walsingham's Case, 3 Plowd.
1 Bouv. L. Diet. (15th ed.) 233. 557.
« 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) lb; ' Walsingham's Case, 3 Plowd. 547,
1 Prest. Est. 431. 557.
See : Paterson v. EUis, 11 Wend. « 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 18a.
(N. Y.) 359, 577 ;
384
Chap. XI. § 440.] BASE FEES— CREATION OF. 335
Sec. 440. Creation of base fees.— A base fee is either (1)
the estate taken by the grantee under an assurance by a
tenant in tail which is effectual to bar the issue in tail,^
but is ineffectual to bar the remainder, or reversion,
expectant upon the estate-tail ; or (2) when an estate-tail
is barred to the same extent, but by the mere operation
of law without the execution of an assurance, a base fee
is the estate taken by a person entitled to the benefit of
such a legal bar. The various base fees, and the methods
by which they might arise at common law, are as follows :
1. At common law a base fee in lands might arise by
the operation of a fine levied by a tenant in tail, who was
not also entitled to the remainder, or reversion, in fee-
simple expectant on the estate-tail. The operation of
such a fine barred not only the issue of the person by
whom it was levied, but all issue inheritable under the
estate-tail.^
2. In England, since the passage of the Fines and
Eecoveries Act, a base fee may arise by the operation of
the assurance made by a tenant in tail, which is insuffi-
cient to bar the remainder, or reversion, upon the estate-
tail, but is sufficient to bar the issue in tail.^
3. A rent-charge already in esse, under a limitation in
fee-simple, admits of being entailed within the statute
' Or at least it has the effect to put all persons, including the
the issue in tail, even after his crown, whose estates are to
right has accrued to any pos- take effect after or in defeas-
session, to the right of entry. ance of any such tail.
' See : 1 Prest. Est. 437, 438. See : Fines and Eecoveries Act,
' By the Fines and Recoveries Act, §§ 15, 34, 40.
every tenant in tail, whether Such consent is not needed, if
in possession, remainder, con- the tenant in tail is also en-
tingency, or otherwise, after titled to an immediate re-
December 31, 1833, by any as- mainder or reversion in fee.
surance, other than a will, by Id., § 34.
which he could have made the Here the word " fee" means fee-
disposition, if his estate were simple. The estate-tail will
an estate at law in fee-simple not be barred, except in so far
absolute, to dispose of for an as the disposition effectually
estate in fee-simple absolute, or passes an estate to the grantee.
^ for any less estate, the lands In cases where the grantee Jias
entailed as against all persons power to disclaim his estate,
claiming the lands entailed by his subsequent disclaimer will
forceof any estate-tail vested prevent the disposition from
in the person making the dis- having any effect under the
position, and also, with the act. , t t>
consent of the person, if any, See : Peacock v. Eastland, L. R.
who under the act is protector 10 Eq. 17.
of the settlement, as against
25
386 METHODS OF CEEATING BASE FEES. [BOOK III.
De Bonis. A tenant in tail of a rent-charge under such
an entail might at common law, by suffering a common
recovery, have obtained a fee-simple of the rent-charge,
in all cases in which, if he had been a tenant in tail of
lands, he might have obtained a fee-simple of the lands..
But a tenant in tail of a rent-charge may also be made
de novo upon the limitation of the rent itself, and with-
out the creation of any remainder over in fee-simple.
Such a tenant in tail stands in a different position from
that of a tenant in tail subsisting under an entail of a
rent-charge which was in esse as a fee-simple before the
making of the entail. By suffering a common recovery,
he did not acquire a fee-simple, but only barred the issue
inheritable under the entail. That is to say, he acquired
a base fee ; and upon a failure of issue so inheritable, the
rent became extinguished in the land.^
4. At common law, before the passing of the statutes of
Henry VIII., ^ a base fee in lands could have arisen by the
operation of a common recovery suffered by a tenant in
tail, when the remainder, or reversion, in fee-simple
expectant upon the estate-tail was vested in the crown.
Under such circumstances the recovery would have
barred the issue in tail, but not the crown, by reason of
the crown's prerogative.^ The statute of Henry VIII.
enacted that such a recovery should not bind the heirs in
tail.
5. During the interval which elapsed between the
statute of 26 Henry VIII.,* whereby fees-tail were made
liable to forfeiture for high treason, and the passage of
the statute 33 & 34 Victoria,^ whereby forfeiture was
abolished, under the law in England a base fee in lands
would have arisen in favor of the crown, upon the
attainder of a tenant in tail for high treason, which
endured so long as there was in existence either the
donee in tail or any issue capable of having inherited
under the entail.®
1 Challis' Real Prop. 365, 266 ; * 36 Hen. VIH., c. 13
3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.)398a, Butler's ' 33 & 84 Vict., c. 33.
note 3 : ^ See : Stone v. Newman, Cro.' Car,
1 Brest. Conv. 3. 437 ;
« 34 & 85 Hen. VIH., c. 39. Walsingham's Case, 3 Plowd.
' Dyer, 33a, pi. 1. 547, 557.
Chap. XI. § 4=41.] METHODS OF CREATING BASE FEES. 387
6. Before the extinction of villeinage, if lands had been
given in fee-tail to a villein, the lord of the villein would
have acquired, by entry upon the lands, a base fee con-
terminous with what would have been the duration of the
fee-tail if it had remained in the villein and his heirs
inheritable under the entail.^
7. According to Plowden, under certain circumstances
a base fee might arise when the issue in tail was out-
lawed for felony, and in the lifetime of his ancestor
obtained a pardon. The result would of course be the
same upon an attainder by judgment. In such a case it
has been suggested that the heir of the donor could not
enter, because there was still living issue of the donee ;
and the issue could not lawfully enter under the entail,
for the want of inheritable blood, which was not restored by
the pardon. In the case referred to by Plowden, the issue
entered ; and some contended that he had gained by his
entry a base fee conterminous with the entail, but others
thought he had gained only an estate for his own life.^
8. Another species of base fee, which is not only deter-
minable upon the happening of the event which would
have determined the estate-tail in which it had its origin,
but liable to be determined, in the proper sense of the
phrase, is where any assurance is made by a tenant in
tail which purports to convey his whole estate, but is hot
effectual to bar the issue in tail of their right, and there
is an entry of the issue in tail after the death of the
tenant in tail who made the assurance.^
Sec. 441. Determinable conterminous with base fee.— An
estate of the like duration with a base fee may arise as a
determinable fee by an express limitation to a man and
his heirs so long as a third person shall have heirs of his
body ; '- but it may be well doubted whether if such third
' 1 Co.- Litt. (19th .ed.) 18a. s.c. 2 Ld. Raym. 778 ; 7 Mod.
If the lord subsequ3ntly enfran- 18, overruling Took v. GlasB-
chised the villein the enfran- cock, 1 Saund. 260 ;
chlsement would not affect the Goodright v. Mead, 3 Burr. 1703 ;
duration of the base fee. 1 Co. Doe v. Whichelo, 8 T. R. 211 ;
Litt. (19th ed.) 117a. Doe v. Rivers, 7 T. R. 276.
2 Walsingham's Case, 3 Plovt^d. 547, ^ See : Walsingham's Case, 3 Plowd.
557. 547, 557.
' See : MachU v. aark, 2 Salk. 619;
388 MERGER OF BASE FEES. [Book III.
person be living at the date of the limitation it can take
effect in possession until after his death, because of the
well-known maxim that nemo est hseres viventis, no
man is heir to the living.^ If this view is correct, such
a limitation during the life of said third person must be
by the way either of executory limitation or a contingent
remainder. This occurs where a tenant in tail, not being
seized of the immediate reversion in fee, has levied a fine
with proclamations to a stranger in fee. The issue
under the entail are barred by the fine of their ancestor
from claiming the estate ; and the stranger has a fee so
long as there are issue under the entail ; by this process
the character of the estate-tail is changed and becomes a
qualified or base fee, determinable on failure of the issue
under the entail.
Sec. 442. Merger of base fees.— At common law, abase
fee would merge ta the remainder or reversion in fee-
simple, both estates being vested in the same person
without the existence of any intermediate estate.^
Hence, if a tenant in tail, having also an immediate re-
mainder or reversion in fee-simple, by a fine vested in him-
self a base fee, the latter estate was destroyed by merger,
and all incumbrances affecting the remainder or reversion
were let in. They were technically said to be accelerated.
But a purchaser could not rely upon this as a valid ob-
jection against a title in fee-simple depending upon a fine
levied by a tenant in tail, without showing that the re-
version was in fact affected by some incumbrance.^
Sec. 443. Deseentofbasefees.— According to the theory
of base fees as outlined in Plowden's definition, hereto-
fore given,* when a base fee and a reversion in fee-simple
thereupon subsist at the same time in the same land,
the base fee descends " from heir to heir." There being
nothing hmiting the descent to special heirs, it must
be taken to be the general heirs. Preston says that
when an estate-tail was turned to a base fee by fine,
the descent of the base fee followed the common-
' See : Post, § 494. 3 1 prggt. Abst. 7.
■ 3 Prest. Conv. 340. -i See : Ante, § 439.
Chap. XI. § 443.] DESCENT OF BASE FEES. 389
law course, going to the general and not the special
heir.^ It follows, as a fundamental rule, that the com-
mon-law heir can be displaced only by means of special
limitation referring to the heirs of the body ; ^ because
no limitation existed. The same doctrine applies to all
base fees which arise without express limitation ; but it
does not necessarily apply to a base fee arising by express
limitation, including base fees created by the alienation
of a tenant in tail in remainder. It has been said that
"it is remarkable that this question has been little
noticed. Though it of course applies to estates in tail
male and tail female, as well as to estates in tail general, '
yet it does not refer to the distinction between the heir
male or female and the heir general, but to the distinc-
tion between the heir of the body — whether general, male,
or female — and the heir general. It seems to have been
always tacitly assumed, without the necessity of explicit
mention, that when the law, whether mediately or
immediately, divests a fee-tail by barring the issue in
tail, the novel fee thus created will, in the hands of the
person entitled to the benefit of the bar, follow the
ordinary course of descent prescribed by the common law ;
that is, will go to the heir general."^
' 1 Prest. Abstr. 342, 344. special heirs inheritable under
Citing : Beaumont's Case, 9 Co. the entail." 1 Prest. Est. 475.
138 ; 2 chaUis' Real Prop. 371.
Baker v. Willis, Cro. Car. 476. Compare the resolution of the
' " The rule of the common law is, judges, that the Isle of Man,
you shall not make a person though no part of the king-
heir, or give him the character dom, yet, being granted under
or rights of an heir, by a spe- the Great Seal of England to
cial limitation, unless he be the Sir John Stanley and his heirs,
heir by the rule of law. The was descendible according to
statute De Bonis gave the the courts of the common law.
donor, with reference to estate- 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 9a ;
tail, the power of making 4 Inst. 384.
CHAPTEE XII.
QUALIFIED FEE-SIMPLE.
Sec. 444. Definition of qualified fee-simplQ.
Sec. 445. Power of tenant of qualified fee-simple over the estate.
Sec. 446. Qualified fee distinguished from other fees.
Sec. 447. Objections to qualified fees-simple.
Sec. 448. The doctrine of Blake v. Hynes.
Sec. 449. Nature and mode of Umitation.
Sec. 450. Cotu^e of descent of a qualified fee-simple estate.
Sec. 451. Alienation of a qualified fee-simple estate.
Sec. 444. Definition of qualified fee-simple.— A qualified
fee-Simple is a fee "which has a qualification subjoined
thereto, and which terminates whenever the qualification
is at an end.^ Thus where an estate is limited to a per-
son and his heirs with a qualification annexed to it, by
which it is provided that the estate must terminate
whenever that qualification is at an end, this limitation
creates a qualified fee-simple ; as where land is granted
to A and his heirs, tenants of a designated tract of land,
whenever the heirs of A cease to be tenants of that tract
their estate terminates.^ And where a person holds an
estate to himself and his heirs, as long as B has heirs to
his body, this is a species of qualified fee-simple, liable to
be terminated at any time on the failure of heirs of the
body of B.3
Sec. 445. Power of tenant of qualified fee-simple over the
estate.— The proprietor of a qualified fee-simple has the
' Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Ohio & M. Whart. (Pa.) 427 ;
E. Co., 94 111. 93 ; McLean v. Baree, 35 Wis. 36 ;
People V. White, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) United States v. Reere, 5 DiU. C.
38 ; C. 411 ;
Lott V. Wyckoflf, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 3 Bl. Com. 109.
575 ; 2 1 Inst. 37a.
Union Canal Co. v. Young, 1 Seymor's Case, 10 Co. 97b.
390
Chap. XII. §§ 446, 447.] QUALIFIED FEE-SIMPLE. 391
same rights and privileges over his estate, till the quali-
fication upon which it is limited is at an end, as he would
have if he were a tenant in fee-simple. ^
Sec. 446. Qualified fee-simple distinguished from other
fees.— A qualified fee-simple differs in a marked manner
from a simple determinable fee,^ since it is limited by a
restriction to a particular class of heirs, and not by
reference to happenings or a future event. A qualified
fee-simple differs from a conditional fee in this, that so
long as it endures, the power of the tenants is neither
enlarged nor bridged by anything in the nature of the
performance of a condition. It differs from a fee-tail,
among other things, in the fact that the issue never had any
claim against the alienation, by whatever assurance it
might be effected, of the ancestor. It differs from a base
fee in particulars that will be made manifest in the next
chapter. This species of fee-simple has been treated by
Preston in his work on Estates,^ where he makes it quite
plain that it was his intention to place qualified fees-simple
in a separate class, and not merely to classify them among
the other fees usually collected under the terms " quali-
fied fees," or "qualified or base fees," which terms are
commonly used to include all fees except fees-simple or
absolute and conditional fees.
Sec. 44T. Objections to qualified fees-simple.— There has
been considerable discussion over the question whether
there is such an estate as a qualified fee-simple. Black-
stone * throws the weight of his authority on the negative
of the question, but the authority of Littleton and of
Lord Coke has been said to establish in the most decisive
manner the certainty of its existence.^ The rare occur-
rence of an example of this species of estate has led to
this difference of opinion. Some writers have gone so
far as to declare that a case of the kind never had
' Walsingham's Case, 2 Plow. 557. have the quality of ordinary
* Preston recognizes a material determinable fees.
difference between qualified 1 Prest. Est. 467.
fees-simple and other deter- ^ 1 Prest. Est. 449-475.
minable fees, but thought that ■* 3 Bl. Com. 223.
for purposes of alienation they ^ 1 Prest. Est. 469.
392 DOCTRINE OF BLAKE v. HYNES. [BOOK ni.
occurred and never would occur in practice. But in May,
1884, a case came before the House of Lords, on an appeal
from Ireland, which seems to go far towards setting the
question at rest. This was the case of Blake v. Hynes.^
Sec. 448. The doctrine of Blake v. Hynes.— The circum-
stances in the case of Blake v. Hynes were as follows :
In 1857, Columbus O'Flanagan died leaving a will which
was duly probated, and his real and personal estate was
subsequently administered in the Irish Court of Chancery.
His co-heirs at law were two nieces, Eliza and Jane
Dowell. In the course of the administration proceedings
an order was made, by consent of all the parties, in 1859,
by which it was ordered that notwithstanding the pro-
bate, which was declared valid, of the testator's will, the
right of his co-heirs as to certain lands devised should be
the same as if he had died intestate as to the said lands.
Jane Dowell, who was a lunatic at the time of the testa-
tor's death, died insane and intestate as to her moiety in
the said lands. Proceedings were instituted in 18Y3,
under the Irish Lunacy Law, for the administration of
her real and personal estate. At the time of her death
her heirs at law were Edward Blake and Thomas Hynes,
claiming respectively under two deceased aunts of the lun-
atic, who, if they had been living, would have been her
co-heirs. At the same time the heir at law of the testa-
tor O'Flanagan was Eoderick O'Connor. Among the
questions presented for determination was whether Jane
Dowell had taken her moiety, to which she was entitled
under the terms of the order of 1859, to all intents as a
purchaser. If she had, upon her death intestate, the
land would have descended to her heirs at law ; but if
she took by virtue of the said order of the court, the
lands would descend as though the original testator,
Columbus O'Flanagan, had been the last purchaser. In
which case the moiety in dispute would pass to 'Roderick
O'Connor, as being his heir at law at the time of Jane
Dowell's death. The Master of the Rolls held that she
took as a purchaser, and that her moiety descended to
'li. E. (Ir.) 11 Eq. 417 ; s.c. 11 L. R. (Ir.) 284.
Chap. XII. § 449.] LIMITATION— NATURE AND MODE. 393
her co-heirs at law. This decision was unanimously
reversed by the Court of Appeals in Ireland. ^ The case
was taken on appeal to the House of Lords for the de-
cision of the Court of Appeals. The question of the
validity of the limitations was explicitly raised, argued
before the House, and the respondent's counsel rested
their argument in favor of its validity upon the author-
ity of Littleton, Lord Coke, and Preston. At the con-
clusion of the arguments, the House of Lords reversed
its judgment, and the appeal was subsequently com-
promised before any judgment had been delivered.
Sec. 449. Nature and mode of limitation.— At common
law a fee may be explicitly limited to a man and the heirs
of any ancestor, in the paternal line, whose heir he is.
The limitations must be made in this form by a feoffee
who is seized in fee-simple subject to a condition to re-in-
feoff "many men"^ jointly in fee-simple, in case all of
them should die before any feoffment has been made
pursuant to the condition. Under such circumstances
the feoffment should be made to the heir of the last sur-
vivor, habendum to him and the heirs of the aforesaid
survivor.^ The simplest example that has been given to
this kind of limitation would occur if the heir of the
last survivor should be a son ; in which case we should
arrive at a limitation to a man and his heirs ex parte
paterna, so as to exclude altogether from the succession
the heirs ex parte materna, who, if he had taken a fee-
simple absolute, since he would have taken it by purchase
and not by descent, would have been entitled to succeed
on a failure of the heirs ex parte paterna.
' Hitherto the question as to the Dowell in respect to the said
validity at the common law of lands) it would have been the
a limitation in the form above duty of those carrying out the
styled a qualified fee-simple arrangements to see that tho
was not explicitly raised; but descent of the lunatic's (moiety
the Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, in in the) lands was not altered
the course of his judgment, from that which was stipuf
made the following remark, lated for ; namely, the descent
which bears very closely upon of lands taken by her as co-
it : " If conveyances had been heiress of Columbus O'Flan-
settled (with a view to carry agan under an intestacy."
into effect the directions of the ^ Plusors homes.
Order of 20th of May, 1859, as ' Litt., § 354.
to the rights of Eliza and Jane See : 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 320b,
394 DESCENT AND ALIENATION. [Book III.
Sec. 450. Course of descent of a qualified fee-simple
estate.— The course of descent of a qualified fee-simple does
not differ, so long as the estate endures, from the course
of descent which would have been taken by a fee-simple
absolute. This is upon the hypothesis that it had actually
descended from the specified ancestor. In certain cases,
however, it may be said that the quantum of the estate
differs,^ the descent being restricted to one class only of
the heirs, and the estate determining with the exhaustion
of this class.
Sec. 451. Alienation of qualified fee-simple.— There is
nothing in the nature of a qualified fee-simple to suggest
that the guarantee, or the inheritor of a qualified fee-
simple, is subject to any restraint upon his power to
alienate the estate. The question has been raised, however,
as to what estate is taken by the person to whom, upon
alienation, the estate is conveyed, and whether in his
hands the estate becomes a fee-simple absolute. Preston
has repeatedly expressed the opinion, that the grantee, or
the inheritor, of a qualified fee-simple has, for the pur-
pose of alienation, only a determinable fee ; that he can-
not convey a fee-simple ; and that the estate in the hands
of an assignee will determine, if and when the particu-
lar class of the heirs of the grantee, to whom it was
originally limited, should come to an end. He also holds
that, upon the determination of the estate, there is no
escheat to the lord (which is peculiar to fees-simple abso-
lute) but a reverter to the heirs of the person by whom
the re-feoffment was made.^
' There is a difference, at all estate of a tenant for his own
events, in the sense in which life,
an estate par autre vie is said ' 1 Prest. Est. 471.
to be less in quantum than the See, also, pp. 430, 466,
CHAPTEE XIII.
ESTATES IN TAIL.
Sec. 453. Definition of an estate-tail.
Sec. 453. "What construed an estate-tail.
Sec. 454. Distinguished from estates determinable.
Sec. 455. Origin of estates-tail.
Sec. 456. Same — Statute De Bonis.
Sec. 457. Same — Effect of construction.
Sec. 458. Attempt to defeat the statute De Bonis.
Sec. 459. Recognition in the United States.
Sec. 460. Kinds of tails.
Sec. 461. Same — General and special estates-tail.
Sec. 462. Same — Same — Limitation in tail special valid where.
Sec. 463. Same — Estates-tail male and female.
Sec. 464. Same — Estate in frank-marriage.
Sec. 465. Same — Fees-tail with conditional limitations.
Sec. 466. Same — Estates-tail after possibility.
Sec. 467. How estates-tail are created.
Sec. 468. Same — ^Words of procreation necessary.
Sec. 469. Same — Methods of creation — a. By deed.
Sec. 470. Same — Same — Same — "Heirs" nomen collectivum.
Sec. 471. Same — Same — b. By devise.
Sec. 472. Same — Same — Same — Words creating estate-tail.
Sec. 473. Same — Same — Same — Devise to several and survivors.
Sec. 474. Same — Same— Same — Remainder over on faOure of issue.
Sec. 475. Same — Same — Same — Effect of reversion on indefinite
failure.
Sec. 476. Same — Same — Same — Rules of construction.
Sec. 477. Same — Same — Same — Intention of testator.
Sec. 478. Same — Same — Same — Expressions which carry estate-tail.
Sec. 479. Same — Same — Same — Fee reduced by context.
Sec. 480. Same — Same — Same — Doctrine of Price v. Taylor.
Sec. 481. Same — Same — Same — Devise ia tail not enlarged by im-
plication.
Sec. 482. Same— Same— Same— Doctrine of Wight v. Thayer.
Sec. 483. Same — Words in frank-marriage sufficient.
Sec. 452. Deflnitionofanestate-tail.— A fee-tail is simply
a conditional fee at the common law, so modified by the
395
396 WHAT AN ESTATE-TAIL. [BOOK III.
statute De Donis Conditionalibus, known as the statute
of Westminster 11./ that the estate can descend only to
certain classes of heirs which are held not to take a con-
ditional fee-simple, but a particular estate which has
been denominated a fee-tail, the donor holding the
ultimate fee-simple expectant on the failure of issue ; in
other words, the reversion.^ This estate corresponds
with the feudum talliatum of the feudal law, — that is,
a fee from which the general heirs are taille or cut off ; ^
and is thought to have been derived from the Roman
system of restricting estates.*
Sec. 453. What construed an estate-tail. — Whenever it
appears in the instrument creating the estate that it was
intended that the issue of the first taker should take by
inheritance in a direct line, and in a regular order and
course of descent, so long as his posterity should endure,
and an estate in fee or in tail is given in remainder, upon
an indefinite failure of issue, then the estate first created
will be construed to be an estate- tail. ^ But if it appears
that the limitation over was not postponed until an in-
definite failure of issue, but on failure of children only,
or on failure of issue within a given time, the estate will
not belong to the class known as estates-tail.^
Sec. 454. Distinguished from estates determinable.—
'13 Edw. I., c. 1, passed about 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 31.
1385. 6 Outland v. Bowen, 115 Ind. 150 ;
3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.) s.o. 7 Am. St. Rep. 430 ; 17 N.
64, etseq. E. Rep. 281.
See : Pierson v. Lane, 60 Iowa Citing : Shimer v. Mann, 99 Ind.
60 ; s.c. 14 N. W. Rep. 90 ; 190 ; s.c. 50 Am. Rep. 83 ;
Maslia v. Thomas, 8 Gill (Md.) King v. Rea, 56Ind. 1 ;
18; Huxford v. MiUigan, 50 Ind.
Hall V. Thayer, 71 Mass. (5 Gray) 548 ;
533 ; Tipton v. La Rose, 37 Ind. 484 ;
Wight V. Thayer, 67 Mass. (1 Potts' Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 168 ;
Gray) 384, 286 ; Eichelberger v. Barnitz, 9 Watts
Jewell V. Warner, 35 N. H. 176 ; (Pa.) 447.
Ransley v. Stott, 36 Pa. St. 136 ; « Outland v. Bowen, 115 Ind. 150 ;
Wright, Ten. 187. s.o. 7 Am. St. Rep. 430 ; 17 N.
5 2 Bl. Com. 113. E. Rep. 281.
See : Paterson v. Ellis, 11 Wend. Citing : AUender v. Sussan, 33
(N. Y.) 259, 378. Md. 11 ; s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 171 ;
= Paterson v. EUis, 11 Wend. (N. Nightingale i). Burrell, 33 Mass.
Y.) 259, 378. (15 PiSk.) 104 ;
•• See : 3 Bl. Com. 113n; HiU v. Hill, 74 Pa. St. 173 ; s.c.
2 Co. Inst. 333 ; 15 Am. Rep. 545.
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 14, etseq.;
Chap. XIII. §§455, 456.] ORIGIN OF ESTATES-TAIL. 397
While it is necessary to create an estate-tail that the
limitation should be to the heirs of the body of the donee,
yet all limitations of this kind are not estates-tail. Thus,
where the heirs who may take are unlimited, but the
duration of the estate given is measured or limited by
the length of time that the line of succession of heirs of
the donee's body, or of another person named, may last,
does not create an estate-tail but a fee-simple determin-
able.i
Sec. 455. Origin of estates-tail.— It has been said that
the origin of estates-tail dates back to the time of the
Saxons, who borrowed it from the laws of Eome, accord-
ing to which lands might be entailed upon children and
freedmen and their descendants, with restrictions on
alienation. The custom of settling lands upon males in
preference to females, and thus entailing lands upon the
male issue, was in use before the time of Alfred the
Great ; ^ and the custom of conveying or devising lands
to a man and the issue of a particular marriage, or
to a man and the issue of his body, either male or female,
was continued after the Conquest.^ These estates were
the conditional fees of the common law. The readiness
with which these conditional fees could be converted into
a fee-simple, as heretofore set out,* led to the enactment
of the famous statute of Westminster 11.^
Sec. 456. Same— statute De Bonis.— The converting of
conditional fees into fees-simple destroyed the reversions,
made them descendible according to the rules of the
common law, diminished the property of the landed
gentry, and frequently defeated the object of the original
donation. It was in order to perpetuate their possessions
in their own families that the nobility procured the
passage of the statute De Bonis ; which, after reciting
the rights of alienation assumed by the donees of condi-
tional fees, enacts "that the will of the giver, according
1 3 Bl. Com. 113; * See : Ante, § 433.
3 Prest. Est. 358-360, 361. ' See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 31 ;
^ See : Barringt. Stat. 113 ; 3 Bl. Com. 113 ;
1 Spence Eq. Jur. 31. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 11, 13.
3 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 140.
398 STATUTE DE BONIS. [Book III.
to the form in the deed of gift manifestly expressed,
shall be from henceforth observed ; so that they to whom
the land (tenementum) was given under such condition
shall have no power to alien the land (tenementum) so
given, but that it shall remain unto the issue of them to
whom it was given after their death, or shall revert to
the giver or his heirs if issue fail, either by an absolute
default of issue, or, after the birth of issue, by its sub-
sequent extinction. " ^ This law only repeated what the
law of tenures had said before, that the tenure of the
grant should be observed ; and the judges in construing
it held that where an estate was limited to a man and
the heirs of his body, this limitation did not create a
conditional fee, but divided the estate, giving a particular
estate to the donee, called an estate-tail, subject to
change, and a reversion in fee remained in the donor. ^ It
is said byEeeves^ that the construction of the judges
upon the wording of the statute was, that the donee
should no longer have a fee conditional, as before, but
that the fee should be entaille, cut, or divided, and he
should have afeudum talliatum. Indeed, this seems to
have been foreseen by the makers of the act ; for in the
same parliament, and before the statute could have been
considered in the courts of law, we find the term feudum
talliatum as expressing an estate then existing in the
law. It appears, that very early after the statute the
judges bad gone a great way in pursuing its intention ;
■ Per hoc, quod nullus sit exitus tenemento) so given upon con-
omnino, vel si aliquis exitus dition, after the death of his
fuerit, per mortem deficiet, wife, by the law of England,
herede hujusmo diexitus de- nor the issue of the second
ficiente. The English version husband and wife shall succeed
is here unintelligible. 1 Stat. in the inheritance, but imme-
Eev., p. 42. diately after the death of the
The effect of the first paragraph husband and wife, to whom
is to destroy the threefold the land (tenementum) was so
capacity which the tenant of a given, it shall come to their
conditional fee acquired by issue, or return unto the giver,
having issue of the prescribed or his heir, as before is said."
class, to alienate, to forfeit by See : 3 Eeeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d
attainder, and to charge with ed.) 164, 165.
incumbrances. ' Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burr. 115 ;
"Heithcr shall the second Tnss- Willion «. Berkley, 1 Plowd. 348;
band of any such woman," 3 Inst. 335.
that is, of a female donee in " 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.)
special tail, " from henceforth 166.
have everything in the land (m
Chap. XIII. § 457.] CONSTRUCTION— EFFECT. 399
for they not only cut a fee-tail out of a fee-simple, but
they again divided the fee-tail. For instance, if a person
took land by purchase to him and his wife, and to the
issue begotten by them in lawful matrimony, nothing
would here accrue to the purchasers but a freehold for
their lives and a fee to their issue ; if they had no issue,
the fee would remain in the person of the donor till they
had issue, and if the purchaser had no issue, or the issue
failed, the land reverted to the donor. ^ In this con-
struction they seemed entirely justified by the terms of
the statute ; for it speaks of the land not as descending
to the issue but as remaining,^ or reverting, and, not-
withstanding the term descendere in the writ given by
the act, it seems to consider the issue and the donor as
in the same light.
Sec. 457. Same— Effect of construction.— In consequence
of this construction put upon the statute De Bonis by the
judges, estates thus limited are not conditional ; nor is
the right of entry of the donor on failure of issue of the
donee considered as arising from a breach of the condi-
tion, but as a right of reverter accruing to the donor on
the particular expiration of the estate granted. The
judges had previously held that a donation of this kind
created a conditional fee ; the statute declares that it
vests a state of inheritance in the donee, and some par-
ticular heirs of his to whom it must descend, notwith-
standing any act of the ancestor ; thus creating in the
donor a reversion expectant on the determination of the
estate limited.^ The modifications thus introduced into
a conditional fee by this statute refer chiefly to the
power of the donee, or tenant in tail for the time being,
by alienation, to bar the succession of his issue and the
reversion to the donor. We have already seen * that at
common law the issue could be barred even before birth,
but that the donor's reversion could not be barred until
after the birth of inheritable issue. The statute De
' Berth., fol. 93. WiUion v. Berkley, 1 Plowd. 342,
* An estate ad remanetiam, in 348 ;
Glanville, signifies an estate in 3 Inst. 335.
fee. Litt. 7, c. 1. * See : Ante, § 433.
" Taylor v. Horde, 1 Burr. 115 ;
400 DEFEATING STATUTE. [BOOK III.
Donis enacted that in future no such alienation should
be a bar either to the succession of the issue or to the re-
version of the donor. It did not create any new estate,
but, by disaffirming the supposed performance of the con-
dition, preserved the fee to the issue, while there was
issue to take it, and the reversion to the donor when the
issue failed. 1 It is to be observed further that the statute
had the effect of preventing descent of the fee to persons
not included in the original form of the gift, which,
under certain circumstances, was permitted by the com-
mon law.
Sec. 458. Attempt to defeat the statute De Donis.— The
numberless evil consequences which followed from the
restriction imposed by this statute furnish no small part
of the difficulties to which real property afterwards be-
came subject.^ Among the evil effects of the statute
was the withdrawing of land from commerce ; the de-
frauding of purchasers by secret entails ; the exempting
of lands from forced sale for payment of debts ; and loss
to the crown of a restraint upon treasonable practices
through the forfeiture of estate by attainder of high
treason. These evil effects of the statute soon became
manifest, and there was a general demand for its repeal.
But the landed barons, for whose benefit the statute De
Donis had been passed, successfully resisted every at-
tempt at change, and after an endurance of upwards of
two hundred years, it was finally evaded in the reign of
Edward IV., by a contrivance of the courts,^ " in the
exercise of their Pretorian authority,"* enabling the
tenant to change his fee-tail into a fee-simple.^ This
object was accomplished, to a limited extent, by levying
fines, and more completely by means of common re-
coveries ; both of which processes are sufficiently treated
in a succeeding chapter.^
' 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 337a, Butler's = 3 Bl. Com. 116 ;
note 3. 3 Prest. Est. 454.
2 See : 2 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. See : Partington's Case, 10 Co.
(3d ed.) 166, et seq. 37a ;
* See : 3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d Taltarum's Case, Y. B. 13 Edw.
ed.) 324:, et seq. IV. 19.
* See : 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 143. « See : Post, §§ 533, 583, et seq.
Chap. XIII. § 459.] STATUTE IN THIS COUNTRY.
401
Sec. 459. Becognition in the United States.— Estates-tail
were introduced into this country with our elements of
the common law, as modified by the statute De Donis,
and became the general law of the land in the thirteen
original states/ with the exception of South Carolina,
where a fee-simple conditional at common law existed
as an estate from early times. ^ In those states where
estates-tail prevailed they could be barred by fines and
recoveries.^ But estates-tail were so manifestly opposed
to our Republican institutions and the policy of our law,
which promoted the free alienation of land, they were
either prohibited by statute, or turned into estates in fee-
simple absolute.* In some of the original states, how-
' See : Allyn v. Mather, 9 Conn.
114;
Chappell V. Brewster, Kirby
(Conn.) 175 ;
Wellas V. Olcott, 1 Kii-by (Conn.)
118;
Atlin V. Bunce, 1 Root (Conn.)
96;
Partridge v. Dorsey, 3 Har. & J.
(Md.) 302 ;
Jackson v. Van Zandt, 13 John.
(N. Y.) 169 ;
Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass.
3-34; S.C. 5 Am. Deo. 66;
Dennett v. Dennett, 40 N. H.
498, 500 ;
Jewell V. Warner, 35 N. H. 176 ;
Holoomb V. Lake, 24 N. J. L. (4
Zab.) 686 ;
Den ex d. James v. Dubois, 16 N.
J. L. (1 Harr.) 285 ;
Den V. Fox, 10 N. J. L. (.5 Halst.)
39 ■
Pollock V. Speidel, 17 Ohio St.
439;
Price V. Taylor, 28 Pa. St 95 ; s.c.
70 Am. Dec. 105 ;
Lyle V. Richards, 9 Serg. & R.
fPa.) 332, 330 :
Giddings v. Smith, 15 Vt. 344 ;
Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 52
U. S. (11 How.) 297 ; bk. 13 L.
ed. 703.
New Jersey statute of 1799. — It
seems that the statute of New
Jersey, of June, 1799, abolish-
ing all English statutes, did not
abolish estates-tail, they being
recognized, and the statute De
Donis supplied by the statute
of 1784.
Pat. 54, § 3.
26
See : Den v. Fox, 10 N. J. L. (5
Halst.) 89.
^ Murrell v. Mathews, 3 Bay (S. C.)
397 •
Wright V. Herron, 5 Rich. (S. C.)
Eq. 441.
" See : Partridge v. Dorsey, 3 Har.
& J. (Md.) 303 ;
Perry v. Kline, 66 Mass. (13
Cush.) 130 ;
Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (20
Pick.) 515 ;
Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass.
34 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 66 ;
Dennett v. Dennett, 40 N. H. 498,
500;
JeweU V. Warner, 35 N. H. 170 ;
Den V. Schenck, 8 N. J. L. (3
Halst.) 39 ;
McGregor v. Comstock, 17 N. Y.
163;
Jackson v. Van Zandt, 13 John.
(N. Y.) 169 ;
Lyle V. Richards, 9 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 330 ;
De Witt V. Eldred, 4 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 431 ;
Croxall V. Sherrerd, 72 U. S. (5
Wall.) 383 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 573 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 314.
Fines and recoveries were abol-
ished in New York in 1830.
See : McGregor v. Comstock, 17
N. Y. 163.
* See : Allyn v. Mather, 9 Conn.
114;
Allen V. Craft, 109 Ind. 476 ; s.c.
58 Am. Rep. 425 ; 9 N. E. Rep.
919 ; 7 West Rep. 516 ;
Posey V. Budd, 21 Md. 477 ;
Watkins v. Sears, 3 Gill (Md.)
493;
402
KINDS OF TAILS.
[Book IIL
ever, like Pennsylvania ^ and Massachusetts,^ and prob-
ably others, such estates are still recognized. But even
in those states where they are still recognized, estates-
tail are subject to be barred by deed, and also by com-
mon recovery.^
Sec. 460. Kinds of tails.— Estates-tail may be divided into
two general classes, with respect to the heirs that are to
take. Thus they may be limited generally to the heirs of
one's body, in which case the estate granted is called an
estate-tail general ; or they may be limited to particular
heirs of the body, as to the heirs of one's body begotten
upon the body of a certain named spouse, in which case
the estate granted is called an estate-tail special. Such
JeweUu. Warner, 35 N. H. 176 ;
Redstrake v. Townsend, 39 N. J.
L. (10 Vr.) 373, 379 ;
Den V. Fox, 10 N. J. L. (5 Halst.)
39;
Morehouse v. Cotheal, 1 N. J. L.
(Coxe) 480 ;
Albany Fire Ins. Co. v. Bay, 4 N.
y. 9;
Van Rensselaer v. Poucher, 5
Den. (N. Y.) 35 ;
Omdoff V. Turman, 2 Leigh (Va.)
200 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 608 ;
Croxall V. Sherrerd, 73 U. S. (5
Wall.) 368 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 572.
De OoBis not law of western
states.— The statute De Bonis
never has been a part of the
law of many of the western
and southern states.
See : Pierson v. Lane, 60 Iowa
60 ; s.c. 14 N. W. Rep. 90 ;
Jordan v. Roach, 33 Miss. 481 ;
Rowland •;;. Warren, 10 Greg.
139.
Same — Mississippi doctrine. — "As
early as the year 1807, all the
statutes of England and Great
Britain not re-enacted were, by
express enactment of the Leg-
islature, excluded from oper-
ation within the territory
(Hutch. Dig. 65) ; and when
the act of June 13, 1823, con-
cerning conveyances, was
passed, neither the statute of
Westminster, the statute De
Donis, nor the statute of wills
was in force within this com-
monwealth : the whole doc-
trine, therefore, in regard to
estates-tail and executory de-
vises, which was engrafted
upon the statutes above named,
never had existence in this
state by any express or positive
legislative enactment."
Jordan v. Roach, 33 Miss. 481.
' Reinhard v. Lantz, 37 Pa. St. 488;
Price V. Taylor, 38 Pa. St. 95 ; s.c.
70 Am. Dec. 105 ;
Potts' Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 172.
See : Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St.
486;
Gable v. Daub, 40 Pa. St. 317,
339;
Guthrie's Appeal, 37 Pa. St. 9.
' In Wight V. Thayer, 67 Mass. (1
Gray) 284, 286, it is said that
" estates-tail, with their legal
incidents, have been too long
and too often recognized in
this commonwealth to be now
questioned."
Citing : Buxton v. Uxbridge, 51
Mass. (1 Met.) 87 ;
Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (20
Pick.) 515 ;
Davis V. Hayden, 9 Mass. 514.
' See ; Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. &
J. (Md.) 69 ;
Weld V. WiUiams, 54 Mass. (13
Met.) 486 ;
Nightingale v. BurreU, 33 Mass.
(15 Pick.) 104, 116 ;
Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass.
161, 167, 175 ;
Pollock V. Speidel, 17 Oliio St.
Chap. XIII. § 461.] GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAILS.
403
estates may be again divided, as to the sex of the heirs
who are to take, into estates-tail male and estates-tail
female. Thus the estate may be limited to the male
heirs of the donee, in which case it is known as an estate-
tail male ; or it may be limited to the female issue of the
donee, in which case it is called an estate-tail female.
Estates-tail male and tail female may be either general
or special estates-tail.
Sec. 461. Same — General and special estates-tail. — Every
estate-tail is either general or special.^ "Where the estate
in lands is given to a man and to the heirs of his body,
generally, the devisee takes an estate in tail general ; '^
but where the gift is restricted to certain heirs of the
donee's body, exclusive of others, it becomes an estate-
tail special.^ Thus where a devise of lands is to one " to
hold to him and to the heirs of his body forever," the
devisee takes an estate in tail general ; * but if the gift
' Butler V. Huestis, 68 lU. 594 ; s.o.
18 Am. Rep. 589, 593 ;
2 Bl. Com. 113.
" Riggs V. SaUy, 15Me. (3Shep.)408;
Hoxton V. Archer, 3 Gill & J.
(Md.) 199 ;
Den V. Hugg, 5 N. J. L. (3
South.) 427 ;
Den V. Laquear, 4 N. J. L. (1
South.) 301 ;
Den V. Emans, 3 N. J. L. (2 Penn.)
967.
' 3 BL Com. 113, 114.
*See: Riggs v. SaUy, 16 Me. (3
Shep.) 408 ;
Hoxton V. Archer, 3 Gill & J.
(Md.) 199.
SewaU V. Howard, 1 Har. &
McH. (Md.) 45 ;
Keys V. Goldsborough, 3 Har. &
J. (Md.) 369 ;
Den V. Laquear, 4 N. J. L. (1
South.) 301 ;
Den V. Emans, 3 N. J. L. (2 Penn.)
967.
A devise "to my daughter and her
heirs forever, and not to be
disposed of to none from them,
but my said daughter and her
heirs forever," entails the land
upon such daughter and her
heirs, in fee-tail general.
SewaU V. Howard, 1 Har. &
McH. (Md.) 45.
The words in a devise, " My will
is, that my daughter M. shall
be partaker of all my estate,
both real and personal, pro-
vided she leaving an issue,
male or female ; " and after-
wards, in the same wiU, " that
the issue, male or female, from
the body of my daughter M.
shall be next partaker," create
an estate-tail general in M. ;
and her issue do not take as de-
visees imder the will.
Den V. Emans, 3 N. J. L. (3 Penn.) '
967.
The words, " I give and bequeath,
etc., to my daughter E., during
her Ufetime, and then to the
heirs of her body, and so to her
heirs' heirs forever ;" and " if
aU the heirs of either or both
my daughters should die and
leave no issue, as aforesaid,
then what should or was to be
theirs, to be equally divided
among my three sons, J. , S. , and
J., or to their heirs forever,"
creates an estate-tail general in
E., with remainder in fee to J.,
S. , and J. , as tenants in com-
mon.
Den V. Laquear, 4 N. J. L. (1
South.) 301.
A devise was as follows : "I
give and bequeath the whole of
my estate, both real and per-
40J: SPECIAL TAILS VALID WHERE. [Book III.
be to a person and the heirs of his body on his present
spouse, who is designated by name, the devisee takes an
estate in tail special, the issue of the donee and any other
spouse being excluded.^
Sec. 462. Same— Same— Limitation in tail special valid
where.— In order that a limitation in special tail shall be
good, it must be to the issue to be begotten upon the
body of some spouse named, who must be either the
donee's present spouse ,or a person who by possibility may
become his spouse. Thus, if the person designated as
such spouse be so near of kin to the donee as to render
their union in marriage unlawful, the estate would be in
the donee for life only.^ Probability that such a union
will take place between the parties named is not necessary
to the validity of the gift ; nor is the validity of such a
limitation affected by the impossibility that, if married,
the parties should have issue to inherit. Thus where the
two parties named are at the time married to two other
persons, the gift will be valid, because it is possible that
such other parties may both die and the donee and the
person designated in the will may afterwards intermarry.
And where the parties are married at the time of the
gift, such gift will not be invalid by reason of the fact
that because of old age or physical defect the birth of
issue is impossible. Such an estate will not become an
estate-tail after possibility of issue extinct so long as the
parties named are living.^
Sec. 463. Same— Estates-tail male and female.— Where
lands are given to a person and the heirs male of his or
her body, this is called an estate in tail male general, to
sonal, unto my five daughters, direct descents, the devisees
to them and their heirs forever, each took estates-tail general,
to be equally divided amongst with cross remainders in fee,
them ; and it is my will, that, under the limitation over to
if either of the said children the survivors.
die without issue lawfully be- Hoxton v. Archer, 3 Gill & J.
gotten of their body, in that (Md.) 199.
case the part of the said child ' 3 Bl. Com. 113, 114.
be equally divided among my See : McKenzie v. Jones, 39 Miss.
surviving daughters." Held, 330.
in Maryland, that, this will « 2 Prest. Est. 417.
being made before the act to ^ 3 Prest. Est. 395.
Chap. XIII. § 464.] FEANK-MARRIAGE— ESTATE IN.
405
which the heirs female are not inheritable ; ^ and where
lands are given to a person and the heirs female of his
or her body, this constitutes a tail fernale general, to
which the heirs male are not inheritable.^
Sec. 464. Same — Estate in frank-marriage.— It was for-
merly the practice in England for a person to give lands
to another, as a marriage portion with his daughter or
cousin, to hold to the husband and wife with the under-
standing and upon the condition that it was to descend to
the issue of such marriage. Such an estate was called a
frank-marriage.^ Courts construe gifts in frank-mar-
riage in the same manner as donations to persons and
the heirs of their bodies, by which means they came to
be considered to be conditional fees,* and the condition
being considered as having been performed on the birth
' Dart V. Dart, 7 Conn. 250 ;
Atlin V. Bunoe, 1 Root (Conn.)
96 ;
Manwaring v. Tabor, 1 Boot
(Conn.) 79 ;
Hurlburt v. Emerson, 16 Mass.
341 ■
Den V. Hugg, 5 N. J. L. (2 South.)
427;
Den V. Fogg, 3 N. J. L. (3 Penn.)
819, 880 :
WUcox V. Heywood, 13 R. 1. 196 ;
Jillson«. Wilcox, 7 R. I. 515 ;
DeWindt v. DeWindt, L. R. 1
H. L. 87.
2 Some English authors question
whether an estate-tail female
is valid. ChalUs says : " No
motive can be imagined which
would be likely to induce any
one to limit a fee-tail to heirs
female, though nothing is more
common than the Umitation of
a fee-tail to heirs male. Tlie
former kind of limitation was
probably suggested by the
latter ; and it probably exists
only in the logical imagination
of text writers. But there is
no reasonable doubt as to its
legal validity ; which, indeed,
is expressly recognized by the
Conveyancing Act of 1881, §
51." Challis' Real Prop. 230.
Same — Hargrave, in note on Coke
Littleton (1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.)
25a, note 1), makes mention
of an attempt to prove in
argument that limitations
in tail female are invalid.
In Goodtitle v. Burtenshaw,
Fearne Cont. Rem., App. No.
1, a Hmitation occurred to the
heirs female, but as purchasers.
From some remarks made by
Lord Coke (3 Co. Litt. (19th
ed.) 377a), it may perhaps be
inferred that limitations in tail
female, in remainder upon a
limitation in tail male, may
actually have occurred as the
work of short-sighted convey-
ancers, who mistook their
effect. Lord Coke points out
the danger of such limitations,
and shows that the proper
limitation to effect the probable
intention is a limitation in tail
general, in remainder upon a
limitation in tail male.
See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 25b.
' GlanvUIe says : " Liberum dicitur
maritagiura quando aliquis
liber homo aliquam partem
terrse suae dat, cum aliqua
muliere, alicuiin maritagium."
Glanv., lib. 7, c. 18.
Not given with man. — Lands, it
seems, could not be given in
frank-marriage with a man
that was cousin to the donor,
but always with a woman.
See : Finch, b. 2, c. 3, 29a.
"See: Ante, chapter X., "Condi-
tional Fees."
406 ESTATES-TAIL AFTER POSSIBILITY. [BOOK III.
of issue, the estate thereafter became alienable.^ This
constniction, being manifestly contrary to the evident
intention of the person creating such estate, was limited
by the statute De Donis,^ which, after reciting the case
of a gift in frank-marriage, comprises it in the remedial
part of the law, by which means gifts of this kind
become estates in tail special, and the donees were re-
strained from alienating them ; on failure of ■ issue the
land reverted to the donor or his heirs. ^
Sec. 465. Same— Fees-tail with conditional limitations.—
Where estates are given determinably to a person and the
heirs of his body as long as a tree shall- stand, or until
the donor or a specified person return froni Eome, or do
a prescribed act, the estate conveyed is a determinable
fee,* defeasible by the happening of such contingency.
In such a case the same rule applies as where a similar
limitation is annexed to a fee-simple estate, determ.inable
upon condition.^
Sec. 466. Same— Estates-tail after possibility.— Where an
estate has been given to two donees in special tail, the
death of one without issue leaves the other tenant in tail
with an estate of a peculiar character, which has been de-
nominated an estate-tail after possibility of issue extinct.
The tenant holding such an estate is known as a tenant
in tail after possibility ; ^ a,nd where the estate in tail is
an estate in remainder, which does not become an estate
in possession until after such death, the survivor is never-
theless tenant in tail after possibility.'' Such tenant is
not liable in an action for waste by a revisioner, but may
be restrained by injunction for willful and malicious
waste. This estate can only happen where the limitation
is to the donee and his heirs begotten upon the body of a
specified person, and such person has since died. If
the hmitation be to the heirs of one's body generally,
11 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 71, " Determinable Fees.''
§ 18. = See : 2 Prest. Est. 363, 446.
* See : Ante, § 456. « Litt., §§ 33, 33.
' 1 Inst. 31a ; 3 Id. 882, 833 ; See ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 37b,
3 Prest. Est. 378. 28b.
<See: Ante, chapter IX., on ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 38a, 28b.
Chap. XIU. §§ 467, 468.] CREATION OF ESTATES- TAIL. 407
as long as the donee survives, there is a legal possi-
bility of issue. ^ An estate- tail after possibility of
issue extinct can be created only by death, and not by
act of the parties. For this reason where two donees in
special tail are divorced a vinculo matrimonii, they will
thereafter be joint tenants for life,^ because there is no
presumption de jure that any person, however advanced
in years, cannot have issue. ^ The duration of the estate
of a tenant in tail, after the possibility of issue extinct,
does not differ from the- duration of a bare estate for
life ; and the exchange between a tenant after possibility
and the tenant for life is good.*
Sec. 467. How estates-tail are created.— An estate-tail
may be created by three different modes : (1) By a gift
to a man and his wife and to the heirs of their bodies ;
(2) by a gift in frank-marriage ; and (3) by a gift to a per-
son and the heirs of his body issuing. And if lands are
given to a person and his heirs, with the condition that in
case the donee die without heirs of his body, it shall re-
main to another, this is an estate-tail within the equity
of the statute De Bonis, though not within the words ;
for it is thought the makers of that statute did not mean
to enumerate all the forms of estates-tail, but simply to
put those above given as examples. As we have hereto-
fore seen,^ at common law, the intent of the donor was
infringed and eluded, and it was regarded as contrary to
right and good conscience, and for that reason the statute
was passed to restrain that vicious liberty of breaking
such intents, which was suffered by the common law.^
Sec. 468. Same— Words of procreation necessary.— In the
creation of an estate-tail it is essential that there should
1 List V. Rodney, 83 Pa. St. 483 ; ant is not punishable for waste.
Jee V. Audley, 1 Cox Eq. 334 ; s.c. Williams v. Williams, 13 East
1 Rev. Rep. 46 ; 209.
3 Bl. Com. 125 ; . ' See : Ante, § 456.
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 37b, 28a. « See : Maslin v. Thomas, 8 Gill
s 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 38a, 38b. (Md.) 18 ;
See- Post, chapter on "Joint Steel v. Cook, 43 Mass. (1 Met.)
Tenants." 281 ;
8 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 38a-28b. 3 Inst. 334 ;
* 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 28a. Plowd. 53.
Hot liable for waste. —But such ten-
408 MODES OF CREATION. [Book IH.
be a limitation to the heirs of the donee's body ; ^ and for
this reason the word " body," or some other words indi-
cating procreation, are indispensably necessary to create
a fee-tail, as well as to indicate to what heirs in particular
the fee is limited.^ "Where words of procreation are
omitted no other words which may be inserted will serve
to create an estate-tail.^
Sec. 469. Same— Methods of creation— a. By deed. —Estates-
tail are created either by deed or by will.* In the
creation of an estate-tail by deed the words "heirs of the
body " are the technical words used. Thus, a deed to the
grantee for her support during her natural life, and after
her decease to the heirs of her body and to their heirs
and assigns forever, creates a fee-tail general.^ But
where a deed was made to husband and wife of
land during their lives, then to the use of the issue of
the husband, their heirs and assigns ; in default of issue
by the husband, then to the husband's right heirs, their
heirs and assigns forever ; it was held that the husband
took an estate-tail.^ The word " heirs," in the limitation
• Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 1 Am. Deo. 634, where a parent
515 ; gave sundry property by deed
■Williamson v. Daniel, 25 U. S. to a married daughter, distinct
(13 Wheat.) 568; bk.6L.ed.731; from her husband, during her
Idle V. Cooke, 3 Ld. Raym. 1152 ; Ufe, " and at her death to the
Althan's Case, 8 Co. 154b ; heirs of her body." These
3 Prest. Est. 360. words were held to be words
'See : AtUnt;. Bunce,l Root (Conn.) of limitation, and not of pur-
96 ; chase, and constituting an es-
Pratt V. Flamer, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) tate-tail, which being too re-
10 ; mote, the property vested in
Perry v. Kline, 66 Mass. (13 Cush.) the first taker. An estate con-
137 ; veyed by indenture to A and
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30b ; his heirs, to the use of B, the
3 Bl. Com. 114, 115 ; wife of C, for life, remainder
3 Prest. Est. 480. to C for life, remainder to " the
3 See : Baker v. Scott, 63 111. 86 ; joint heirs of the body of E
Butler V. Huestis, 68 111. 594 ; s.c. and C, by them lawfully be-
18 Am. Rep. 593 ; gotten ; " and the estate so
3 Bl. Com. 115 ; limited to B declared to be in
2 Prest. Est. 412. trust, that, in case of the insol-
< The deed or the will may be either vency of C, it should not be
produced, or a proper founda- liable for his debts, is an estate
tion laid for presuming that it in special fee-tail in B and G,
had existed. and their eldest son is entitled
Maslinu Thomas, 8 Gill (Md.) 18. after their death, exclusively
■^ Den V. McPeake, 3 N. J. L. (1 of their other children.
Penn.) 391. Davis v. Hayden, 9 Mass. 514.
But in the case of Dott v. Cun- « Baughman v. Baughman, 3 yeates
nington, 1 Bay (S. C.) 453 ; s.c. (Pa.) 410.
Chap. XIII. § 470.] " HEIR " COLLECTIVE NAME. 400
of a fee-tail, is as necessary as in the limitation of a fee-
simple,^ because of the derivation of a fee-tail from a con-
ditional fee.^
Sec. 470. Same— Same— "Heir" nomen collectivmn.— The
word "heir" is nomen collectivum, and serves the same
purpose as the word " heirs. "^ Thus, in the case of
Osborne v. Shrieve,^ a testator devised an estate to his
son, "J. S., and to his male heir" (in the singular), "and
to his heirs and assigns forever ; but if it should so be
that J. S. should depart this life leaving no male heir,
lawfully begotten of his body, as aforesaid," then to the
testator's grandson, W, 0., in fee. The court held that
J. S. took an estate-tail, with remainder over to W. 0.,
on the indefinite failure of the issue of J. S. The estate
may be created without the use of the words ' ' of the
body," by the use of words regarded as their equivalent,*
as by conveying to a designated person " and his heirs,
namely, the heirs of his body ; " or to a person and the
heirs " of himself lawfully issuing or begotten ; " or to a
person and the heirs " of his wife," or "of his wife be-
gotten ;" or to a person and to the heirs " which he shall
happen to have or beget." ^ But if the word "heirs " be
omitted, an estate for life only will pass, although the
terms of entailment are otherwise sufficient. Thus a
grant by deed to a person and his issue of his body, or to
him and his seed, or to him and his children or offspring,
would create an estate for life, and not an estate in tail.''
• See : Ante, §§ 325-338. 1 Co. Litt. (19tli ed.) 20a.
« 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 20a. See : Dubber v. Trollop, 8 Vm.
' Hall V. Vandegrift, 3 Binn. (Pa.) 233, pi. 13.
374. ^ 5 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 20b ;
See : ' Manwaring v. Tabor, 1 3 Bac. Abr. 548.
Boot (Conn.) 79 " 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30b ;
4 3 jias c C 391. 3 Brest. Est. 485.
Lord' Coke cites an old case, in ' In the case of Sale v. Cmtchfield,
which it seems to have been 8 Bush (Ky.) 636, 648 a devise
held that the word "heir" in of property provided that m
the singular might be used as case the devisee "should die
a word of limitation to create without lawful issue, the es-
some kind of estate-tail. But tate should pass to another, the
the form of the limitations court held that the devisee took
there given is so strange and a defeasible fee, and that ths
abnormal that it cannot be intention of the testator was
safely relied upon as a prece- not to create an estate-tail.
dent.
410
CREATION— BY DEVISE.
[Book ni.
In the creation of an estate-tail, words of inheritance
may be supplied by reference to another limitation,
where such hmitation is clearly of an estate- tail ; such as
a gift to A and the heirs of his body, with remainder to
B, "in manner aforesaid."^ And where the estate-tail
is given with the habendum of the deed creating such
estate to the grantee and his heirs, this will not enlarge-
the estate to a fee-simple ; ^ nor will the entail be de-
stroyed by a warranty to the grantee " and his heirs as
aforesaid." ^ And where lands are conveyed by deed " to
A, the heirs of his body, and assigns forever, " the addi-
tion of the word " assigns " will not enlarge an estate
granted to a fee-simple.*
Sec. 4'ri. Same — Same — b. By devise. —An estate-tail,
either general or special, male or female, may be created
by devise as well as by deed. Where an estate-tail is sought
to be created by devise the technical words necessary for
that purpose are the same as those used in creating such
an estate by deed." A devise of real estate to a person
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed). 20b.
'- Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (20
Pick.) 515 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 21a.
3 Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (20
Pick.) 514.
" Pollock V. Speidel, 17 Ohio St.
439, 446.
^ A list of estates-tail and ths form of
their limitation is contained in
the foEowing schedule. For
the sake of clearness and con-
venience the masculine gender
only is used in specifying a
single donee.
I. General tails.
1. General : — To A and the
heirs of his body begotten.
Litt., §§ 14, 15 ; 1 Co. Litt.
(19thed.)19b-20b.
2. Male: — To A and the heirs
male of his body begotten.
Litt., §23; ICo. Litt. (19th
ed.) 24a-35a.
3. Female : — To A and the heirs
female of his body begotten.
Litt., §22; 1 Co. Litt. (19th
ed.) 24a-25a.
II. Special tails.
4. General, one donee : — To A
and his heirs which he shall
6,
8,
beget on the body of his
(specified) wife. Litt., § 29 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 26b.
This was anciently regarded
as the only proper form of
limitation ; but it was decided
in Chudleigh's Case, 1 Co. 120,
and in Dillon v. Freine, 1 Co.
140b, by resolution (5), that a
limitation "to A and his
heirs of the body of Jane S.
begotten," was sufficient for
the purpose. This had pre-
viously been doubted, and a
very plausible reason was al-
leged in favor of the doubt.
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 26b.
. Male, one donee : — To A
and his heirs male which, etc.
Female, one donee : — To A
and his heirs female which,
etc.
General, two donees : — To A
and B, the heirs of their two
bodies begotten. Litt. , § 16 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 21a.
Male, two donees :— To A
and B and the heirs male of
their two bodies begotten.
Litt., § 25 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th
ed.) 25b.
Chap. XIII. § 472.] BY DEVISE— WORDS NECESSARY.
411
for life, and the heirs of the body of such donee, creates
an estate- tail general,^ although there is no limitation
over ; ^ and this is true although the devise is made sub-
ject to the devisee's making payment of specific pecuniary
legacies out of the land.^ Such charge upon the devisee
in tail will not alter or enlarge the estate.* Such a devise
creates a valid estate-tail general, although it is imme-
diately followed by a devise of other land to another
devisee, with the provision that if either lot should, upon
appraisal, prove more valuable than the other, the devisee
of the more valuable lot should " give unto the other as
much as the overplus is. " ^
Sec. 472. Same — Same— Same — Words creating estate-tail.
— Such an estate may be created by a devise to' a donee
and his " heirs," ^ or " the heirs of his body," ^ or to their
9. Female, two donees : — To A
and B and the heirs female
of their two bodies begotten.
1 WeUes V. Olcott, 1 Kirby (Conn.)
118;
Atlin V. Bunce, 1 Root (Conn.) 96 ;
Manwaring v. Tabor, 1 Root
(Conn.) 79 ;
Watts V. Clardy, 3 Fla. 369 ;
PourneU v. Harris, 29 Ga. 736 ;
Brown v. Wever, 28 Ga. 877 ;
Lee V. McElvy, 23 Ga. 129 ;
HaU V. Thayer, 71 Mass. (5 Gray)
523 •
Wight V. Thayer, 67 Mass. (1
Gray) 284 ;
Malcolm v. Malcohn, 57 Mass. (3
Cush.) 473 ;
Nightingale v. Burrell, 32 Mass.
(15 Pick.) 104 ;
Davis V. Hayden, 9 Mass. 514 ;
Den V. Fogg, 3 N. J. L. (2 Penn.)
819, 880 ;
Seely v. Seely, 44 Pa. St. 434 ;
Haldeman v. Haldeman, 40 Pa.
St. 39 ;
Lapsley v. Lapsley, 9 Pa. St. 130 ;
Bender ■;;. Fleurie, 2 Grant Gas.
(Pa.) 345 ;
ElUott V. PearsoU, 8 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 38 ;
HefiEner v. Kjiapi)er, 6 Watts (Pa.)
18;
Burrough v. Foster, 6 R. I. 534 ;
Cooper t). Coursey, 2 Cold. (Tenn.)
416;
Giddings v. Smith, 15 Vt. 344 ;
Sleigh V. Strider, 5 CaU (Va.) 439 ;
Good V. Good, 7 El. & B. 295 ; s.c.
90 Eng. C. L. 294 ;
Parkeri;. Tootal, 3Hurl. &C. 1006 ;
Webb V. Byng, 3 Kay & J. 669 ;
S.O. 39 Eng. L. & Eq. 341.
2 Good V. Good, 7 El. & B. 395 ;
s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 294.
5 Good V. Good, 7 El. & B. 295 ;
s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 294.
■" Den ex d. Wilson v. Small, 20 N.
J. L. (1 Spenc.) 151.
See : Lapsley v. Lapsley, 9 Pa. St.
130.
' Hall V. Thayer, 71 Mass. (5 Gray)
533.
« Devise to one and Ms heirs special. —
Thus in Seely v. Seely, 44 Pa.
St. 434, a devise was to two
daughters " to hold during their
natural lives, and after .their
' Perry v. Kline, 66 Mass. (12 Cush.)
118.
Devise to several. — The same is
true regarding a devise to
several " and the heirs of their
bodies begotten."
True V. Nicholls, 3 Duv. (Ky.)
547;
Johnson V. Johnson, 3 Met. (Ky.)
334;
Brown v. Alden, 14 B. Mon. (Ky.)
141;
Lachland v. Dovraing, 11 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 33 ;
Prescott V. Prescott, 10 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 56, 58.
412
BY DEVISE— WORDS NECESSARY. [Book III.
heirs and assigns forever/ or "the lawful heirs of her
body,"^ or "to her children."^ A devise to one, and his
heirs by his present wife, will give an estate-tail special.*
Within this rule a devise to daughters and their unborn
children has been held to create an estate-tail.^ When-
ever in the devise of a remainder to the ' ' child " or
" children " of the first taker, it clearly appears that these
words are used in the sense of " issue " or " heirs of the
decease to their heirs, if any,"
and if without heirs, then to
heirs of testator. The devisees
took, under the will, as tenants
in tail, undivided moieties of
the land devised ; and on the
death of either one unmarried
and without issue,the remain-
der of her estate passed to
testator's heirs in fee under the
will.
Devise to one and his heirs general. —
It has been said, however, that
a devise to one for Ufe and to
his heirs generally does not
create an estate-tail.
Spencer ». Chick, 76 Me. 347 ;
Paddison ». Oldham, 1 Har. &
McH. (Md.) 336.
Same — Indiana doctrine. — In Helm
V. Frisbie, 59 Ind. 526, a tes-
tator devised his real estate
to his wife during her life, re-
mainder to the issue of her
body by him begotten, living
to lawful age, and, on failure
thereof, "the remainder to my
own relatives by consanguinity
at the time of her decease, who
may lawfully inherit the same
by the rules of the common
law." She died, and her issue
died during minority. In an
action by such "relatives,"
etc., the court held that the
will did not create an estate-
tail, and the devise was not
within the rule in Shelley's
Case.
' WeUes V. Olcott, 1 Kirby (Conn.)
118.
Wight V. Tliayer, 67 Mass. (1
Graj') 284 ;
Cooper V. Coursey, 3 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 416.
In Welles v. Olcott, 1 Ku-by
(Conn.) 118, a devise to " my
daughter Mary, and the heirs
of her body, forever," was held
to create an estate-taU.
In Cooper v. Coursey, 2 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 416, a testator made
the following devise: "I give
and bequeath to my daughter
C. the following tracts of land
. . . for and during her life,
and at her death to go to the
heirs of her body." Held, that
the words " heirs of her body "
were words of limitation, so
that the devisee took an absolute
entail, and having died leaving
issue of the marriage, her
husband became tenant by'
the curtesy.
« Giddings v. Smith, 15 Vt. 344.
Devise without words of procreation.
— The same is true of a devise
to one " and his lawful be-
gotten heir or heirs forever,"
without words of procreation.
Den ex d. Ewan v. Cox, 9 N. J. L.
(4 Halst.) 10.
Same — Virginia doctrine. — In Sleigh
V. Strider, 5 Call (Va.) 439, a
devise to R. H. " during his
natural life and no longer ; and
after, to his eldest son and his
heirs forever ; but if no male
issue, to his eldest daughter
and her heirs forever," gives
an estate-tail to R. H.
' Where a testatrix devised " in
trust to my executors, for my
niece M. A. B. and her children,
my estates, provided she takes
the name of C. and arms, and
her children, with my mansion-
house, furniture" (and other
articles), " as heirlooms with
my estate," the court held,
that M. A. B. took an estate-
tail.
Webb V. Byng, 2 Kay & J. 669 ;
s.c. 89 Eng. L. & Eq. 241.
'' Den ex d. Somers v. Peirson, 16
N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 181.
° Brown v. Wever, 28 Ga. 377.
Chap. XIII. § 473.] DEVISE TO SURVIVORS. 413
body," they will be treated as words of limitation
describing lineal succession to the entail, not words of
purchase in their general sense. ^ The devise of land to a
person " to be enjoyed" during his life, and at his death
to be enjoyed by his heirs, so on in tail forever, creates
an estate-tail.^ And a devise to a person of specified
property, reciting that it is "loaned" to the donee
' ' during his natural life and after his death " to his heirs,
creates an estate-tail.^ A devise to a man and the heirs
male of his body, lawfully begotten, is an estate-tail ; *
and, upon the death of the devisee without male heirs of
his body, the land reverts to the donor or his heirs, creates
an estate-tail.^
Sec. 473. Same— Same— Same— Devise to several and sur-
vivors.—A devise of an estate to several devisees, with
remainder to the survivors and their heirs, and if any of
them die without issue their share to be divided between
the survivors, creates an estate-tail in the devisees, with
remainder in fee to those who survive, and to the heirs of
those who died before those who died without issue.^ Thus
' Haldeman •;;. Haldeman, 40 Pa. of such male heir, to the male
St. 29. heir of said deceased and his
- EUiott V. PearsoU, 8 Watts & S. heirs forever. And in case my
(Pa.") 38. said grandson shall not leave
' Lee V. McElvy, 33 Ga. 139 ; any male heirs, I then give said
Watts V. Clardy, 3 Fla. 369 ; house to his next eldest brother
Collis V. Kemp, 11 Gratt. (Va.) during his life, and upon his
78. decease to his eldest male heir,
'' Manwaring v. Tabor, 1 Root lawfully begotten, and to his
(Conn.) 79 ; heirs forever." It was held
Atlin V. Bunce, 1 Root (Conn.) that D. took an estate-tail.
96 ; Malcolm v. Malcolm, 57 Mass. (3
Malcolm v. Malcolm, 57 Mass. Cush.) 472.
(3 Cush.) 472 ; A will gave to T. an " estate for
Den V. Fogg, 3 N. J. L. (2 Penn.) life, with remainder to the first
819, 880 ; son of the body of T. lawfully
Parker v. Tootal, 13 Hurl. & C. begotten, severally and succes-
1006. sively in tail male." The court
Where a testator devised as fol- held that the words " and other
lows: "I give and bequeath sons" might be introduced in
to my grandson D. my dwell- order to prevent the words
ing-house wherein I now live, "severally," etc., from being
he to take possession of the in effect struck out of the will ;
same at the age of twenty-one and T. was held to take an
years ; to hold the same to him estate-tail by implication.
during his life, and at and upon Parker v. Tootal, 3 Hurl. & C.
his decease, I give the same 1006.
dwelling-house to the eldest = Den v. Fogg, 2 Pa. St. 819, 880,
male heir of his body lawfuUy » Nightingale v. Burrell, 32 Mass.
begotten, and upon the decease (15 Pick.) 104 ;
4,14 REMAINDER OVER ON FAILURE. [Book III.
a devise to the testator's children A and B, their heirs and
assigns ; if either die withoui issue, to the survivor ; if
both, then to the next heir of the testator's family, gives
an estate-tail.^ And a devise to one and his wife, and the
heirs of her body, to be disposed of by him among his
children as he shall think proper, on condition that he, or
his heirs or assigns, pay to the wife of the devisor a certain
sum yearly during her life, does not create a fee-simple in
the husband, the devisee, but either vests an estate-tail in
him and his wife jointly, or in her alone ; the husband
having in his own right a term for his own life, and a
seisin, in right of his wife, of the tenancy in tail, during
their joint lives. ^
Sec. 474. Same— Same— Same— Remainder over on failure
of issue.— An absolute bequest followed by a limitation over
wiU create an estate-tail by implication.^ Thus a devise
to a person during his natural life, and, at his death, to
his heirs or the lawful issiie of his body ; and if he should •
die without leaving issue of his body living at the time
of his death, then over, is construed an estate-tail by
implication.* But an estate-tail is never raised by im-
Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass. Pierce v. Hakes, 33 Pa. St. 331 ;
161 ; Amelia Smith's Appeal, 23 Pa.
Doyle V. MuUady, 83 Pa. St. 264 ; St. 9 ;
Lapsley v. Lapsley, 9 Pa. St. 130 ; Vaughan v. Dickes, 20 Pa. St.
HeflEner v. Knapper, 6 Watts (Pa.) 509 ;
18 ; Braden v. Cannon, 1 Grant Cas.
Burrough v. Foster, 6 R. I. 534. (Pa.) 60 ;
I Doyle V. MuUady, 33 Pa. St. 364. Shoofstall v. PoweU, 1 Grant (Pa.)
' Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass. 19 ;
161, 175. Irwin v. Dunwoody, 17 Serg. &
3 Dart V. Dart, 7 Conn. 250 ; R. (Pa.) 61 ;
Laidler v. Young's Lessee, 3 Har. Amelong v. Dorneyer, 16 Sere. &
&J. (Md.)69; R. (Pa) 323, 325; ^
Hurlburt v. Emerson, 16 Mass. Eichelberger v. Bamitz, 9 Watts
241 ; (Pa.) 447 ;
Morehouse v. Cotheal, 31 N. J. Heffner v. Knapper, 6 Watts fPa )
L. (IZab.) 480; 18; ^
Ogden's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 501 ; Hill v. Burrow, 3 Call (Va.) 343 ;
Gast V. Baer, 62 Pa. St. 35 ; Sydnor v. Sydnor, 3 Munf. (Va.)
Matlack ?;. Roberts, 54 Pa. St.l48; 268; •' ' "- ''
Curtis V. Longstreth, 44 Pa. St. Williamson v. Daniel 25 U. S.
397 ; (12 Wheat.) 568 ; bk. 6 L. ed.
Wynn v. Story, 38 Pa. St. 166 ; 731.
Criley v. Chamberlain, 30 Pa. St. ■> Turrill v. Northrop, 51 Conn. 38 ;
^J^} ' „ . „ WiUiams v. McCall, 13 Conn. 328^
Wall V. Maguire, 24 Pa. St. 249 ; Dart v. Dart, 7 Conn. 250 ;
Hansell v. Hubbell, 24 Pa. St. Hamilton v. Hempstead. 3 Dav
344 ; (Conn.) 362 ;
Chap. XIII. § 474.] DYING WITHOUT ISSUE.
415
plication upon the words " dying without issue," whether
the first devise was for life or in fee, without additional
Waples V. Harman, 1 Hair. (Del.)
323 •
Watts' V. Clardy, 3 Fla, 369 ;
Haddock v. Perham, 70 Ga. 573 ;
Lee V. McElvy, 33 Ga. 129 ;
HoUifleld v. SteU, 17 Ga. 280 ;
Wiley V. Smith, 3 Ga. (3 KeUy)
551 ;
Deboe v. Lowen, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.)
616;
Riggs V. SaUy, 15 Me. (3 Shep.)
408;
Chew V. Chew, 1 Md. 163 ;
Hatton V. Weems, 13 Gill & J.
(Md.) 83 ;
Pratt V. Flamer, 5 Har. & J.
(Md.) 10 ;
Shanks v. Blackiston, 4 Har. &
J. (Md.) 481 ;
Pottenger v. Stewart, 3 Har. & J.
(Md.) 347 ;
Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. &. J.
(ka.) 69 ;
Brown v. Anderson, 3 Har. &
McH. (Md.) 100;
Mockbee ■;;. Clagett, 3 Har. &
McH. (Md.) 1, 88 ;
Chew V. Weems, 1 Har. & McH.
(Md.) 463 ;
Hayward v. Howe, 78 Mass. (13
Gray) 49 ; s.c. 71 Am. Dec.
734;
HaU V. Priest, 73 Mass. (6 Gray)
18;
Albee v. Carpenter, 66 Mass. (13
Cush.) 383 ;
Perry v. Kline, 66 Mass. (13 Cush.)
118;
Malcolm u Malcohn, 57 Mass. (3
Cush.) 473 ;
Canedy v. Haskins, 54 Mass. (13
Met.) 389 ; s.c. 46 Am. Deo. 739 ;
Terry v. Briggs, 53 Mass. (13
Met.) 17 ;
Cuffee V. Milk. 51 Mass. (10 Met.)
366;
Nightingale v. Burrell, 33 Mass.
(15 Pick.) 104 ;
Hurlburt v. Emerson, 16 Mass.
341;
Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass.
161, 175 ;
Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass,
3, 34 ; s.c. 5 Am. Deo. 66 ;
Idev. Ide, 5 Mass. 500 ;
Williams v. Hichbom, 4 Mass.
189;
Executors of Condict v. King, 13
N. J. Eq. (3 Beas.)375j
Chetwood v. Winston, 40 N. J.
L. (11 Vr.) 337 ;
Den ex d. Somers v. Peirson, 16
N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 181 ;
Den ex d. Ewan v. Cox, 9 N. J.
L. (4 Halst.) 10 ;
Den ?;.Hugg, 5 N. J. L. (3 South.)
427;
Den ex d. Wilson v. Small, 20 N.
J. L. (lSpenc.>151;
Den V. Fogg, 3 N. J. L. (3 Penn.)
819, 880 ;
Den V. Moore, 1 N. J. L. (Coxe)
386;
Den ex d. Hinohman v. Clark, 1
N. J. L. (Coxe) 446 ;
Lott V. Wykoff, 3 N. Y. 355,
affirming s.c. 1 Barb. (N. Y.)
565;
Ebbets V. Quick, 66 How. (N. Y.)
Pr. 184 ;
Jackson v. Billinger, 18 John. (N.
Y.) 368 ;
Burnet v. Denniston, 5 John. Ch.
(N. Y.) 35 ;
Roosevelt v. Thurman, 1 John.
Ch. (N. Y.) 230 ;
Ross V. Toms, 4 Dev. (N. C.) L.
376;
Sanders v. Hyatt, 1 Hawks. (N.
C.) 347 ;
Gibson v. Maulton, 3 Disn. (Ohio)
158;
Lawrence v. Lawrence, 105 Pa.
St. 335 ;
Hope V. Rusha, 88 Pa. St. 137 ;
Moody V. Snell, 81 Pa. St. 359 ;
Seeley v. Seeley, 44 Pa. St. 434 ;
Curtis V. Longstreth, 44 Pa. St.
397 •
Walker v. Dunshee, 38 Pa. St.
430;
Wynn v. Story, 38 Pa. St. 166 ;
Kay V. Scates, 37 Pa. St. 31 ; s.c.
78 Am. Dec. 399 ;
Doyle V. MuUady, 33 Pa. St.
364:
Rancel v. Creswell, 80 Pa. St.
158;
WaU V. Maguire, 24 Pa. St. 248 ;
HanseU v. Hubbell, 24 Pa. St.
244 ;
Willis'v. Bucher, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 455;
Braden v. Cannon, 1 Grant Cas.
(Pa.) 60 ;
Shoof stall V. Powell, 1 Grant Cas.
(Pa.) 19 ;
Caskey v. Brewer, 17 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 441 ;
416
LIMITATION WITH POWER.
[BOOK III.
words to control the construction. ^ A limitation in a
will to one for life, with power of appointment in favor
Amelong v. Dorneyer, 16 Serg.
& R. (Pa.) 323 ;
Gause v. Wiley, 4 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 509 :
Shestz's Will, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
487, n.;
Clark V. Baker, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
470;
Duer V. Boyd, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
203;
Eichelberger v. Barnitz, 9 Watts
(Pa.) 447 ;
Heffner v. Knapp, 6 Watts (Pa.)
18;
Shoemaker v. Huffnagle, 4 Watts
& S. (Pa.) 437 ;
Sharp V. Thompson, 1 Whart.
(Pa.) 139 ;
Haines v. Witmer, 2 Yeates (Pa.)
400;
Roe V. Davis, 1 Yeates (Pa.) 332 ;
Wilcox V. Heywood, 12 R. I. 196;
Brownell v. Brownell, 10 R. I.
509;
Jillson V. Wilcox, 7 R. I. 515 ;
Arnold v. Brown, 7 R. I. 188 ;
Manchester ■;;. Durfee, 5 R. 1.549 ;
Whitworth v. Stuckey, 1 Rich.
(S. C.) Eq. 404 ;
Tate V. Tally, 3 Call (Va.) 354 ;
HiU V. Barrow, 3 Call (Va.) 342 ;
Tinsley v. Jones, 13 Gratt. (Va.)
289;
Sale V. Crutohfield, 8 Bush (Ky.)
636, 648 ;
Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass.
3-34;
Ide V. Ide, 5 Mass. 500 ;
Wynn v. Story, 88 Pa. St. 166.
Dying without issue over — ^Pennsyl-
vania rule. — In the case of
Wynn v. Story, 38 Pa. St.
166, where a testator devised
certain real estate to one, his
heirs and assigns, forever, if he
should die leaving lawful issue,
but if lie should die without
such issue, for life only, and
then over, as provided in the
will, it was held that the words
of the devise imported an in-
definite failure of issue, and
that the devisee took an estate-
tail.
Same — Massacliusetts rule. . — The
Supremo Judicial Court of
Massachusetts say, in the case
Callia V. Kemp, 11 Gratt. (Va.)
78 •
Nowiin V. Winfree, 8 Gratt. (Va.)
346;
Eldridge v. Fisher, 1 Hen. & M.
(Va.) 559 ;
Doe V. Craiger, 8 Leigh (Va.) 449 ;
Thomason v. Andersons, 4 Leigh
(Va.) 118 ;
Bramble v. BiUups, 4 Leigh (Va.)
90;
Jiggetts V. Davis, 1 Leigh (Va.)
368;
Ball V. Payne, 6 Rand. (Va.) 73 ;
Broaddus v. Turner, 5 Rand.
(Va.) 308 ;
Bells V. Gillespie, 5 Rand. (Va.)
273;
Goodricli v. Harding, 3 Rand.
(Va.) 280 ;
Kendall v. Eyre, 1 Rand. (Va.)
288;
Tidbali v. Lupton, 1 Rand. (Va.)
194;
WUUamson v. Daniel, 25 U. S.
(13 Wheat.) 568 ; bk. 6 L. ed.
731 •
James' Claim, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.)
47 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 31 ;
Murdock v. Shackelford's Heirs,
1 Brook. C. C. 131 ;
Osborne v. Shrieve, 3 Mas. C. C.
391;
of Ide V. Ide, 5 Mass. 500, that
a devise to one in fee-simple,
with a devise over if he die
"without issue, or without
leaving issue," gives him an
estate-tail, with a remainder
over, expectant on its deter-
mination, the words meaning
an indefinite failure of issue
after the death of tlie first
taker.
Same — New Jersey rule. — The Su-
preme Court of New Jersey
say in Chetwood v. Winston,
40 N. J. L. (11 Vr.) 337, that a
devise of a fee, followed by a
limitation that if the devisee
shall die, leaving no lawful
issue, the lands shall be sold
and tlie money divided between
the testator's children, except-
ing one of them, creates an
estate-tail at common law.
Chap. Xin. § 475.] REVERSION ON INDEFINITE FAILURE. 417
of the issue of his body, and in default of such appoint-
ment to such issue ; and if he should die leaving no such
issue of his body, then over, creates an estate-tail in the
first taker. ^
Sec. 475. Same— Same— Same— Effect of reversion on in-
definite failure.— A provision for a reversion on an indefi-
nite failure of issue has the same effect as a remainder in
fee or tail limited thereon.^ The expressions " die with-
IdUibridge v. Adie, 1 Mas. C. C.
234;
Parkman v. Bowdoin, 1 Sum. C.
C 359 ■
Wright V. Scott, 4 "Wash. C. C.
16;
Willis V. Bucher, 3 Wash. C. C.
369;
Biddulph V. Lees, 1 El. & B. &E.
389;
DeWindt v. DeWindt, L. R. 1 H.
T or* .
Biss V. Smith, 40 Eng. L. & Eq.
541;
Good V. Good, 7 El. & Bl. 295 ;
s.c. 90 Eng. C. L. 394 ; 40 Eng.
L. & Eq. 213 ;
Butt V. Thomas, 86 Eng. L. &
Eq. 571 ;
VoUer V. Carter, 4 El. & Bl. 173 ;
s.c. 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 267 ; 82
Eng. C. L. 172.
A devise to one when he shall arrive
at age of twenty-one years, and
the heirs of his body lawfully
begotten, and in case he should
die without issue, then over in
fee, is a gift in fee-tail, and not
an executory devise.
Williams v. Hichbom, 4 Mass.
189.
Fee conditional — Heirs not take as
purchasers. — Land was devised
to a son of the testator, " dur-
ing his natural Ufe, and, at his
death, to the lawful issue of his
body ; but if he should die with-
out leaving issue of his body
living at the time of his death,"
then over. Held, that the son
took an estate-tail, or fee con-
ditional, and that his issue
could not take as purchasers.
Whitworth v. Stuckey, 1 Rich.
(S. C.) Ch. 404-.
To survivor and over. — By wUl,
dated 1778, a testator devised
land to his two sons to be
27
equally divided between them,
to them and their heirs for-
ever ; but in case either of
them should die without issue
lawfully begotten, then to the
survivor ; and in case both
should die without lawful issue,
then to be sold and given to his
daughters, the court held that
the sons took an estate-tail,
which, by tlie Virginia statute
of 1776, was converted into
a fee-simple.
Broaddus v. Turner, 5 Rand. (Va.)
308.
A will giving the widow certain
property for life or widow-
hood, and should she marry
again, the same to be equally
divided between her and his
children, and should she marry
again and die leaving no child
by her second husband, then
her part to go to testator's chil-
dren, cannot be construed as
conveying an estate-tail.
Clements v. Glass, 23 Ga. 395.
' Kay V. Scates, 37 Pa. St. 31 ; s.c.
78 Am. Dec. 399.
« Hayward v. Howe, 78 Mass. (12
Gray) 49 ; s. c. 71 Am. Dec.
734.
See; Whitoomb v. Taylor, 123
Mass. 243, 249 ;
Wheatland v. Dodge, 51 Mass.
(10 Met.) 502 ;
Parker v. Parker, 46 Mass. (5
Met.) 138.
An estate-tail will pass if the lan-
guage in which the devise is
made implies an intention on
the part of the testator that the
issue of the first taker shall
have the estate after their
father, as heir of his body, and
that the devise over shall not
take effect until the indefinite
failure of such issue.
418 CONSTRUCTION— RULE OF. [BOOK IH.
out issue " or " having no issue " or "die without leav-
ing issue," and the like, in the absence of any qualifying
words showing a contrary intent, will always be held to
refer to the indefinite failure of issue. ^ An important
and controlling element in determining whether a defi-
nite or indefinite failure of issue is intended by the testa-
tor, is the nature of the estate limited in remainder, a
devise over for life necessarily implying that the devise
in remainder may outlive the first estate,^ because it
is not likely in such case that the testator was contem-
plating an indefinite failure of issue, as that might, and
most probably would, not happen until many years after
the death of the object of the ulterior limitation.^ While
it is true that the character of the estate limited is an
important element in determining the intention of the
testator, yet it is not all-controlling, if the limitation of
the life estate in remainder does not of itself convert
what would otherwise be construed an indefinite into a
definite failure of issue.*
Sec. 4:Y6. Same— -Saiiie— Same— Rule of construction.— In
construing such devises the manifest intention of the
testator must govern ; and where it is apparent that the
Whitcomb v. Taylor, 122 Mass. 353; s.c. 2 Curt. C. C. 136.
249. 'Hope u Rusha, 88Pa. St. 127 ;
■ Riggs V. SaUy, 15 Me. 408 ; Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 485 ;
Newton v. Griffith, 1 Har. & G. s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 565 ;
(Md.) Ill ; Eichelberger v. Barnitz, 9 Watts
Brightman v. Brightman, 100 (Pa.) 450.
Mass. 238 ; See : Pells v. Brown, Cro. Jac.
Allen i\ Trustees of Ashley School 590 ;
Fund, 102 Mass. 265 ; Roe v. Jeffery, 7 T. R. 589.
Hall V. Priest, 72 Mass. (6 Gray) ' Eichelberger v. Branitz, 9 "Watts
18 ; (Pa.) 450.
Weld V. Williams, 54 Mass. (13 See : French v. Caddell, 3 Bro. P.
Met.) 486 ; C. 257 ;
Parker v. Parker, 46 Mass. (5 Wellington v. Wellington, 4
Met.) 134 ; Burr. 2165 ;
Nightingale v. Burrell, 32 Mass. Fearne on Rem. 450, note 6.
(15 Pick.) 104 ; * Watkins v. Sears, 3 GiU (Md„)
Executors of Condict v. King, 13 492.
N. J. Eq. (2 Beas.) 375 ; The simple addition of " luunarried "
Waplesv. Harmon, 16 N. J. L. to the qualification "dying
(1 Harr.) 223 ; without issue " wiU not turn
Kay V. Scates, 37 Pa. St. 31 ; s.c. an indefinite into a definite
78 Am. Deo. 399 ; failure of issue.
Stonev. McMulUn(Pa.),10W. N. Matlaok ^•. Roberts, 54 Pa. St.
C. 541 ; 148 ;
Abbott V. The Essex Co., 59 U.S. Vaughan v. Dickes, 20 Pa. St.
(18 How.) 303 ; bk. 15 L. ed. 509.
Chap. XIII. § 477.] CONSTRUCTION— INTENTION.
419
intention of the testator was that the issue shall take by-
inheritance from the first taker, and that there shall be
an estate in fee-simple or in fee-tail in remainder on an
indefinite failure of issue, the devise will be construed aS
creating an estate-tail. ^ In Kentucky, however, a devise
in fee followed by a devise over, in case the first taker
shall die without lawful issue, creates a defeasible fee,
and not an estate- tail. ^
Sec. 47Y. Same— Same— Same— intention of testator.— In
the creation of estates-tail, as in the creation of estates
in fee-simple, by devise, a much more liberal practice
existed at common law than in the creation of the same
estates by deed.^ The general rule of construction of
devises creating either an estate in fee-simple or an estate-
tail, is that the intention of the testator shall prevail
where such intention can be carried out without a viola-
tion of any of the well-known rules of law.* This rule
has been said by Chief Justice Marshall to be " the polar
star to guide us in the construction " of such instru-
ments.^
While the technical ® words for the creation of an estate ■
tail by will are the same as those that are required to
create the same estate by deed, yet, because of the prob-
able want of technical knowledge on the part of the
testator, as well as the possible lack of time for delib-
eration and the attention paid by the courts to the in-
tention of the testator, these technical words are not
essential ; and any expression in the will under consider-
' Pott's Appeal, 30 Pa. St. 168.
« Sale V. Crutchfield, 8 Bush (Ky.)
637;
Daniel v. Thomson, 14 B. Men.
(Ky.) 662 ;
Hart V. Thompson, 3 B. Mon.
(Ky.)483.
3 See : Ante, § 345.
* See : Ante, % 348.
s Smiths. Bell, 31 U. S. (6 Pet.) 68,
75, 84 ; bk. 8L. ed. 323, 325, 338.
See : Ante, § 307.
• Teclinical rules. — The policy of the
law is against entails, the courts
will give effect to a testator's
■intent, notwithstanding tech-
nical rules.
Nussbaum v. Evans, 71 G-a. 753.
The nature of the property be-
queathed does not restrict the
meaning of the technical
Hollifleld V. SteU, 17 Ga. 380.
Nor are such terms restrained by
the distributive disposition fol-
lowing the word "then," since
it is only when the distributive
words change the line of de-
scent marked out by the words
upon which they are engrafted,
that the latter are taken as
words of purchase.
Hollifleld V. SteU, 17 Ga. 280.
420 INTENTION— WORDS SHOWING. [BOOK III.
ation-whicli shows that the intention of the testator was
to give an estate to a person for his life, and that such
estate should be inherited by his issue, will be construed
to be an estate-tail.^ Thus, where a testator devised his
lands to two persons to hold to them and their lawful
issue forever, share and share alike in two equal shares,
with the further direction that in case either of the
devisees should die without leaving issue of their bodies,
then the land should go to the survivor and his lawful
issue forever, and that if both devisees died without
issue, then over in fee, the court said that " there was a
plain intention to provide for each devisee and issue for-
ever ; that is to say, as long as issue should remain, which
might possibly be forever." The intent is equally plain,
too, that the issue of each should take through the an-
cestor by descent, and not with the ancestor by purchase,
because the land is to be divided into but two parts ;
whereas, if even all the children of the daughter and
granddaughter were to take as purchasers with their
parents, it might be necessary to divide it into many
parts ; and also because there is no mode but by descent
in which the estate can be secured to the issue indefinitely.
The intention of giving to the parents first, and then to
the issue so long as issue should remain, is an intent to
give an estate-tail.^
Sec. 4:18. Same— Same— Same— Expressions which carry
estate-tail.— Although the words heirs of the body are the
necessary technical words to create an estate-tail, yet
there are other words and phrases which have been held
equivalent to the words "heirs of the body,"^ and con-
' Wright V. Scott, 4 Wash. C. C. 16. See : Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Met.
« Clark V. Baker, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) (Ky.) 331 ;
470. Perry v. Kline, 66 Mass. (12 Gush.)
See : Stone v. McMuUen (Pa.), 10 118 ;
W. N. C. 541. Allen v. Henderson, 49 Pa. St.
5 Word of limitation and not of pur- 333 ;
chase. — A limit in a devise to a Haldeman v. Haldeman, 40 Pa.
donee and "his heirs," and St. 29.
should the donee die without "Heirs" and "heirs of hody " — Not
heirs of his body, the word indispensable. — It is said in Price
"heirs" must be considered a v. Taylor, 28 Pa. St. 95; s.o. 70
word of limitation and not of Am. Dec. 105, 108, that the
purchase. word "heirs" and "heirs of
Chap. XIII. § 478.] WORDS CAREYING FEE.
421
strued to carry a fee- tail. The word "issue" in a will
has been held to mean, prima facie, the same thing as
" heirs of the body," and in general is to be construed as
a word of limitation,^ in the absence of anything on the
the body " most frequently ex-
press the relation in which the
second must stand to the first,
in order to come within the
rule. But the presence or
absence of these words is not
conclusive either way, for any
other words, such as " next of
kin," "sons," "daughters,"
"issue," "children," "de-
scendants,'' wiU answer quite
as well, if they appear to be
equivalent ; and the most ap-
propriate words will not
answer, if used in a special and
inappropriate sense.
Any form of words sufficient to show
that the remainder is to go to
those whom the law points out
as the general or lineal heirs of
the first taker will be sufficient,
unless it be perfectly clear that
such heirs are selected on their
own account, and not simply
as heirs of the first taker.
Jones V. Morgan, 1 Bro. C. C.
219
See : Price v. Taylor, 38 Pa. St.
95; s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 105, 108.
1 The word "issue" in a will is
primarily a word of limitation. —
Where a testator devised one-
third of his estate to each of
his three children for life,
with power of appointment in
favor of the issue of his or her
body, in. ' default thereof to
said issue, and in default of
any issue to the heirs of the
testator, directing the same to
be held in trust by his execu-
tors, who were directed to sell
and invest the property in real
estate, and allow the children,
from their income therefrom,
such money for their support
and education as they may
think proper, and also, on their
attaining the age of twenty-
five, to pay them respectively
during their natural fives, in
quarterly installments, the in-
come of the said real estate
for their respective benefit, it
was held, that on the children's
attaining respectively the age
of twenty-five, the devise
created a complete estate-tail
in each, clear of the trust,
which, by the act of 1855, was
converted into an estate in fee-
simple.
Kay V. Scates, 37 Penn. St. 31 ;
s.c. 78 Am. Dec. 399.
" Issue" is nomen collectivum —
Embraces lineal descendants. —
Vice-Chancellor McCoun says,
in Kingsland v. Rapelye, 3
Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 1, 6, that
"'issue' is a word as exten-
sive in its import as the phrase
'heirs of the body.' It em-
braces lineal descendants of
every generation ; and is not
satisfied by applying it to those
at any given period, since it
equally appUes to all objects of
that description at every period.
It is nomen collecHvum ; and
when used in a devise, by
which the ancestor takes a
freehold without any words to
modify or restrict its meaning
and appfication, it is a word of
finiitation and of the same
effect with ' heirs of the body.'
Tills position is abundantly
supported by authority. In
Kingij. Melling, 1 Vent. 225,
where the devise was to a son
for life, and, after his decease,
to the issue of his body by a
second wife, and for the want
of such issue, over, the ques-
tion was, whether the son took
an estate for life or in tail.
Two of the judges of the King's
Bench decided he took an
estate for life, against the
opinion of Chief Justice Hale,
who, upon mature considera-
tion, held that an estate-tail
was created. Hale observes :
' It must be admitted that, if
the devise were to the son and
the issue of his body, he having
no issue at the time, it would
be an estate -tail ; for the law
will carry over the word
" issue" not only to his imme-
diate issue, but to all that shall
descend from him. It would
422
WORDS CARRYING FEE.
[Book III.
face of the instrument to show that the word was intended
to have a less extended meaning, and to be applied only
to children, or to descendants of a particular class or at a
particular time.^ Where the word " heirs " is used, and
be otherwise if there were no
issue at the time ; ' because, as
1 apprehend, in that case the
issue (meaning children) would
take jointly with their parents
as purchasers. 'Again,' he
says, ' if a devise be made to a
man, and after his death to his
issue (or children) having issue
at that time, they take by way
of remainder.' This can be
only by reading the word
' issue ' as a word of purchase,
synonymous with ' children,'
which he evidently does. He
then proceeds to give the
reasons for his opinion in the
case itself and to answer the
objections against his conclu-
sion, one of which was that
the Umitation to the son was
expressly for hf e ; upon which
he observes, that ' though these
words do weigh the intention
that way, yet they are balanced
by an apparent intention that
weighs as much on the other
side ; wMch is that, as long as
the son should have children,
the land shall never go over,
for there was as much reason
to provide for the issue of the
issue as the iirst issue.' Again
he observes : ' A tenant in tail
has, for many purposes, but an
estate for life ; but it is by con-
sequence and operation of law
only that it becomes an estate-
tail.' (See : King v. Melling,
2 Lev. 58, 61.) In Shaw v.
Weigh, 3 Str. 798— but better
reported in Fitzg. 7, and s.c.
3 Bro. P. C. tom. ed. 130, under
the name of Sparrow v. Shaw,
where a judgment of reversal
in B. E. was itself reversed —
the same doctrine wiU be found
and the principle established.
Roe V. Grew, 3 Wils. 323 ; s.c.
Wilm. Op. 373, is likewise a
strong authority upon the point.
There was a devise to George
Grew for life ; and from and
after his decease to the issue
male of his body, etc., and for
the want of such issue male
then over; and the question
was whether George Grew took
an estate-tail or for life only.
The judges were unanimous
that it was an estate-tail. It
was admitted that the word
'issue' in a wiU is a wordi
either of purchase or limita-
tion, as would best effectuate
the intention of the testator ;
and, although it was clearly
the testators intention that
George Grew should have an
estate for life only, yet it was
also as clear that he intended his
sons should take in succes-
sion, under the limitation
to the issue male of his
body ; and as both inten-
tions could not be effected
since, if George Grew took
only for hf e, his sons could not
take in succession through their
father, but would be entitled,
if at all, in remainder as de-
visees or purchasers, therefore,
in balancing the two inten-
tions, the weightiest appeared
to be that they should take
in succession, and so, to enable
them to take, it was necessary
to adjudge him to be tenant in
tail. It is to be observed in
this case that it was considered
as making no difference that
George Grew had no child at
the time of making the will,
and that he had died after the
testator without leaving issue
male."
1 Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 481 ;
s.c. 3 Am. Eep. 565.
See : Johnson v. Johnson, 3 Met.
(Ky.) 331.
Narrowing the word "issue." —
There is less reluctance to nar-
row the prima facie meaning
of the word "issue" than of
the words ' ' heirs of the body,"
because these latter words are
proper technical words of lim-
itation, while "issue" is not,
when used in a deed ; and ac-
cordingly, in a will it is to
be construed as a word of pur-
chase or of limitation, as will
Chap. XIII. § 478.] EXPRESSIONS CARRYING FEE.
423
it is manifest from the will that "issue" is thereby
meant, it will be given the same construction as the word
"issue " ; ^ and when it is apparent that the word " heir "
is used in the sense of issue as "male heir," or as a
nomen collectivum, it will be given the same construc-
tion ;2 the phrase "legal heirs "or "lawful issue "^ in
a will has been construed to have the same effect.* A
devise to one and to his "legal offspring" forever;^ or
to one and his " male heirs " ; ^ or to a devisee " and his
children," where such devisee has no children at the time
best effectuate the intention of
the testator, gathered from tlie
entire instrument. This ■was
well expressed long ago by
Cluef Justice Willes : ' ' Wliy
does the word ' issue ' in a will
signify the same as ' heirs of
the body ' ? Only because it
may be supposed that the tes-
tator, who was ignorant of the
law, intended it should have
that construction. It does not,
therefore, ex vi termini create
an estate-tail in a will as ' heirs
of the body ' do in a deed, but
only when it appears to be the
intent of the testator that the
word should have that con-
struction, or, at least, that it
does not appear that the intent
of the testator was otherwise.
Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 481 ;
s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 565.
See : Lessee of Findlay v. Riddle,
3 Binn. (Pa.) 139 ;
Paxson V. Lefferts, 3 Rawle (Pa.)
59;
Abbott V. Jenkins, 10 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 296 ;
Clark V. Baker, 3 Serg. &R. (Pa.)
470;
Hoge V. Hoge, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
144;
Slater v. Dangerfleld, 15 Mees. &
W. 263 ;
Doe ex d. Cooper v. CoUis, 4 T.
R. 294 ; s.c. 2 Rev. Rep. 388;
Ginger v. White, Willes, 348.
Construction of "issue" when equiv-
alent to " children." — It is a posi-
tion not open to dispute, that if
it appears, either by expression
or by clear implication, that
by the word "issue" the tes-
tator meant "children" or
issue living at a particular
period, as at the death of the
first taker, and not the whole
line of succession which would
be included under the term
"heirs of the body," it must
necessarily be construed to be
a word of purchase ; and the
rule in Shelley's Case can have
no application.
Taylor v. Taylor, 63 Pa. St. 481 ;
s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 565.
' See : Jordan v. Roache, 32 Miss.
(3 George) 481 ;
Albee v. Carpenter, 66 Mass. (18
Cush.) 382 ;
Holcomb V. Lake, 24 N. J. L. (4
Zab.) 686 ;
Haldeman v. Haldeman, 40 Pa.
St. 29 ;
Wall V. Maguire, 24 Pa. St. 248 ;
VoUer V. Carter, 4 El. & Bl. 173 ;
s.c. 82 Eng. C. L. 172 ; 29 Eng.
L. & Eq. 267.
"Heirs" used as "children." — The
same is true where the testator
used the word "heirs" and it
appears that he intended it to
mean children.
Brown v. Wever, 28 Ga. 377 ;
Seibert v. Wise, 70 Pa. St. 147 ;
Parkman v. Bowdoin, 1 Sumn.
C C 3159
« CufEee v. Milk, 51 Mass. (10 Met.)
366;
Den d. Ewan v. Cox, 9 N. J. L.
(4 Halst.) 10 ;
Hall V. Vandegrift, 3 Binn. (Pa.)
374;
Brownell v. Brownell, 10 R. I.
509.
' Kingsland v. Rapelye, 3 Edw. Ch.
(N. Y.) 1, 5.
* Bradon v. Cannon, 24 Pa. St.
168 ; s.c. 1 Grant Cas. (Pa.)
60.
s Allen V. Markle, 36 Pa. St. 117.
" Den ex d. Crane v. Fogg, 3 N. J.
L. (3 Penn.) 598.
424: FEE REDUCED BY CONTEXT. [Book III.
of the making of the will ; ^ or to one " and his heirs law-
fully begotten," followed by a remainder in case the
devisee die without heirs ; ^ or a devise to one and his
"lawful heirs from generation to generation;"^ or a
devise to one "and his grandchildren,"* have all been
construed to carry an estate-tail.
Sec. 479. Same— Same— Same— Fee reduced by context.—
In some cases where the testator has used the words " in
fee-simple," in defining the estate devised, they have
been made to give way to the context of the instrument,
and an estate in fee-tail held to have been created
by the instrument. Thus a fee is converted by implica-
tion into a tail by limitation over an indefinite failure of
issue,^ but if, instead, the limitation over be on default
of issue at death of the first taker, no such implication
arises, and the limitation over merely reduces the fee to
a conditional one.® If the remainder is to persons stand-
ing in the relation of general or special heirs of the ten-
ant for life, the law presumes that they are to take as
heirs, unless it unequivocally appears that individuals
' Nightingale ■;;. Burrell, 33 Mass. Sheetz's Will, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
(15 Pick.) 104 ; 487, note ;
Clark V. Baker, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) Hoge v. Hoge, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
470. 144 ;
In VoUer v. Carter, 4 El. & Bl. Eichelberger v. Bamitz, 9 Watts
173 ; s.c. 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 267 ; (Pa.) 950 ;
82 Eng. C. L. 172, a life Stewart v. Kenower, 7 Watts &
interest in two freehold S. (Pa.) 288 ;
houses was devised to E. D., Doe ex d. Bamfield v. Wetton, 3
and "should she marry and Bos. & P. 324.
have issue, then to go to her A limitation to the isstie in fee does
children ; if she have no issue, not afiEect the question.
then to go to F.W." The court Price v. Taylor, 28 Pa. St. 95 ;
held that E. D. took an estate- s.c. 70 Am. Dec. 105, 115.
taU, the word "children" See: George v. Morgan, 16 Pa.
being used synonymously with St. 95 ;
the word " issue." Hileman v. Bouslaugh, 13 Pa. St.
' Pratt V. Flamer, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 344 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 474 ;
10. Measure v. Gee, 5 Barn. & Ad.
3 Cause V. Wiley, 4 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 910 ; s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. 495 ;
509. Lewis ex d. Ormond v. Waters,
" Wheatland v. Dodge, 51 Mass. 6 East 336 ;
(10 Met.) 502. Frank v. Stovin, 3 East 548 ;
« See : Ante, § 474. University of Oxford v. Clifton,
« Price V. Taylor, 20 Pa. St. 95 ; s.c. 1 Eden 478 ;
70 Am. Dec. 105 ; Wright v. Pearson, 1 Eden 119 ;
Lessee of Willis ■;;. Bucher, 2 Goodright d. Lisle v. PuUin, 3
Binn. (Pa.) 455 ; Stra. 729 ;
Alpass V. Watkins, 8 T. R. 518.
Chap. XIII. § 480.] DOCTRINE OF PRICE v. TAYLOR. 425
other than persons who are to take simply as heirs are
intended.^ But an estate-tail will not be reduced by a
provision on the devise that if the first taker "should
decease not having lawful heirs " that the estate should
go over in fee-tail.^ Yet an estate-tail may be followed
by limitation on a definite failure of issue, and, like an
estate in fee, may depend for its continuance on the per-
formance of a condition, or may be divided by the hap-
pening of a contingency, but when once created it forms
an estate-tail until the occurrence of the contingency or
until the condition is broken upon which continuance is
made to depend.^
Sec. 480. Same— Same— Same— Doctrine of Price v. Tay-
lor.- In speaking of devises of this kind Judge Loweie
says, in the case of Price v. Taylor,* that they are re-
garded not according to their accidental, but according
to their substantial, character, and thus erects a general
principle of interpretation for all such grants, and saves
them from the mere arbitrariness that would necessarily
result from supposing that every grant has a purpose
pecuhar to itself. There is another reason, somewhat
more specific, and which appears especially in cases
where the subsequent takers are described as lineal de-
scendants of the prior one. In almost all such cases the
sons, daughters, children, or issue that are to take are
to be ascertained at the death of the first taker. If,
therefore, the devise be to A for life, with remainder to
his eldest son and his heirs general or special, or to his
children and their heirs, and the like, then it must be
treated in one of these two modes. The eldest son or the
children must take either as purchasers from the devisor,
or as heirs of their ancestor. But generally they are
not living at the time of the devise and are left to be
ascertained at the death of the ancestor, and not until
" Price V. Taylor, 28 Pa. St. 95 ; s.c. Doe v. Charlton, 1 Man. & Gr.
70 Am. Dec. 105 ; 439.
Lessee of Findlay v. Riddle, 3 "Tidball v. Lupton, 1 Rand. (Va.)
Binn. (Pa.) 163, 164; s.c. 5 194.
Am. Deo. 355 ; ' Linn v. Alexander, 59 Pa. St. 48.
Jones V. Morgan, 1 Bro. C. C. ■• 28 Pa. St. 95 ; s.c. 70 Am. Dec.
219 : 105.
42G DEVISE IN TAIL— ENLARGEMENT. [Book III.
then can the grant take effect in their favor. If, there-
fore, the eldest son or the children are to take as pur-
chasers, and should die before their parent, they would
take nothing, and, of consequence, no children or grand-
children of theirs could take under such a devise, for no
one can take as heir that which his ancestor never owned.
On this hypothesis, a devise over may take effect even
while many of the descendants of him who was intended
to be the first taker are still living ; yet it is very certain
that, as a general rule, it is intended in such devises that
they shall be for the benefit of all the issue of the first
taker indefinitely, and shall not go to others so long as
any of them survive. If we treat the descendants of the
first taker as deriving title by descent from him, and not
by gift from the devisor, then this purpose is effected, and
without it, it could not be.^
Sec. 481. Same— Same— Same— Devise in tail not enlarged
toy implication.— Like a devise in fee-simple, an express
devise in tail will not be enlarged by implication.^ Thus,
where an estate-tail is given by devise, a charge upon the
person of the devisee in tail will not alter or change the
estate given. ^ And a devise in tail by apt words will not
be enlarged to a fee by a subsequent general devise in the
same will to the same person of all of the testator's prop-
erty ''except what is before excepted." * Where a devise
in fee has been reduced to an estate-tail by implication, a
charge on legacies will not increase it to a fee.^ The
word "heirs " in a clause of limitation superadded to the
devise, which otherwise would be considered an estate-
tail, will not change the meaning of the former words so
as to pass an estate in fee-simple.^ The addition of the
words " and assigns " to the usual words of procreation
'See: Boggett u Frier, 11 East (Pa.) 431.
301 ; ■• In such a devise the exception will
Doe ex d. Chandler v. Smith, 7 cover the former devise as well
T. R. 531 ; B.C. 4 Rev. Rep. as that which has been devised
521 ; to other pei-sons.
Bennett v. Tankerville, 19 Ves. Browne's Lessee v. Anderson, 2
178. Har. &McH. (Md.) 100.
^ See ; Ante, g§ 369, 370. » Heffner v. Knapper, 6 Watts (Pa.)
» Den ex d. Wilson «. Small, 20 N. 118.
J. L. (1 Spen.) 151 ; " Kingsland v. Rapelye, 3 Edw. Ch.
DeWitt V. Eldred, 4 Watts & S. (N. Y.) 1.
Chap. XIII. § 482.] ENLARGEMENT— WIGHT v. THAYER. 427
will not enlarge an estate-tail to a fee-simple.^ The use
of the word "forever," after "heirs of the hody," will
not enlarge a fee-tail to a fee-simple.^ It has been said
that a devise to a person " and the heirs of his body law-
fully begotten, and to their heirs and assigns forever,"
creates but an estate-tail, and does not, on the death of the
devisee, become enlarged to a fee-simple, and go to the
general heirs of the entail.^
Sec. 482. Same — Same — Same — Doctrine of Wight v.
Thayer.— In laying down the rule as above set out in the
case of Wight v. Thayer,* Chief Justice Shaw said : "An
estate-tail, though created and brought into existence by
deed or will, is still an estate of inheritance, and when
once vested and until barred, passes, like other states of
inheritance, by operation of law ; and though it is com-
petent for a devisor to create as many particular estates
as he will hold in succession, yet it is not competent for
him to alter the rules of law which govern the descent of
an estate, either in fee or in tail, which has once vested.
"Were such an intention manifested, it could not be
carried into effect, because contrary to the rules of law.
If it was an estate-tail, then it must continue an estate-
tail until barred by common recovery or otherwise, or
until failure of heirs in tail. So long as there are heirs
in tail capable of taking by the form of the gift, there
can be no limitation over to heirs general. The very
nature of an estate-tail is that it is an estate exclusively
limited to a particular class of heirs ; the legal construc-
tion put on it is that it divides the inheritance or general
estate in fee, making a particular estate to the donee in
tail and the special heirs, and leaving the estate in the
donor, which he may limit over by way of remainder,
' Doe d. Doremus v. Zabriskie, 15 = Den d. Ewan v. Cox, 9 N. J. L.
N. J. L. (3 J. S. Gr.) 404 ; (4 Halst.) 10 ;
Lessee of Wright v. Scott, 4 Grout v. Townsend, 3 Den. (N.
Wash. C. C. 16. Y.) 336 ;
In the latter case the court was Hall v. Vandegrift, 3 Bmn. (Pa.)
influenced to a certain extent 374 ;
by the fact that if the first Lessee of Wright v. Scott, 4
given estate were enlarged to a Wash. C. C. 16.
fee, the will would then con- « Wight v. Thayer, 67 Mass. (1
tain a limitation of a fee upon Gray) 384.
a fee. " 67 Mass. (1 Gray) 384.
428 WORDS IN FRANK-MARRIAGE. [Book III.
and which without such limitation will revert to the donor,
or his general heirs. ^ It has been said, upon the authority
of Lord Coke,^ that when a person in the premises of a
deed gives land to another, and the heirs of his body,
habendum, to him and his heirs forever, he will take an
estate-tail with a fee-simple expectant. In tracing this
proposition, it will be found to be this : When it is
manifest, by the premises, that the donor intends to give
an estate-tail, and from the subsequent part of the
deed it is equally manifest that he intends to give
ultimately an estate in fee, it will operate as a grant of
a present estate-tail with a fee-simple expectant. But
expectant upon what event or contingency ? Clearly
upon the determination of the particular estate, the
estate-tail, by the failure of heirs in tail, which is its own
proper limitation. It operates by way of gift of the
particular estate in tail with a limitation over, by way of
remainder, to the general heirs of the same donee in fee.
Of course, such a remainder over in fee cannot take effect
until the failure of the issue in tail.^
Sec. 483. Same— Words in frank-marriage suflaeient.—
Words in frank-marriage, or in liberum maritagium,
will by themselves suffice for the limitation of an estate
in special tail to a man and his wife, or intended wife ;
being for this purpose exactly equivalent to the words,
" and to the heirs of their two bodies between them be-
gotten." The nature of this estate is subject to certain
restrictions, and the validity of the gift depends upon the
existence of certain conditions.* The wife, or intended
wife, must be the daughter, or other near relation of the
donor. ^ The donees and their issue in tail hold of the
donor and his heirs, discharged of all services except
' 3 Inst. 335. a vested remainder in fee to
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 31a. those who survive, and the
^ See : Buxton v. Uxbridge, 51 heirs of those who died before
Mass. (10 Met.) 87. the son who died without issue.
Bemiinder to sravivors. — A devise Lapsley v. Lapsley, 9 Pa. St. 130.
among sons equally, they pay- See : Den ex d. Wilson v. Small,
ing certain legacies, and if any 30 N. J. L. (1 Spen.) 151.
of them die without issue, their * Litt., §§ 17, 19, 30.
share shall be divided between See : YCo. Litt. (19th ed.) 31a, 31b,
the surviving brothers, creates 33a, 33b, 33a, 33b,
an estate-tail in the sons, with ' Dyer, 386b, pi. 46.
Chap. XIII. § 483.] GIFTS IN FRANK-MARRIAGE. 429
fealty, until the fourth degree in descent from the
original donee is passed ; after which event, the succeed-
ing issue hold by such services as the donor owes to his
lord next paramount. Gifts in frank-marriage are wholly
obsolete in practice ; but where the requisite conditions
are fulfilled, they are thought to be still valid at common
law.
CHAPTER XIV.
ESTATES EST TAIL — continued.
Sec. 484. Rules relating to limitations creating estates-tail.
Sec. 485. Of whom an estate in tail is held.
Sec. 486. What property may be entailed.
Sec. 487. Same — What essential to an entailment.
Sec. 488. Same — Personalty not entailable.
Sec. 489. Same — Annuities not entailable.
Sec. 490. Same — Copyholds — Entailment by special custom.
Sec. 491. Same — Conditional fee-simple entailable.
Sec. 492. Same — Freehold or chattel interest not entailable.
Sec. 493. Who may hold as tenant in tail.
Sec. 494. Remainder upon fee-tail.
Sec. 495. Heirs of donee in tail take by descent.
Sec. 496. Rule m SheUey's Case.
Sec. 497. Same — ^When rule prevails.
Sec. 498. Same — Where " heirs " descripfio persomajntm.
Sec. 499. Same — What within the rule.
Sec. 500. Same — Rule of construction and not of law.
Sec. 501. Same — Applied to estates in husband and wife.
Sec. 502. Incidents of an estate in tail.
Sec. 503. Same — Power to commit waste.
Sec. 504. Same — Right to bar estate.
Sec. 505. Same — Right to title-deeds — English rule.
Sec. 506. Same — Same — American rule.
Sec. 507. Same — Curtesy and dower.
Sec. 508. Same — Forfeiture for treason.
Sec. 509. Same — Incidents of fees which do not attach — Alienation.
Sec. 510. Same — Same — Duty to pay off incumbrances.
Sec. 511. Same — Same — Merger.
Sec. 512. Abolition and curtailment by statute.
Sec. 513. Same — Effect of abolishing estates-tail.
Sec. 514. Descent of estates-tail.
Sec. 515. Same — Successive descents.
Sec. 510. Same — Legislative change of descent.
Section 484. Bxiles relating to limitatioiis creating estates-
tail.— The general rules relating to limitations creating
an estate of this kind are as follows :
430
Chap. XIV. § 484.] RULES AS TO CREATING TAILS. 431
1. There is no difference, in point of fact, between the
words "their heirs "and the words "his heirs," or, in
the case of a female, " her heirs ; " ^ but in hmitations to
a single donee in special tail, the possessive pronoun adds
something in clearness.^
2. The words "the heirs male or female" will amount
to a limitation to the heirs general.^
3. The word "heirs" is the word which creates the
estate, and the estate-tail is in the person, or persons,
whose heirs are specified ; so that, in all limitations in
special tail, if the word is not referable to one donee more
than to the other, the estate-tail is in both donees jointly ;
but if the word refers to one donee rather than to the
other, the estate-tail is only in that one.*
4. On a gift to a single donee in special tail, the spouse
assigned to the donee is not necessarily a specified indi-
vidual, but may be one of a specific class ; such as any
person bearing a specified name.^
5. A limitation resembling a limitation in special tail,
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 26a, et seq.;
see note 1, 26b.
' The indifferent usage of the two words
"his" and "their" is safely per-
missible only in formal and di-
rect limitations, such as those
above given. In special cases,
the use of the word "his " may
introduce an absurdity, which
may render the Umitation void.
Lord Coke expressly lays it
down that a limitation to A
and "his" heirs, etc., is void
for absurdity. If the ancestor
is living at the time of the
limitation, or if the donee is for
any other »eason not the heir
of the ancestor, this does not
make the Umitation void, but
alters the nature of the estate
or estates, arising under it,
according to the special cir-
cumstances.
Same — In Mandeville's Case, report-
ed in 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 36b,
where the specified heirs were
not the heirs of the body of an
ancestor at all, but were the
heirs of the body of the de-
ceased husband of the person
named as donee, the limitation
created a good estate-tail, but
in remainder upon an estate
for life taken by the person
named as donee. Similarly, a
limitation to A and the heirs
of the body of his father, dur-
ing the Ufe of the father, gives
rise to two distinct estates, an
estate for Ufe to A, followed by
a contingent remainder in tail
to the person who, at the death
of the father, can bring him-
self within the description of
heir of his body.
See : 3 Prest. Conv. 77-79.
Therefore, if A should die in
the hfetime of the father,
this contingent remainder will
be destroyed by the expiration,
pending the contingency, of
the precedent estate of free-
hold. If the father should die
in the lifetime of A, leaving A
as the heir of his body, the re-
mainder in tail will forthwith
be vested in A, and his life
estate wiU be destroyed by
merger, whereby the estate
will become itself the estate in
possession.
3 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 26a.
* 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 26a.
' Page V. Hayward, 3 Salk. 570.
432 OF WHOM ESTATE HELD. [BOOK III.
if made to two persons who are not married, nor capable
of lawful marriage, as where they are of the same sex,
or within the prohibited degrees of relationship, and
who therefore cannot have an heir begotten of their two
bodies, creates neither an estate in special tail nor a joint
special tail, but a joint estate for life, and separate estates-
tail in common in remainder ; ^ and a limitation to a
man and two women, and the heirs of their bodies be-
gotten, has a similar operation.^
6. The mere fact that, at the time of limitation, lawful
marriage between the two donees is, by reason of the
circumstances, impossible, — as where they are both, or
either of them, already married to another person, — this
will not prevent the limitation from taking effect to
create an estate in special tail, if there is a possibility that
the donees may, at a future time, become capable of law-
ful marriage.^ The mere fact that the donees are not
married at the time is, if they are capable of lawful
marriage, a fortiori, no obstacle. But the circumstances
may be such as to create a presumption of law that the
parties, though not absolutely impossible, will never
marry ; as where, for example, having been married,
they were subsequently divorced a vinculo matrimonii.^
Seo. 485. Of whom an estate in tail is held.— At common
law, where the donor of an estate-tail granted over his
reversion to a stranger, the donee of the estate in tail
would hold of such stranger. But if the lands were
given to A in tail, with ■ remainder in fee to a stranger,
the donee of the estate-tail would hold to the chief lord
in case the whole estate was regarded as conveyed away.®
But where the tenant in tail has also the revision in fee
in himself, because he cannot hold of himself, it being a
maxim in law that nemo potest esse tenens et dominus,^
he shall hold of the superior lord. The reason for this
'Iitt.,§283. Hale's note 2.
See : 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 183a^ ' 3 Inst. 505.
184a. See : Bingham's Case, 2 Co. 92a ;
' Litt., § 25. Metteforde's Case, Dyer 363b.
See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 25b. « No one can be both lord and
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 20b. tenant.
* 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 35b, Lord Johnson v. Hines, 61 Md. 135.
Chap. XTV. §§ 486, 487.] WHAT MAY BE ENTAILED. 433
seems to have been the fact that the object of the passage
of the statute De Bonis was to render estates-tail unalien-
able, and if they were permitted to merge in the fee-
simple, an obvious means would be afforded for destroying
the estate-tail by purchasing the reversion, which would
be adopted by the tenant in tail.^
Sec. 486. Wliat property may be entailed.— Under the
statute De Bonis, the enactment of which created the
peculiar estate known as an estate-tail, the only kind of
property which is mentioned was tenementum, which
signifies everything that may be holden, or proved to be
of a permanent nature ; so that not only lands might be
entailed under it, but also every species of incorporeal
property of a real nature.^
Sec. 48T. Same— What essential to an entailment. — It
seems that two things were essential to an entailment
within the statute Be Bonis : (1) That the subject be land
or something of a real nature ; (2) that the estate in it be
an estate of inheritance. It is not necessary, however,
that the thing to be entailed should issue out of lands ; if
it be annexed to lands or in any wise concerns lands, or
relates to them, it may be entailed.^ Thus it has been
said that rents, estovers, commons, or any other property
whatever, granted out of land, may be entailed.* We
have already seen that where money is directed to be laid
' Wisoot's Case, 3 Co. 61a ; It is said by the Supreme Court pf
Carell v. Cuddington, 1 Plowd. Pennsylvania, in Shoemaker v.
296. Huflnagle, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.)
See : 1 Cruise's Real Prop. (4th 437, that a warrant for a city
ed.) 83, § 31 ; 85, § 38. lot, granted in 1683, and re-
^ Nevil's Case, 7 Co. 33 ; maining unlocated, is not cap-
Child V. Baylie, Cro. Jao. 461. able of being entailed by devise
3 Nevil's Case, 7 Co. 33. in tail of a man's land and
See : Steel v. Cook, 43 Mass. (1 plantation. But an estate held
Met.) 381 ; hy covenant and survey may
Stockton V. Martin, 3 Bay (S. C.) be entailed.
471 ; Duer v. Boyd, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
Atkinson v. Hutchinson, 3 Pr. 303.
Wms. 359 ■ -^^ common law the office of ser-
Wimflsii V. 'Tarlbois, 1 Plov^d. geant of the Common Pleas
53. and the ofiSoe of keeper of a
3 Bl.' Com. lir ; church could be entailed ; as
3 Inst. 334. ^^so could the office of steward,
4 3 Bl Com. 113 ; receiver, or bailiff of a manor.
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a. 1 Inst. 30a.
28 ■
434 PERSONALTY NOT ENTAILABLE. [Book IH.
out in real estate, that it is to be considered and treated
as real estate ; ^ from this it follows that where money
has been directed to be laid out in the purchase of land
it is considered in equity as land.^ In such a case, if the
land to be purchased is directed to be conveyed to a
person in tail, the donee will be considered in equity as
tenant in-tail of the money until the purchase is actually
made.^
Sec. 488. Same— Personalty not entailable.— But where
inheritances are merely personal, and neither issue out of,
nor relate to, land, or some certain place, they cannot be
entailed within the statute De Donis ; * hence in a bequest
of things of this character to a person and the heirs of his
body with remainder over, the donee takes a conditional
fee, and may dispose of the property as soon as he has
issue born ; though a further limitation over,° or a limit-
ation of an estate-tail after an estate for life, would be
void, and the legacy would become absolute in the second
taker. ^
Sec. 489. Same — Annuities not entailable. — An annuity, '^
I See : Ante, §103. Craig v. Leslie, 16 IT. S. (3
" Foreman v. Foreman, 7 Barb. (N. Wheat.) 563 : bk. 4 L. ed.
Y.) 315 ; 460 ;
Craig V. Leslie, 16 U. S. (3 Rowley v. Adams, 7 Beav. 548 ;
Wheat.) 568 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 460 ; Lysaght v. Edwards, L. R. 3
Trelawney v. Booth, 3 Atk. 307 ; Chan. Div. 499 ; s.c. 17 Moak
Biddulph V. Biddulph, 13 Ves. Eng. Rep. 594.
161. 3 1 Cruise's Real Prop. (4th ed.) 83,
That agreed to 'be done regarded as § 26.
done.— This is in accordance ^ See : Adams v. Cruft, 31 Mass.
with the principle that the Court (14 Pick.) 16, 25 ;
of Equity considers things Dorr v. Wainwright, 30 Mass. (13
directed or agreed to be done Pick.) 328 ;
as having been actually per- Green v. Stephens, 1 Ves. 73.
formed, where nothing has in- It was formerly Jield that slaves
tervened to prevent such per- could not be entailed without
formance. being annexed to the land.
See : Thomas v. Wood, 1 Md. Ch. See : Blackwell v. Wilkinson, 1
296 ; Jefferson (Va.) 73.
Coman v. Lakey, 80 N. Y. 345, ^ 1 Inst. 30a.
350 ; 6 Dorr v. Wainwright, 30 Mass. (13
Arnold v. GUbert, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) Pick.) 333, 338, 330.
190 ; s.c. 7N. Y. Leg. Obs. 309, ' An annuity is a yearly sum of
reversing 3 Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) money, payable to the grantee,
531 ; and charging the person only
Slooum V. Slocum, 4 Edw. Ch. of the grantor. 1 Co. Litt.
(N. Y.)613; (19th ed.) 144b. If granted to
Hawley v. James, 5 Paige Ch. the party and his heirs, it is an
(N. Y.) 318 ; incorporeal hereditament ; but
Chap. XIV. § 490.] COPYHOLDS— ENTAILMENT.
435
which only charges the person of the grantor, and not
his lands, although granted in fee, cannot he entailed ; ^
therefore such an estate being settled upon A and the
heirs of his body, will be a conditional fee at common
law, 2 and A, upon the birth of issue, might alien it and
thereby bar the possibility of reverter.^
Sec 490. Same— Copyholds— Entailment by special cus-
tom.—At common law a special custom to entail copy-
holds might exist in a manor, and was a good custom.*
The theory laid down by Lord Coke, that the statute De
Donis, without a special custom, does not extend to copy-
holds, and that a custom alone cannot avail to create an
estate-tail, is open to the stringent criticism that, by the
hypothesis, a custom to entail could not, and therefore
it is only personal, unless the
real estate is also charged by
the terms of the grant ; in
■vrhich case it may be real es-
tate, though still generally
termed an annuity ; for the
grantee may recover by writ of
annuity, in which case the land
is discharged, or he may dis-
train for the. arrears, and so
make it real by charging the
land.
2 Bl. Comm. 40 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 20a, 144b ;
Doctor and Student, ch. 30 ;
Litt., §219.
See : Horton v. Cook, 10 Watts
(Pa.) 124, 127 ; s.c. 36 Am. Dec.
151:
Aubin V. Daly. 4 Barn. & Aid.
59 ; s.c. 6 Eng. C. L. 389.
■ Aubin V. Daly, 4 Bam. & Aid.
59 ; s.c. 6 Eng. C. L. 889 ;
Holdernesse v. Carmarthen, 1
Bro. C. C. 377 ;
Stafford v. Buckley, 2 Ves. Sr.
171.
•> Nevil's Case, 7 Co. 33, 125 ;
2 BL Com. 113.
3 1 Inst. 20a, note 5 .
See : Stafford v. Buckley, 2 Ves.
Sr. 170.
Annuity personal estate. — In Aubin
V. Daly, 4 Bam & Aid. 59 ; s.c.
6 Eng. C. L. 389, such an annu-
ity was held to be a personal
estate, and to pass under a will
attested by two witnesses only.
* Litt., §70;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 60a, 60b ;
Co. Cop. Supp.,§12;
Co. L. Tracts, 178 ;
6 Vin. Abr. 197.
Custom to entail copyholds. — This
proposition is now treated as an
axiom beyond the reach of
argument. It was denied ob-
iter by the Chief Baron, Sir
Roger Manwood, in Hey don's
Case, 3 Co. 7 ; and it would
seem, from the report, that the
rest of the barons concurred in
his opinion ; though Lord Coke,
in the above-cited passage from
the Supplement to his Com-
plete Copyholder, says it was
"agreed" that by special cus-
tom lands might be entailed.
(See : Co. L. Tr. 179.) In that
case the question at issue was
not, whether copyholds are
within the statute De Donis, but
whether they were within the
statute of 31 Hen. VIII., c. 13,
by which certain ecclesiastical
leases are made void. It was
undoubtedly denied by three
out of four judges of the Court
of Common Pleas in Eowden v.
Maltster, Cro. Car. 42, that
copyliolds are entailable. CSee :
Co. L. Tr. pp. 44, 45.) In this
case the question was not ma-
terial, because the special ver-
dict had expressly found, that
in the particular manor of
which the lands were parcel,
there existed no special custom.
436 CHATTEL INTEREST NOT ENTAILABLE. [BOOK III.
did not, exist before the statute, while, by the unqiies-
tioned rule of the law, no such custom could spring up
after the statute. Eelying upon this criticism, the Court
of Exchequer in Heydon's Case^ inclined towards the
conclusion that copyholds are not within the statute Be
Bonis, and. that all entails of copyholds are impossible-
But those who are of the opinion that copyholds are within
the statute, pursuing a similar line of criticism, strongly
favor the opposite conclusion, namely, that copyholds
which may be held for a customary fee-simple may be
entailed without showing any special custom. ^ "While
these conclusions are both equally logical, yet the former
is preferable ; because the reasons for holding that copy-
holds are not within the statute seem to be decidedly
better than those for holding that they are within the
statute. But so far as practice in this country is con-
cerned they are neither of any importance.
Sec. 491. Same— Conditional fee-simple entailable. — In the
absence of a special custom, words of limitation which
would create an entail in a common law will, if applied
to a customary fee, create a conditional fee-simple,
analogous to a conditional fee-simple at common law,^
and will be entailable.
Sec. 492. Same— Freehold or chattel interest not entail-
able.—An estate-tail, being an estate of inheritance, could
not exist in respect to a mere freehold estate for life, or
in a chattel interest. A liinitation in terms which would,
create an estate-tail, if applied to real estate, will vest the
whole interest absolutely in the first taker if applied in
relation to chattels, or chattel interests in lands. In
such a case a limitation of chattels over to the issue of
the first taker will be void, because the statute Be Bonis ■
applies to lands and tenements and not to personal prop-
erty and chattel interests.*
' 3 Co. 7. Rowden v. Maltster, Cro. Car.
2 See : 1 Watkins Cop. 215. 42 ;
' Doe d. Spencer v. Clark, 5 Barn. Pullen v. Middleton, 9 Mod. 483.
& Aid. 458 ; s.c. 7 Eng. C. L. * 3 b1. Com. 118 ;
253 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a, n. 120.
Simpson V. Simpson, 4 Bing. N. See : Albee v. Carpenter, 66 Mass.
C. 383 ; s.c. 83 Eng. C. L. 788 : (13 Cush.) 882 ;
Chap. XIV. g§ 493-495.] EEMAINDEB UPON FEE-TAIL. 43T
Sec. 493. Who may hold as tenant in tail.— All natural
persons capable of taking and holding estates of inherit-
ance in land may be tenants in tail ; ^ and it was early
determined that the sovereign or king was within the
statute De Bonis, as well as common persons ; because
the statute was made to remedy the error which had
crept into the law, that the donee had the power of alien-
ating an estate given to him, and the heirs of his body,
after issue had ; and to restore the common law, in this
point, to its right and just course. This it did by restor-
ing to the donor the observance of his intent. And when
the statute De Bonis ordained that the will of the donor
should be observed, it made his will to be a law, as well
against the king as against an other. ^
Sec. 494. Kemainder upon fee-tail. — Upon every gift in
tail by a donor seized in foe-simple, there remains in such
donor, by virtue of the statute De Bonis, a reversion
expectant upon fee-tail.^ For this reason a remainder
may be limited in expectancy upon a fee-tail, and the lat-
ter, though of inheritance, takes effect as a particular
estate.* Where such a limitation is to one and his heirs,
either general or special, the remainder limited in expect-
ancy would be a contingent estate so long as the parents
whose heir was to take lived, because, nemo est hceres
viventis, no one can be heir to the living,^ and for that
reason the person to take as heir cannot be ascertained
until after the parents' death. ^
Sec. 495. Heirs of donee in tail take by descent.— The heirs
of the donee in tail take by descent and not by purchase,
because they cannot claim the estate as coming from
Dorr V. Wainwright, 30 Mass. (13 ' 1 Cruise's Eeal Prop. (4th ed.) 74,
Pick.) 328, 330 ; 8 30. . „, , „
Stockton V. Martin, 2 Bay (S. C.) 2 WiUion v.Berkelej, 1 Plowd. 22* ;
471 ■ Case of a Fine, 7 Co. 32a.
ChUd V. Baylie, Cro. Jac. 461 ; M Co. Litt. (19tli ed.) 22a-23b ;
Britton v. Twining, 3 Meriv. 176, Litt., § 19.
183 • See : WiUion v. Berkeley, 1
Whitmore v. "Weld, 1 Vem. 326, Plowd. 323, 242.
343, n. ; * Challis on Eeal Prop. 241 .
Atkinson v. Hutchinson, 3 Pr. ' See : Ante, § 441.
Wms 258. ' Frogmorton v. Wharrey, 3 W. Bl.
728, 730 ; s.c. 3 Wils. 144.
438
EULE IN SHELLEY'S CASE. [Book III.
their ancestor as its source, but as an estate coming
through such ancestor as special heir, which cannot be
intercepted by him except in the mode provided by law.^
Where the limitation is to the heirs of the body of a
designated donee, whoever answers that description will
take as purchasers, and the estate will then descend to
the same issue and in the same order of succession as if
the estate had been limited to the donee and the heirs of
his body.^
Sec. 496. Rule in Shelley's Case.— There is an ancient rule
of the common law,^ respecting the nature of estates,
which was stated so clearly in Shelley's Case,* that the
principle has ever since been designated as ' ' the rule in
Shelley's Case," and which at the present time prevails in
England and in several of the states of the Union, though
it has been abrogated by statute in others. It is a rule
of construction and not of law,^ simply providing that
where an estate of freehold is limited to a person and the
same instrument contains a limitation, either mediate or
immediate, to his heirs, or the heirs of his body, the word
' ' heirs " is a word of limitation ; that is, the ancestor
takes the whole estate comprised in this term. Thus, if
the limitation be to the heirs of his body, he takes a fee-
tail ; if to his heirs general, a fee-simple.^
Sec. 497. Same— When i^ule prevails.- This rule is not a
means to discover the intention of the grantor or testator ;
but, supposing the intention ascertained, the rule controls
it, giving effect to the general and legal rather than to
the more particular and prescribed intent. The party
making such a limitation is supposed to have in his mind
two purposes which are legally in conflict. One is to give
the ancestor only a life estate ; the other to limit the
' Perry v. Kline, 66 Mass. (12 Cush.) The next one is that of Perrin
118, 137 ; V. Blake, 4 Burr. 2579, and then
Davis V. Hayden, 9 Mass. 514. follows the case from which
« 2 Prest. Est. 360, 375. the rule takes its name.
8 The case in which the doctrine ^ 1 Co. 94.
known as the rule in Shelley's ' See : Post, § 500.
Case was first enunciated was * See : Shelley's Case, 1 Co. 94, 104a;
decided in the reign of Edward Perrin v. Blake, 4 Burr. 2579 :
II. (See : 18 Edw. U., fol. 577.) 2 Jarman WiUs, 833.
Chap. XIV. § 498.] WHERE "HEIRS" DESCRIPTIVE.
439
land to his heirs collectively, and in indefinite succession.
These two intents cannot stand together, without more
or less of general mischief to the public welfare ; and the
rule prevails simply to subordinate the particular and
apparently less important design of limiting the ances-
tor's interests to a life estate, to the more comprehensive,
and probably the preferred, purpose of transmitting the
inheritance in the manner indicated.^
Sec. 498. Same— Where " heirs " desoriptio personarum.—
Where this double intent appears, the rule must prevail ;
but if it can be plainly collected from the will that the
testator used the word "heirs" as a descriptio person-
arum, then the rule in Shelley's Case is not applicable.
The word " heirs" or "heirs of the body" must be used
in its technical sense, as importing a class of persons to
take indefinitely in succession. Hence, if it appears that
the words were not employed in this sense, but inaccu-
rately, as designating particular individuals only, the rule
in Shelley's Case would not be applicable ; but the persons
who, at the time of the limitation, were the ancestor's
heirs, apparent or presumptive, would take a vested
remainder.^
Although the rule in Shelley's Case has been more
1 Leathers v. Gray, 96 N. C. 548 ;
s.o. 3 8. E. Eep. 455.
See : Minor Inst. 394.
2 Leathers v. Gray, 96 N. C. 548 ;
S.C. 3 S. E. Eep. 455.
See : Minor Inst. 395.
Nortli Carolina doctrine. — In the
case of Jarvis v. Wyatt, 4
Hawks. (N. C.) 337, 354, an
effect was given to the words
" heirs of the body " which
seems not to have been followed
or referred to in subsequent
cases in that state. In that
case Judge Hall says : " But
there is another view of this
case taken by my Brother Hen-
derson, to which I altogether
subscribe, which leads to the
same result ; and that is, that
the words ' heirs of the body '
give an estate in fee by pur-
chase, although there is an
estate for life to the parent
preceding it, because heirs of
the body are not heirs general ;
and our law, since estates-tail
are done away, recognizes none
as heirs except such as can in-
herit collaterally as well as
lineally ; and that although,
where there is an estate for life
to the parent, remainder to his
heirs, both estates unite in the
parent under the operation of
Shelley's Case, yet there can be
no such union where the re-
mainder is to heirs of the body.
Our law knows of no such heirs.
Of course, they are words of
description, and those that
take under them must take as
purchasers. In England the
case is otherwise, because heirs
of the body are recognized as
heirs, and can inherit as such."
A different view from this was
taken in the case of King v.
Utley, 85 N. C. 61.
no
WHAT WITHIN THE RULE.
[BOOK IIL
strictly observed in England than in the United States,
even there, when it clearly appears that the word " heirs "
or "heirs of the body " was intended by the testator as
descriptio personce, they are treated as words of purchase.^
Any superadded words that would change the course
of indefinite succession implied by the word "heirs," in
its technical sense, take the case out of the operation of
the rule ; as, for instance, in England, when the gift is
for life, " remainder to the heirs, female," for that is a
change of the course of descent.'^
Sec. 499. Same— What within the rule.— A devise to one
" for his use and benefit during his life, and then to his
heirs and assigns," instead of being, as it apparently is,
and as, by statute, it is declared to be in many of the
states, an estate for Hfe, with remainder to the heirs of
the tenant for life, it is within the rule in Shelley's Oase,
and the word "heirs" is held to denote the extent and
character of the estate, as a term of limitation and not
of purchase.''^
■ Theob. Wills, 340-342.
" See : Leathers v. Gray, 96 N. C.
548 ; S.C. 3 S. E. Rep. 455.
5 Sicelofl V. Redman's Adm'r, 36
Ind. 351 ;
Cooper V. Cooper, 6 R. I. S61.
Thus a devise of lands to "my
grandson, Stephen Cooper (son
of Stephen), my afore-named
grandson to come into posses-
sion attwenty-one years of age,
and to have and to hold the
above-named bequest to him
during his natural life ; and
after his decease, I give the
proceeds unto his male heirs,
equally between them, and, for
want of heirs male, then to go
in equal shares to his daugh-
ters," vests an estate-tail in
Stephen, the grandson, under
the rule in Shelley's Case ; the
clause of the statute of wills, in
relation to the creation and
continuance of estates-tail, not
being applicable to such a
case.
Cooper V. Cooper, 6 R. I. 361.
Not within the rule. — But where a
father by deed gave to his
daughter and the heirs of her
body a tract of land, and pro-
vided that, " if the said daugh-
ter should die and leave an heir
or heirs of her body, in that
case, said heirs being her chil-
dren or child, is to have, oc-
cupy, and possess all the prop-
erty herein given to them and
their heirs forever," the court
held that the daughter's chil-
dren take as purchasers, and
that the rule in SheUey's Case
does not apply.
WilUams v. Beasly, 1 Winst. (N.
C.) No. 1, 102.
And where A, by will, devised
as follows : " 2d, I give to my
son, J. D. , the use of the planta-
tion whereon I now live, to
him, the said J. D., during his
natural life, and if it should
please God, should have issue
born of his body lawfully be-
gotten, then such issue, after
the death of the said J. D., to
have the aforesaid devised
premises in fee-tail, but if the
said J. D. should die without
issue of his body lawfully be-
gotten," then over to his son,
T. D., in fee-simple ; the court
Chap. XIV. g§ 500, 501.] A EXILE OF CONSTRUCTION. 441
Sec. 500. Same— Rule of construction and not of law.—
This rule was established as a convenient and necessary
rule of construction, where the intention of the testator
could be effectuated by it. This is not an imperious
rule of law, which must control the operation of the will,
where a contrary intention appears on its face, but a rule
of construction which prevails only where a contrary in-
tention does not appear.^
In an early case in North Carolina, ^ it was questioned
whether the rule in Shelley's Case would apply where the
limitation was to A for life, with remainder to the heirs
of his body and their heirs ; but this doubt seems to have
been settled by the case of Kingsland v. Eapelye,^ in
which a testator by his will gave to his daughter an
estate for life, and upon her death he gave the estate to
her "lawful issue, his, her, and their heirs, executors,
administrators, and assigns, forever," equally to be
divided among them, share and share alike ; and the court
held that the daiighter took an estate-tail by the rule in
Shelley's Case.
Sec. 501. Same — Applied to estates in husband and wife.—
In the case of the limitation of the estate to a husband
and wife and their heirs in tail, if the heirs are the heirs
of the body of the two donees, they take by descent within
the rule in Shelley's Case ; if the heirs of only one of
them, they take as remaindermen and purchasers. So
that if the gift is to the husband and his heirs which he
shall beget on the body of his wife, it will create in him
an estate-tail, and his wife will be excluded ; but if the
remainder be limited to the heirs on the body of the wife
by the husband to be begotten, she will take an estate-
tail, and the husband will be excluded.* But where the
devise is to the husband and wife and their heirs on the
body of the wife begotten, they both take an estate in
held, that by this devise, the ' Chilton v. Henderson, 9 GUI (Md.)
son, J. D., took only a life 432.
estate, the rule in Shelley's Case 'Williams v. Beasly, 1 Winst. (N.
not being applicable. C.) No. 1, 103.
ChUton V. Henderson, 9 GiU (Md.) ' 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 1-6.
433. •• Denn v. Gillot, 2 T. R. 431 ; s.c.
1 Rev. Rep. 510.
442 INCIDENTS OF TAILS. [Book III.
tail. In either of these events the heirs take, if at all,
by descent and not by purchase. Where the estate is
given to both husband and wife, they will each have a
life estate, and if the one whose heirs are to take die
first, such heirs will take an estate- tail in remainder after
the death of the wife.^ Where the estate is given either
to the husband or wife for life, with remainder to the
heirs of the body of husband and wife, such heirs take as
purchasers and not by descent.^
Sec. 502. incidents of an estate in tail.— At common law
estates in tail, like estates in fee-simple,^ have certain
incidents inseparably annexed to them, which cannot
be restrained by any provision or condition what-
ever.* These incidents are the power to commit waste,
the right to bar the estate, the right to the possession of
the title-deeds, the right of curtesy and dower, and for-
feiture for treason. But there are certain incidents
belonging to estates in fee which do not attach to estates
in tail ; such as the right of alienation, the duty to pay
incumbrances, and naerger.
Sec. 503. Same— Power to commit "waste.— Among the
incidents pertaining to an estate in tail one of the most
important is the right and power on the part of the
tenant in tail to commit every kind of waste ; ^ as by
1 2 Prest. Est. 443, 483. 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 234a.
See : Derm v. Gillot, 2 T. R. 431 ; Conveyance by tenant in tiil — Grantee
s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 516 ; dispmiishable. — At common law
Gassage v. Taylor, Sty. 325 ; if the tenant in tail granted
Frogmorton d. Robinsons. Whar- away all his estate, the grantee
rey, 3 Wils. 135, 144 ; s.c. 3 Bl. was dispunishable for waste ;
Rep. 738. and if the grantee granted it
- The same is true where the limit- over, his grantee was also dis-
ation is to the husband or to punishable.
the wife and the heirs of the Anonymous, 3 Leon 131.
bodies of husband and wife. 2 It has been said that a chancery
Prest. Est. 441, 443. court will not, in any case what-
^ See : Ante, chapters III. and IV., ever, restrain a tenant in tail
" Incidents of an Estate in Fee- from committing waste. Thus
simple." Lord Talbot is reported to have
* 1 Cruise's Real Prop. (4th ed.) 74, said that in Mr. Saville's Case,
§ 31. who being an infant, and ten-
^ See : Liford's Case, 11 Co. 50a ; ant in tail in possession, in a
Attorney-General I!. Marlborough, very bad state of health,, and
3 Madd. 531 ; not likely to live to full age,
Hales V. Petit, 1 Plowd. 359 ; Iiis guardian cut down a quan-
Sacheverel v. Dale, Poph. 194 ; tity of timber just before his
Jervis v. Bruton, 3 Vern. 251 ; death, and the remainderman
Chap. XIV. g§ 504, 505.] RIGHT TO BAR ESTATE. 443
felling timber, pulling down houses, opening and work-
ing mines, and the like.^ This power, however, must be
exercised during the tenant's life,'^ for at the incidence
of his death this right or power ceases. Consequently if
the tenant in tail sells trees growing on the land, the
vendee must cut and remove them during the life of the
vendor, otherwise they will descend to the heir as parcel
of the inheritance.^
Sec. 504. Same— Bight to bar estate.— Another important
right possessed by the tenant in tail is a right to bar the
estate, either by fine and common recovery, or by any of
the statutory methods now in force in any of the states ; *
and any attempt to restrain the exercise of this right on
the part of the tenant has ever been held yoid.^ The
right to bar an entail is so essential a part of an estate-
tail that even where the tenant is out of possession
through a sale of his estate, either by auction or through
judicial proceedings, he still retains sufficient interest
therein to enable him to bar the entail.^
Sec. 505. Same- Eight to title-deeds — English mle.— A
tenant in tail, having an estate of inheritance, has a
right to all title-deeds and monuments belonging to the
land ; ''' and a court of chancery will compel their delivery
immediately to him.^
applied for an injunction to '' Liford's Case, 11 Co. 50a.
restrain him, but could not pre- ^ Liford's Case, 11 Co. 50a ;
vail. Hales v. Petit, 1 Plowd. 359.
Attorney -General tJ.Marlborough, * See : Post, chapter XV., " Aliena-
3 Madd. 498 ; tion and Barring Estates-tail."
Lord Glenorchy v. BosvUle, Tal- = 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 379b ;
bot 16. 1 Spenc. Eq. Jur. 144n.
A bond to restrain a tenant in tail See : Weld v. Williams, 54 Mass.
from committmg waste is void. (13 Met.) 486 ;
Thus where a person settled Doyle v. MuUady, 83 Pa. St. 364 ;
lands on his daughter aid the Dewitt v. Eldred, 4 Watts & S.
heirs of her body, and took a (Pa.) 431.
bond from her not to commit « Hall v. Thayer, 71 Mass. (5 Gray)
waste, and the bond was put 523 ;
in suit, the court held it to be Waters t7.Margerum,60 Pa. St.39 ;
an idle bond, and decreed it to Elliott v. PearsoU, 8 Watts & S.
be delivered up to be canceled. (Pa.) 38 ; ,„,,.„
Jervis v. Burton, 2 Vem. 251 ; Sharp v. Petitt,4 Yeates (Pa.)413 ;
2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 234a. Watts v. Cole, 2 Leigh (Va.) 653 ;
' Attorney-General v. Marlbor- ' Harrington v. Price, 3 Barn. &
ough, 3 Madd. 498 ; Aid. 170 ; s.c. 23Eng. C. L. 83.
Hales V. Petit, 1 Plow. 259 ; ^ Harrington v. Price, 3 Barn. &
Jervis v. Bruton, 3 Vem. 251 ; Aid. 170 ; s.c. 23 Eng. C. L. 83 ;
2 Bl Com. 115, 116. Jones v. Morgan, 1 Bro. C. C. 206 :
444: INCIDENTS— CUETESY AND DOWER. [Book III.
Sec. 506. Same — Same — American rule.— In the United
States, it is the general practice for the grantor to
retain his own title-deeds, instead of delivering them
over to the grantee ; and the grantee is not ordinarily
bound, in deducing his title, to produce any original
deeds to which he was not a party ; but, the practice of
registration being universal, he is entitled to have read in
evidence certified copies from the registry, of all such
deeds of which he is not supposed to have the control.^
Sec. 507. Same— Curtesy and dower.— Among the other
incidents of estates-tail is the fact that they are subject
to the curtesy of the husband and the dower of the wife.^
At common law these incidents were as inseparably con-
nected with the estate as the right to commit waste or
to bar the entail, and could not be restrained by any con-
dition.^
Sec. 608. Same— Forfeiture for treason.— At common law,
estates-tail, like estates in fee-simple, were forfeit-
able for treason, but in this country they are not
forfeitable for any longer period than the life of the per-
son attainted for the treason ; * and this would seem to be
the rule in this country regarding such estates independ-
ently of the provision of the constitution and statutes
of the United States.^
Sec. 609. Same— Incidents of fees which do not attach—
Alienation.- But there are several incidents which pertain
to and go with a fee-simple which do not attach to a
fee-tail. Thus the tenant in tail cannot alien the land
for a longer time than his own life, and his alienee will
take the estate par autre vie, voidable by the entry of
Papillon V. Voice, 3 Pr. Wms. 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 334a •
471. 3 Bl. Com. 115, 116.
' See : 1 Greenl. Ev. (14th ed.) 571. ^ Partington's Case, 10 Co. 38, 39 •
" Mandlebaum v. McDoneU, 39 See : Mandlebaum v. MoDonell
Mich. 78 ; s.c. 18 Am. Bep. 61, 39 Mich. 78 ; s.c. 18 Am. Bep'
73 ; 61, 73. ^
Kennedy v. Kennedy, 39 N. J. L. " See : Ante, § 318.
(5 Dutch.) 185, 188 ; ' See : Denn ex d. Hincman v.
Smith's Appeal, 38 Pa. St. 9 ; Clark, 1 N. J. L. (Coxe) 446 •
VoUer V. Carter, 4 El. & B. 178 ; Eoe d. Evans v. Davis, 1 Yeates
s.c. 83 Eng. C. L. 173 ; 39 Eng. (Pa.) 333.
L. & Eq. 367 ;
Chap. XIV. § 510.] DUTY TO PAY INCUMBRANCES.
445
the issue in tail.^ And this is true also where the land
is sold on execution for the debts of the tenant in tail.^
Neither can the tenant in tail mortgage the entailed land,
in the absence of a statute enabling him to do so.^
Where the tenant in tail has attempted to alien the en-
tailed land, the heir in tail is not bound by the convey-
ance of his ancestor, nor is such heir bound to carry out
a contract made by his ancestor for the conveyance of
the entailed estate.*
Sec. 510. Same— Same— Duty to pay off incumbrances.—
The tenant in tail, having only a partial estate, and not
the entire property, is not bound to pay off any charges
or incumbrances affecting the estate ; ^ and he cannot be
compelled by the heir in tail or remainderman to keep
' Waters v. Margerum, 60 Pa. St.
39;
Watts V. Cole, 2 Leigh (Va.) 653 ;
Litt., § 613.
See : 3 Go. Litt. (19th ed.) 321a.
^ Except in those states where it is
otherwise provided by statute,
as in Massachusetts (Mass. Stat.
179, c. 60, § 2, p. 412), Pennsyl-
vania (Pa. Act Apr. 15, 1859, §
1, P. L. 670), and perhaps other
states.
Estite-tail in remainder. — Such"stat-
ute, it would seem, however,
does not apply to the estate-
tail in remainder. Thus it has
been held in Massachusetts that
the statute of 1791 making es-
tates-tail "subject to the pay-
ment of the debts to the tenant
in tail, in the same manner as
their real estates," does _ not
make a remainder in tail liable
to the debts of the remainder-
man.
See : Holland v. Cruft, 69 Mass.
(3 Gray) 163, 184.
The courts say: "Section 2,
which renders lands hable for
the debts of tenants in tail, is
supposed to extend further ; it
provides that all lands, etc.,
held in fee-tail shall be hable
to the payment of the debts of
the tenant in tail, in the same
manner as other real estates.
Here it is 'lands held in fee-
tail,' for ' the debts of the tenant
in tail,' 'as other real estates.'
These terms distinctly apply to
an estate in possession, as the
term ' held ' implies. Not a
mere right as tenant in tail in
remainder, but ' lands held,'
and for the debts of a tenant so
holding. On any other con-
struction, estates might be
taken to satisfy the debt of a
party, who could not convey
or charge the realty by his deed,
and, upon the decease of the
tenant to the freehold, the es-
tate would be liable for the
debts of the intermediate ten-
ants in taU, however numerous,
who had died before the death
of the tenant for life ; a suppo-
sition too extravagant to be en-
tertained."
s Todd V. Pratt, 1 Har. & J. (Md.)
465.
* Partridge v. Dorsey's Lessee, 8
Har. & J. (Md.) 302 ;
Jones V. Jones, 3 Har. & J. (Md.)
281.
A formal entry by the heir in tail is
not required to void the at-
tempted conveyance of the ten-
ant in tail.
Den V. Robinson, 5 N. J. L. (3
South.) 689.
" Partridge v. Dorsey, 3 Har. & J.
(Md.) 802 ;
Wharton v. Wharton, 3 Vern. 3 ;
Amesbury v. Brown, 6 Ves. 477 ;
Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 Pr. Wms.
335.
446 INCIDENTS— MEEGEE. [Book III.
down the interest, except in special cases. Where a
tenant in tail does pay off an incumbrance which is a
charge on the fee, or keep down the interest thereon, the
presumption is that such payments are made in exonera-
tion of the estate ; and he cannot, by discharging such
incumbrances or keeping down the interest thereon, make
himself a creditor of the estate to the amount so paid,
except by taking an assignment of the incumbrances.^
Sec. 511. Same— Same— Merger.— To the general rule
that where a less and a greater estate unite in one person,
the former is merged and lost in the latter, an estate-tail
furnishes an exception, for it is not subject to the
doctrine of merger ; ^ and consequently a person may
have at the same time, and in his own right, both an
estate-tail and an immediate reversion in fee upon failure
of issue, but the estate-tail will remain intact and cannot
be barred, except in the mode hereinafter indicated.^
The reason why an estate-tail does not merge with the
fee where the tenant in tail acquires the reversion or
remainder in fee-sim.ple, is because the estate-tail grows
out of the statute De Donis, which meant to restrain the
tenant in tail from passing this estate from him, which
he could easily do by acquiring the reversionary interest
if the merger were permitted.*
Sec. 512. Abolition and curtailment by statute.— Although
estates-tail were introduced into this country with our
elements of the common law, yet they weie regarded as
being contrary to public policy, and because of the limit-
ation which they imposed upon the right of free disposal
of land, they have ever been regarded with disfavor in
this country.^ Most of the states have passed statutes
either abolishing them altogether,^ or regulating them.
' Jones V. Morgan, 1 Bro. C. C. 206 ; Pick.) 515 ;
Kirkham v. Smith, 1 Ves. Sr. 358. Altham's Case, 8 Co. 154b.
« Wiscot's Case, 3 Co. 61a ; ^ Pool v. Morris, 39 Ga. 374 ; s.c. 74
Carell v. Cuddington, 1 Plowd. Am. Dec. 68 ;
395 ; Wiscot's Case, 3 Co. 61a ;
Ros V. Baldwere, 5 T. E. 104, 110 ; Eoe v. Baldwere, 5 T. R. 104, 110 ;
s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 550. s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 550, 555.
3 See : Pool v. Morris. 29 Ga. 374 ; See : Ante, § 485.
s.c. 74 Am. Dec. 68 ; = See : Ante, § 459.
Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (20 « 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 14, 15.
Chap. XIV. § 513.] ABOLITION OF TAILS.
44T
In the latter case they are subject to be barred by deed
and by common recovery,^ as is fully explained in the
next chapter.
Sec. 513. Same— EflFect of abolishing estates-tail.— The
effect of the abolition and curtailment of estates-tail by
statute in the various states has been to convert what
would have been an estate- tail at common law into an
estate in fee-simple in the first taker. ^ Thus, in Georgia,
See : AUyn v. Mather, 9 Conn.
114;
Posey V. Budd, 31 Md. 477 ;
Watkins v. Sears, 3 GiU (Md.) 492 ;
Jewell V. Warner, 35 N. H. 176 ;
Redstrake v. Townsend, 39 N. J.
L. (18 Vr.) 372, 379 ;
Den V. Fox, 10 N. J. L. (5 Halst.)
89;
Morehouse v. Cotheal, 1 N. J. L.
(Coxe) 480 ;
Albany Fire Ins. Co. v. Bay, 4 N.
Y. 9;
Van Rensselaer v. Pouclier, 5
Den (N. Y.) 35 -,
Omdofl V. Tnrman, 2 Leigh (Va.)
200 ; s.c. 21 Am. Deo. 608 ;
Croxall V. Sherrerd, 72 U. S. (5
Wall.) 268 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 572.
• Laidler v. Young, 2 Har. & J.
(Md.) 69 ;
Weld V. Williams, 54 Mass. (13
Met.) 486 ;
Nightingale v. BurreU, 32 Mass.
(15 Pick.) 104, 116 ;
Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass,
161, 167, 175.
Compare: PoUock v. Speidel, 17
Ohio St. 439.
2 Bibb V. Bibb, 79 Ala. 437, over-
ruling Edwards v. Bibb, 54 Ala.
475 ; s.c. 43 Ala. 666 ;
Ford V. Cook, 73 Ga. 215 ;
Pournell v. Harris, 29 Ga. 736 ;
Brown v. Wever, 28 Ga. 377 ;
Chew V. Chew, 1 Md. 163 ;
Perry v. Kline, 06 Mass. (12 Cush.)
118;
MoKenzie v. Jones, 39 Miss. 230 ;
Jordan v. Roache, 32 Miss. (3
George) 481 :
Redstrake v. Townsend, 39 N. J.
L. (10 Vr.) 373 ;
Morehouse v. Cotheal, 21 N. J. L.
(Zab.) 480 ;
Lott V. Wykoff, 2 N. Y. 355 ; s.c.
1 Barb. (N. Y.) 565 ;
Lion V. Burtiss, 30 John. (N. Y.)
483;
Roosevelt v. Thurman, 1 John.
Ch. (N. Y.) 330 ;
Ross V. Toms, 4 Dev. (N. C.) L.
376;
Sanders v. Hyatt, 1 Hawks. (N.
C.) 247 ;
Wells V. Newbold, 1 Tayl. (N. C.)
166 ; s.c. C. & N. Conf. 875 ;
Pollock V. Speidel, 27 Ohio St.
86;
Gibson v. Moulton, 2 Disn. (Ohio)
158;
Curtis V. . Longstreth, 44 Pa. St.
297 ;
Wilcox V. Heywood, 13 R. I. 196,
overruUng Lippitt v. Huston, 8
R. I. 415 ; s.c. 94 Am. Dec. 115 ;
Tinsley v. Jones, 18 Gratt. (Va.)
289;
CaUis V. Kemp, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 78 ;
Nowlin V. Winfree, 8 Gratt. (Va.)
846;
Eldridge v. Fisher. 1 Hen. & M.
(Va.) 559 ;
Doe V. Craiger, 8 Leigh (Va.)449 ;
Thomason v. Andersons, 4 Leigh
(Va.) 118 ;
Bramble v. BUlups, 4 Leigh (Va.)
90;
Jiggetts V. Davis, 1 Leigh (Va.)
368;
Ball V. Payne, 6 Rand. (Va.) 73 ;
Kendall v. Eyre, 1 Rand. (Va.)
288.
In Massaclmsetts it has been held,
in Hayward v. Howe, 78 Mass.
(12 Gray) 49, that a devise of
land to be equally divided
among three persons, with a
subsequent provision that, in
case one of them shall die with-
out lawful issue, the property
given to him shall descend to
the testator's heirs in fee, gives
him an estate-tail, and not an
estate for life, under the Re-
vised Statutes, c. 59.
The New Jersey statute of 1784, lim-
iting the entailment to the hfe
44:8
DESCENT OF ESTATES-TAIL.
[Book III.
a devise which, at common law, would create an estate-
tail by implication, will be construed to give a life estate
in the first taker, with a remainder over in fee to his
children and their descendants.^ The policy of the
American law is to limit and destroy estates-tail.^ It is
said by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, in the case of
Jordan v. Eoache,^ that the object of the Legislature was,
by converting fees-tail into fees-simple, to withdraw the
restraints upon the alienation of property imposed by the
system of entailments, and to render the property of the
community subservient to the purposes of the community.
Sec. 514. Descent of estates-tail.— At common law an
estate-tail must always be traced from the donee in tail.
Thus, where lands are given to A in tail they would de-
scend upon his death to his eldest son,* and upon the death
of such eldest son without issue to the other sons of the
first donee successively, according to priority of birth ;
and when all the sons are exhausted the land would go to
of the first grantee in. tail, ap-
plies as well to estates created
by deed as to those created by
will.
Den ex d. James v. Dubois,16 N. J.
L. (1 Harr.) 385, 287.
Same — Estate-tail after life estate. —
It is said in Doe ex d. Doremus
V. Zabriskie, 15 N. J. L. (3 J. S.
Gr.) 404, tliat a devise in tail,
after the termination of a life
estate, is valid under this stat-
ute.
' Ford V. Cook, 73 Ga. 215.
'•' Jordan v. Roache, 33 Miss. (3
George) 481 ;
Lippitt V. Huston, 8 R. T, 415.
The express object of the Mississippi
statute of 1822 was to abolish
estates-tail, which the Legisla-
ture supposed were sanctioned
by the law ; and, thus regarded,
the object and effect of the pro-
viso of § 27 of the statute are
not to allow an estate-tail to be
limited directly to one, or
where there are a succession of
donees, to the remainderman.
Jordan v. Roache, 32 Miss. (3
George) 481.
3 32 Miss. (3 George) 481.
* In England every inference is in
favor of the rights of primo-
geniture ; all presumptions are
raised in favor of acquisitions
of title to land by descent,
rather than by purchase ; and
the intention of the testator is
assumed to be in accordance
therewith. In this country, as
a rule, no such partialities or
presumptions can be said to ex-
ist.
Chilton -y. Henderson, 9 Gill (Md.)
433.
See: Allyn v. Mather, 9 Conn.
133;
Hamilton v. Hempsted, 8 Day
(Conn.) 339 ;
Wells V. Olcott, 1 Kirby (Conn.)
118 ;
Borden v. Kingsbury, 3 Root
(Conn.) 39 ;
Allin V. Bunoe, 1 Root (Conn.) 96.
In Massachusetts, however, an es-
tate-tail, as at common law,
descends to the eldest son, and
to the eldest son of the eldest
son.
Wight V. Thayer, 67 Mass. (1
Gray) 284 ;
Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass.
o.
Chap. XIV. § 515.] SUCCESSIVE DESCENTS. 449
the first donee's daughter, if there should be but one ; but
if there should be more than one, to all the daughters,
taking jointly. Upon a failure of lineal heirs the estate
would either go to those entitled in remainder or would
revert to the donor and his heirs. If the estate created
was a tail male, the issue male alone would inherit, and
the same is true of an estate in tail female. ^ The common-
law rule of descent for estates-tail obtained in this coun-
try prior to the Eevolution.^ But shortly after the
Declaration of Independence a general tendency set in
throughout the states to either abolish estates-tail or
restrict the time during which they should be allowed to
exist. ^
Sec. 51S. Same— Successive descents.— Where the statute
of descents has not changed the character of an estate-tail,
it will descend, in due course of law, to the issue of the
donee who answer the requisite description, however re-
mote they may be in decree from the donee in tail ; and each
of such of whom, in succession, willbe tenants in taU with
the powers and rights which the common ancestor had
in respect to the estate so long as there may by possibility
be issue to answer the description in the limitation creat-
ing the estate.* The course of descent in estates-tail at
common law is the same as that of estates in fee-simple ;
that is, to the eldest son and his eldest son, and so on,
ad infinitum,^ if the ancestor has sons ; ^ if no sons, to
the daughters, taking severally. The same rule applies
' Litt., §§ 21, 23, 23. * See : Ante, § 513 ; Post, § 551.
See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 24a- " 3 Prest Est. 394.
25a. See : Corbin v. Healy, 3" Mass.
■' See : Pratt v. Sanger, 70 Mass. (4 (30 Pick.) 515.
Gray) 84, 86 ; 'A devise to a man and the heirs of
Wight V. Tliayer, 67 Mass. (1 liis. body is a limitation of an
Gray) 384, 386 ; estate-tail, with remainder over
Buxton V. Inhabitants of Ux- if it can take eSeot ; and if it
bridge, 51 Mass. (10 Met.) 87, 91; descend from the devisee in
Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (30 taU, the heirs of his body take
Pick ) 515 ; in succession, the eldest son and
Davis v. Hayden, 9 Mass. 514 ; his issue, the second, etc., and
Sumner v. WiUiams, 8 Mass. 163, so on.
174 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 83 ; Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass.
Eeinh'ard v. Lantz, 37 Pa. St, 488, 8.
491 . « See : Wight v. Thayer, 67 Mass.
Sander's Lessee v. Momingstar, (1 Gray) 284.
1 Yeates (Pa.) 313.
29
450 DESCENT— LEGISLATIVE CHANGES. [BOOK III.
in this country, where the subject is not regulated by
statute.-'
Sec. 516. Same— Legislative change of descent.— The right
of Legislatures to alter or direct, by statute, the future
course of estates-tail in existence at the time of the pas-
sage of the act has been considered by our courts, and
held that such a power was possessed before the adoption
of the constitution.^ Since the adoption of the constitu-
tion such right is unquestioned.^ Eespecting the right
of the Legislature of any state to declare every fee-tail to
be a fee-simple in the tenant in tail, it is said in the case
of De Mill V. Lockwood,*that the Legislature by so doing
would not take away any right of property from any one
and invest it in another ; that they would not take any
strict legal rights from any one, because the issue have
no right in entailed estates which can be conveyed, but
only a possibility or expectancy or capacity of inheriting.
' See : Cromwell v. Delany, 4 Har. children.
& McH. (Md.) 539 ; Den ex d. Spaoliius v. Spacbius,
Wight V. Thayer, 67 Mass. (1 16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 173.
Gray) 384 ; ^ Den ex d. James v. Dubois, 16 N.
Corbin v. Healy, 37 Mass. (20 J. L. (1 Harr.) 285.
Pick.) 514 ; » gee : Pollock v. Speidel, 17 Ohio
Hawley v. Northampton, 8 Mass. St. 86 ;
3 ; De Mill v. Lookwood, 3 Blatch.
Den ex d. Spachius i'. Spacbius, C. C. 56.
16 N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 172 ; limitation on subsisting estates. — In
Nichollson v. Bettle, 57 Pa. St. PoUock v. Speidel, 17 Ohio St.
384 ; 86, it is said that the Ohio act
Eeinhard v. Lantz, 37 Pa. St. 491 ; of December 17th, 1811, re-
Guthrie's Appeal, 37 Pa. St. 9. stricting entailments, operated
In New Jersey, before the statute to limit entailments then sub-
of 1820, estates-tail general sisting as well as those subse-
desoended to the eldest son, to quently created.
the exclusion of all the other ^ 8 Blatch. C, C. 56.
CHAPTER XV.
ALIENATION AND BARRING ESTATE-TAIL.
Sec. 517. Conditional fees.
Sec. 518. Same — Doctrine of the common law.
Sec. 519. Statute of Westminster II. — Origin and effect.
Sec. 530. Same — Evils of the statute.
Sec. 521. Same — Evading the statute — Origin of fines and recoveries.
Sec. 523. Alienating estates-tail.
Sec. 523. Same — By issue in tail.
Sec. 524. Same — Meaning of statute.
Sec. 525. Same — Discontinuance.
Sec. 526. Same — Modes of discontinuance.
Sec. 527. Same — Effects of discontinuance.
Sec. 528. Same — When discontinuance not had.
Sec. 529. Same — Creates base fee when.
Sec. 530. Fines — Nature and kinds.
Sec. 531. Same — Common-law and statutory fines.
Sec. 532. Same — Fines in the United States.
Sec. 533. Common recovery — Definition.
Sec. 534. Same — Nature of.
Sec. 535. Same— Statutoiy tenant of the praecipe.
Sec. 536. Same — Same— Form of proceedings.
Sec. 537. Same— Effect of .
Sec. 538. Same — In the United States.
Sec. 539. Same — Against estate of creator of entail.
Sec. 540. Same — By writ ad quod damnum.
Sec. 541. Alienation by bargain and sale— English doctrine.
Sec. 543. Same — Doctrine in United States.
Sec. 543. ■ Same— Statutory bar by deed.
Sec. 544. Same— Formality of deed.
Sec. 545. Same— Conveyances of limited interests.
Sec. 546. Same— Record of deed.
Sec. 547. Same— By mortgage.
Sec. 548. Same— By partition.
Sec. 549. Same— By sale on execution.
Sec. 550. Same— By leases and releases.
Sec. 551. Statutory abolition and curtailment.
Sec. 553. Equitable estates-tail.
451
452 CONDITIONAL FEES— STATUTE. [Book III.
Section 517. Conditional fees.— Those estates known as
estates-tail under the statute De Bonis were, before the
passage of the statute, known to the common law as con-
ditional fees. Estates-tail were limited to particular heirs
to the exclusion of others, the condition being that if the
donee died, without leaving such heirs as were specified,
the estate reverted to the grantor. In this manner the
nobility and great landed proprietors were enabled to
preserve their lands within their own families ; but the
doctrine of conditional fees interfered with and tended to
defeat entailment, causing an appeal to be made to
Edward I. to restore the ancient law by Alfred for the
preservation of entails.^
Sec. 518. Same— Doctrine of the common law.— Accord-
ing to the common law, upon the birth of issue to which
the estate was limited, it became absolute for three pur-
poses ;
1. The donee could alienate, and thus bar his own issue
and the revisioner.
2. He could forfeit the estate in fee-simple for treason.
Before he could only forfeit his life estate.
3. He could charge the estate with incumbrances, he
might also alien it before issue born, but in that case the
effect of the alienation was only to exclude the lord,
during the life of the tenant and that of his issue, if such
issue were subsequently born ; while if the alienation was
after the birth, its effects were to completely invest in
the grantee a fee-simple estate.^
Sec. 519. statute of Westminster II.— Origin and efifect.—
In this state of the law it became useful for the donee,
as soon as the condition was fulfilled by the birth of
issue, to alien, and afterwards to repurchase, the land.
This gave him a fee-simple absolute, for all purposes.
The heir was thus completely in the power of the an-
cestor, and the bounty of the donor was liable to be
defeated by the birth of the issue, for whom it was his
' 1 Spence Eq. Jur. 141. 18 L. ed. 572, 578 ;
« See ; Croxall's Lessee v. Sherrerd, Willion v. Berkley, 1 Plowd.
73U. S. (5WaU.)368,385; bk. 241.
Chap. XV. §§520, 521.] STATUTE WESTMINSTER— EVILS. 453
object to provide. To prevent such results, and to enable
the great families to transmit in perpetuity the possession
of their estates to their posterity, the statute De Bonis,
passed in the third year of the reign of Edward I., and
known as the statute of Westminster II. , was enacted.
It provided "that the will of the donor, according to the
form in the deed of gift manifestly expressed, should be
observed, so that they to whom a tenement was so given
upon condition should not have the power of alienating
the tenement so given, whereby it might not remain
after their death to their issue, or to the heir of the
donor, if the issue should fail." Under this statute it
was held that the donee had no longer a conditional fee
governed by the rules of the common law, but that the
estate was inalienable, and must descend "per formam
doni," or pass in reversion.^
Sec. 520. Same — Evils of the statute. — This "family
law," as Sir Arthur Pigott has designated the statute,
produced many serious mischiefs. Blackstone tells us ^
that, as a result of it, children grew disobedient when they
could not be set aside ; farmers were ousted of their
leases, made by tenant in tail ; creditors were defrauded
of their debts ; innumerable latent entails were produced
to deprive purchasers of the lands they had fairly bought ;
treason was encouraged ; so that these estates were
justly branded as the source of new contentions and mis-
chiefs unknown to the common law, and almost univer-
sally considered as the common grievance of the realm. ^
Eepeated efforts were made by the commons to secure
the repeal of the statute De Donis,^ but they were
uniformly defeated by the nobility, in whose interest the
statute was passed.
Sec. 621. Same— Evading the statute— Origin of fines and
recoveries.- It remained in force and was administered
without evasion for about two centuries, when the judges,
• See : CroxaU's Lessee «. Sherrerd, (Va.) 200; s.c. 21 Am. Dec.
72 U. S. (5 Wall) 268, 285 ; bk. 608.
18 L. ed. 572, 578. ^ See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 19b ;
2 2 Bl Com. 216. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 116.
3 See : OmdofE v, Turman, 3 Leigh
454 ALIENATING ESTATES-TAIL. [Book IIL
in the famous Taltarum's Case/ decided during the reign
of Edward IV., devised a method to evade the statute by
means of common recoveries.^ This action of the judges
was subsequently noticed and indirectly sanctioned by
various acts of Parliament, and finally became an estab-
lished form of conveyances or common assurances.^
These common recoveries had the force and effect of an
absolute bar, not only of all estates-tail, but also of all
remainders and reversions expectant on the determina-
tion of such estates.* Fines were subsequently resorted
to for the same purpose. Conveyances in England by
fines and recoveries are now abolished by the statute,^
and estates-tail can only be barred by a deed under the
statute.®
Sec. 522. Alienating estates-tail.— The statute De Donis
affecting perpetuity restrains the tenant in tail from
alienating his estate, in any manner whatever, for a
greater interest than his own life.'^ The words of the
statute by which the alienation of an estate-tail is pro-
hibited, however, extend only to the original donee, and
not to his issue ; ^ but this prohibition was extended by
the judges to the issue of the tenant in tail in infinitum.
The reason for this seems to be because the judges
regarded the statute as remedial, and the omission of the
heirs of the donee as merely a misprision of the clerk.
' y. B. 13 Edw. IV., 19 ; 72 U. S. (5 Wall.) 368, 385; bk.
a Bl. Com. 357 ; 18 L. ed. 573, 578.
3' Prest. Est. 454 ; « Church v. Edwards, 3 Bro. C. C.
1 Spear Eq. 143. 180 ;
See : Eoseboom v. Van Vechten, Egerton v. Earle, etc., 1 Sim. N.
5 Den. (N. Y.) 414. S. 464 ; s.c.7 Eng. L. & Eq. 170.
« 2 Bl. Com. 116. See : Roseboom v. Van Vechten,
See : Ransley v. Stott, 36 Pa. St. 5 Den. (N. Y.) 414.
126; 'Littleton says that "if a tenant
Croxall's Lessee v. Sherrerd, 72 in tail grants all his estate to
U. S. (5 Wall.) 268, 285 ; bk. 18 another, the grantee has no
L. ed. 572. estate but for term of life of
3 DeWitt V. Eldred, 4 Watts & S. the tenant in tail, and the re-
(Pa.) 431 ; version of the tail is not in the
3 Bl. Com. 357, 360 ; tenant in tail ; because he has
4 Kent Cora. (13th ed.) 13. granted all his estate, and his
* MUdmay's Case, 6 Co. 40 ; right," etc.
Martin v. Strachan, 5 T. R. 107, Litt., § 650.
note ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 552, See : 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 346a.
note ; 8 Nee habeant illi, quibus tene-
2 Bl. Com. 361. mentum sic fuerit datum,
' 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 74, §§ 3, 14. potestatum alienandi.
See : Croxall's Lessee v. Sherrerd, ' Reniger v. Fagossa, 1 Plowd. 13 ;
Chap. XV. §§ 523, 526.] ALIENATION— DE DONIS. 455
Sec. 523. Same— By issue in tail.— It was adjudged by
Beresford that "the issue in tail should not alien, no
more than they to whom the land was given, and that was
the intent of the makers of the act ; and it was but their
negligence that it was omitted, as there it is said. In
this case, by way of purchase, the land is given to the
donees, and by way of limitation to the issues in tail ;
and, therefore, by a benign interpretation, the purview
of this extends to the issues in tail." ^
Sec, 524. Same— Meaning of statute.— While the statute
De Donis restrains tenants in tail from alienating their
estates for any longer period than that of their own
lives, yet it has not been construed literally to mean that
the grantee took an estate only for the life of the tenant
in tail, which determined ipso facto by the death of such
tenant in tail. The statute has been construed to mean
that the grantee's estate was certain and indefeasible
during the life of the tenant in tail only, upon whose
death it became defeasible by his issue, or the remain-
derman or the reversioner.^ It was otherwise, how-
ever, where anything was granted out of an estate that
was in tail, such as rent, and the like ; for such grant
became absolutely void by the death of the grantor, and
could never be made good.^
Sec. 525. Same— Discontinuance.— The law considering
the tenant in tail as having not only possession, but also
the right of possession of inheritance, restrains him
from alienating them by certain modes of conveyance
which takes away the entry of issue, and drives him to
his action, and which is called a discontinuance. For,
as Littleton says,* "seeing he had an estate of inherit-
ance, the judges compared it to the case where a man
was seized in right of his wife, or a bishop in right of his
bishopric, or an abbot in right of his monastery."
Sec. 526. Same— Modes of discontinuance.— By the com-
Offle's Lessee v. Ogle, 1 T. Jones ' Walter v. Bould, 1 Bulst. 33.
(Ir. Eq.)339. " Litt. , § 595 ;
1 3 Inst. 336. 2 Inst. 335.
2 Maohell v. Clarke, 3 Ld. Eaym. See : 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 336a.
778.
456 DISCONTINUANCE— EFFECTS OF [BOOK III.
mon law estates-tail might be discontinued by five dif-
ferent modes of conveyances ; namely, by a feoffment,
fine, release, confirmation accompanied by a warranty,^
and by a recovery not duly suffered, as where there was no
voucher over of tenant in tail, so as to bar the issue or
remainder over. A recovery duly suffered was some-
times improperly termed a discontinuance, but by reason
of its peculiar operation it was an absolute conveyance
by the tenant in tail.^ By the common law a tenant in
tail might also alien his estate by other modes of convey-
ance, which only transfers the possession, and not the
right of possession. Alienation of innocent assurances
of this kind did not become ipso facto void by the death
of the tenant in tail, but were avoided by the entry of
the issue. ^
Sec. 527. Same— Effects of discontinuance .—The effect of
a discontinuance at common law was to pass a fee-simple
under a new and wrongful title, and to divest the estates
in remainder and reversion, taking away from the dis-
continuees their right of entry and putting them on their
right of action. But to work such a discontinuance the
tenant in tail had to be in possession.*
Sec. 528. Same— When discontinuance not had.— At com-
mon law where, the reversion and remainder could not
be discontinued, the tenant in tail could not discontinue
' See : Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. Hopkins v. Threlkeld, 3 Har. &
& J. (Md.) 69 ; McH. (Md.) 443.
Gleason v. Scott, 8 Hen. & M. ^ 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 335a, b ;
(Va.)378. ' 3 Burr. 704.
To effect a discontinuance there must ^ Seymor's Case, 10 Co. 97b ;
be a transmutation of the pos- 1 Co. Inst. 51a.
session. But a bargain and sale, * See : Drivers. Hussey, 1 H. Bl.
covenant to seize or release, 369 ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 767 ;
vpith a general warranty an- Doe v. Finch, 4 Bam. & Aid. 383 ;
nexed, might produce a disoon- s.c. 34 Eng. C. L. 130 ;
tinuance, when the warranty Doe v. Jones, 1 Bam. & Cr. 338,
descends upon him who has a 343 ; s.c. 8 Eng. C. L. 103 ;
right to the lands, but other- Ex parte Jones, 1 Cr. & Jer. 528;
wise if it descends upon a 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 337b ;
stranger. Litt., § 599.
Stevens v. Winship, 18 Mass. (1 In England a discontinuance hap-
Pick.) 318, 328 ; pening since Dec. 31, 1833,
2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 329a. does not take away any right
See : Mayson v. Sexton, 1 Har. of entry.
& McH. (Md.) 375 ; See : 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27,§ 39.
Chap. XV. §§ 529, 530.] FINES— NATURE AND KINDS. 457
the estate-tail. Thus where the reversion or remainder
was in the crown, there could be no discontinuance ; for
the king was regarded " as a body politic, of all others
most high and worthy," out of whose person no estate of
inheritance or freehold could pass or be removed, except
by matter of record.^
Sec. 529. Same— Creates base fee when.— At common
law, where the tenant in tail alienated the fee by any
form of conveyance, other than a valid common recovery,
his alienee had prima facie only an estate of inheritance,
descendible to his heirs as long as the tenant in tail had
issue inheritable under the entail, which was called a
base or qualified fee. "Where this alienation was, by what
was termed an innocent conveyance, the estate of the
alienee, upon the death of the tenant in tail, could be
avoided by the entry of the issue in tail ; but where the
alienation was made by feoffment, without fine, or was
made by fine without proclamations or recovery duly
suffered, the issue were put to their action in order to
avoid the fine. Where a fine was duly levied with proc-
lamations by the tenant in tail, however, both the right
of entry and action of the issue were taken away.^
Sec. 530. Fines— Nature and kinds.— A fine was a ficti-
tious action commenced upon any kind of writ by which
lands might be either demanded or charged, which was
compromised by leave of the court, the claim of the
plaintiff being acknowledged by the defendant, which
acknowledgment was made in open court or before a
judge or commissioner, and entered of record and duly
enrolled. The fine barred only the issue of the person
levying the fine, and for that reason created a base fee
determinable upon the failure of the issue of the person
levying the fine.^ According to the common classifica-
tion, fines were of four kinds, to wit : (1) Sur consuance
de droit come coe, que il ad de son done, usually styled
simply a fine come coe ; and the word fine, when used
1 Walsingham's Case, 2 Plowd. 553, = Whiting v. Whiting, 81 Mass. (15
563 ; Gray) 179.
3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 334b. ' Seymor's Case, 10 Co. 95b.
458 FINES IN THIS COUNTRY. [Book III.
alone, refers to this species ; (2) a fine siir consuance de
droit tantum ; (3) a fine concessit ; and (4) a fine sur done,
grant et render} Of these four kinds of fines only two
were distinguished by essential differences ; the second
being a mutilated version of the first, and the fourth a
combination of the first and third.
Sec. 531. Same— Common-la-w and statutory fines. — The
fourfold fines above given have reference to the indi-
vidual character of the assurance. In referring to the
general mode of their operation and the general force
from which they derive efficacy, fines have been divided
into two classes, to wit : (1) fines levied at common law,
and (2) fines levied by virtue of the statute. In both
these classes the importance of the assurance depended
upon the degree in which it operated as a bar to claims
which were not prosecuted within a specified time after
the completion of the fine. By the common law the title
conferred by a fine was a bar to the claim of all persons,
whether parties or privies to the fine or not, who, not be-
ing under disability, did not prosecute their claims within
a year and a day.
Sec. 532. Same— Fines in the United States.— Although
fines were a distinct part of the common law, which was
adopted in this country, and became a part of our law,^
they have not been much in use in any of the states,
probably were never adopted, or known in practice, in
most of the states of the Union. It has been denied in
Moreau v. Detchemend,^ that fines ever existed in this
country ; but this is not correct, for fines have been
13B1. Com., o. 21 ; 645;
1 Cruise's Fine and Rec. (3d ed.), Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2
c. 3. Mass. 530, 534 ;
- Boyer v. Sweet, 3 Scam. (111.) Stout v. Keyes, 2 Doug. (Mich.)
131 ; 184; s.c. 43 Am. Dec. 465 ;
Pierson v. Lane, 60 Iowa 60 ; s.c. Lindsley v. Coats, 1 Ohio 243 ;
14 N. W. Rep. 90 ; Van Ness v. Pacard, 27 U. S. (3
Wagner v. Bissel, 3 Iowa 396 ; Pet.) 137 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 374.
Lathrop v. Commercial Bank, 8 So mnch of EngUsh law only as is
Dana (Ky.) 114; s.c. 33 Am. adapted to our circumstances
Dec. 481 ; and customs is properly recog-
Commonwealth v. York, 50 Mass. nized as part of our common
(9 Met.) 93 ; s.c. 43 Am. Dec. law.
373 ; Pennock's Estate, 20 Pa. St. 268 ;
Going V. Emery, 33 Mass. (16 s.c. 59 Am. Dec. 718.
Pick.) 107 ; s.c. 26 Am. Dec. ^ 18 Mo. 522, 527.
Chap. XV. §§ 533-535.] COMMON RECOVERY— NATURE. 459
occasionally levied in New York, for the sake of barririg
claims, and continued in that state until 1833, when they
were abolished by statute. ^ Fines existed also in other
states. They were abolished in New Jersey in 1799,^
and in Pennsylvania they were enforced up till 183Y.^
Sec. 583. Common recovery— Definition.— A common re-
covery has been said to be a conveyance on record,
invented to give a tenant in tail an absolute power to
dispose of his estate as if he were possessed of an estate in
fee-simple.* The power to suffer a common recovery
has been invariably held to be a privilege inseparably
incident to an estate-tail, and one which cannot be
restrained by condition, limitation, custom, recognizance,
or covenant.^
Sec. 534. Same— Nature of.— A common recovery was at
first a collusive action of recovery, not compromised, but
prosecuted to final judgment by the demandant or recov-
eror, against the tenant or recoveree. In its usual form,
as an assurance by a tenant in tail, it was brought by a
collusive demand against a collusive tenant, called the
tenant of the prcecipe, or writ sued out for the purpose of
suffering the recovery, to whom an estate of freehold had
been conveyed by the person in whom the immediate free-
hold in the lands was vested, in order to enable him to
defend the action ; for a common recovery was obliged to
conform in all essential points to the real action which it
coUusively represented, and by the common law no action
of recovery was well grounded unless brought against the
actual tenant of the first estate of freehold in the lands
sought to be recovered ; for default of which the recovery
might be falsified, or set aside, upon a plea of non-tenure.®
Sec. 535. Same— statutory tenant of the praecipe.- The
common law which required that the tenant of the prce-
' See : McGregor v.' Comstook, 17 451.
N. Y. 163 ; " Dewitt v. Eldred, 4 Watts & S.
Roseboom v. Van Veohten, 5 (Pa.) 431 ;
Den. (N. Y.) 414. Croxall's Lessee v. Sherrerd, t2
■' Elmer's Dig. 90. U. S. (5 Wall.) 268, 286 ; bk. 18
2 See : Prudon's Digest of the Laws L. ed. 573, 579 ;
of Pennsylvania. Taylor v. Horde, 1 Bun-. 84.
■* Martin v. Strachan, Willes 444, ^ Booth on Real Actions, 39, 80.
46.0 PROCEEDINGS IN RECOVERY. [Book III.
cipe should be the person actually seized of the first estate
of freehold was found to be very inconvenient in places
where it was the custom to let out lands on leases for
lives at a rent ; in which case the concurrence of the
lessee was necessary, in order to make a tenant to the
prcecipe ; consequently an act was passed during the reign
of George 11.^ which provided in effect that all com-
mon recoveries suffered or to be suffered without the
concurrence of the lessee should be as valid and effectual
as if they had concurred, provided that the person next in
remainder or reversion should convey an estate for life at
least to the tenant of the prcecipe.
Sec. 536. Same— Form of proceedings.— In the proceed-
ings in common recovery the tenant to the prcecipe ad-
mitted the claim of the demandant, but vouched to war-
ranty the tenant in tail, who admitted the warranty, but
vouched over somebody else, always a man of law, com-
monly the crier of the court, who was styled the common
vouchee. The demandant then ' 'craved leave to impart; " ^
which being granted, the demandant and common
vouchee left the court together. Afterwards the demand-
ant came into court without the common vouchee, and
the latter, having been solemnly summoned and failing
to appear, was adjudged "to have departed in contempt
of the court and made default. " Thereupon the demand-
ant recovered the entailed lands against the tenant of
the prcecipe, who recovered lands of equal value against
the tenant in tail, who recovered a similar recompense in
value against the common vouchee. The recompense in
value supposed to be recovered from the common vouchee
had the same effect in law as actual assets to make the
warranty good against the issue in tail.^
Sec. 53Y. Same— Effect of.— A recovery at common law by
a tenant in tail barred as well the estate-tail as all remain-
ders, the reversion expectant thereupon, and all collateral
limitations connected with the estate,* and all conditions
or power by which the estate- tail might have been defeated,
' 14 Geo. II., c. 20, §§ 1 & 2. « Page v. Hayward, 3 Salk. 570 ;
■' Petiit licentiam interloquerdi. Pigott on Reci'veries, 31 ■
8 SheUey's Case, 1 Co. 94b. 3 Prest. Est. 460.
Chap. XV. §§ 538, 539.] EECOVERY IN THIS COUNTRY. 461
whereby the person entitled to the benefit of the recovery-
obtained as large an estate as could by possibility have
been made by the settler who created the estate- tail. ^
A common recovery suffered by a tenant for life had the
effect to cut off a contingent, but not a first remainder,^
and it has been said that an executory devise may be
destroyed by a common recovery against the estate-tail,
which enlarges his estate into a fee, and excludes all sub-
sequent limitations whether they be by way of remainder
or by way of springing use or executory devise.^ A
common recovery, however, had no effect on an estate
derived out of or upon charges, or incumbrances upon
the estate-tail.*
Sec. 538. Same— In United States.— The method of barring
an entail by common recovery was in use in many of the
states before the American Eevolution, but became
obsolete with the disuse of estates-tail in this country.
This form of alienation is believed to have been early
known and practiced in all the states in which estates-
tail formerly existed.^ The law favoring the barring of
estates-tail, little regard was paid to the care with which
a common recovery was conducted, if the power and
intention were manifest.''
Sec. 539. Same— Against estate of creator of entail.— In
this country lands have from the earliest time generally
been regarded as assets for the payment of debts ; conse-
quently where a descendant created an estate-tail in lands
which were subsequently sold for the payment of his
1 3 Prest. Abstr. 137 ; Id. 393 ; Carter v. McMichael, 10 Serg. &
1 Prest. Conv. 2, 17 ; R- (Pa.) 439 ;
1 Prest. Est. 426. Sharp v. Petitt, 4 Yeates (Pa.)
' Doe d. Davies v. Gatacre, 5 Bing. 413.
N C 609 ; B.C. 35 Eng. C. L. Never known in Ohio. — It is said in
337. PoUock V. Speidel, 17 Ohio St.
' See : Taylor v. Taylor, 68 Pa. St. 439, never to have been known
481 ; s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 565. in Ohio, into vi'hich state this
* 3 Prest. Abstr. 137 ; portion of the older common-
1 Prest. Conv. 141, 142. wealth civilization had not pen-
' See : Wood v. Bayard, 63 Pa. St. etrated at the time of the aboli-
820 ; tion of common recovery.
Stump V. Findlay, 2 Eawle (Pa.) <■ Eansley v. Stott, 26 Pa. St. 126.
168 ; S.C. 19 Am. Dec. 632 ;
462 WEIT AD QUOD DAMNUM. [Book III.
debts, this would have the effect of extinguishing the estate-
tail and the purchaser would take an estate in fee-simple.
The same is true where an estate-tail was devised,
charged with the payment of the testator's debts, which
the devisee in tail failed to pay and the 'lands devised
were afterwards sold therefor.^ Because of this fact a
practice sprang up in some of the states, particularly in
Pennsylvania, of barring estates-tail by an action found-
ed on some real or supposed debt of the testator, and
selling the entailed land by virtue of an execution levied
imder the judgment secured in such action.^
\
Sec. 540. Same— By writ ad quod damnum.— In Virginia,
as early as 1734, estates-tail were barred by writ of ad
quod damnum. In this proceeding a writ was issued to
inquire whether the land, and the entail which it was
proposed to bar, were under two hundred pounds in
value ; and also to ascertain whether the land in question
did not adjoin other lands of the tenant in tail. If these
questions were found in the affirmative, an order was
made by the court, by virtue of which a particular species
of conveyance was declared to vest the land in fee-simple.
By virtue of this writ the issue in tail and the remainder-
men and reversioners were forever barred.^ In this form
of action, the same as in the ordinary common recovery,
the proceedings had to be instituted by a tenant in tail in
possession ; consequently when a tenant in tail bargained
and sold to his own heir at law in fee, he could not
afterwards sue out a writ of ad quod damnum to bar
the entail, being no longer seized of an estate-tail, which
was absolutely necessary to authorize him to sue out
such a writ.*
Sec. 541. Alienation by bargain and sale— English doc-
trine.—In England a deed of bargain and sale by tenant
in tail, without assets descending, did not bind the issue
' Gause v. "Wiley, 4 Serg. & R. 244.
(Pa.) 509. 3 See : Carter v. Tyler, 1 Call (Va.)
= Lyle V. Richards, 9 Serg. & R. 165.
(Pa.) 323 ; < Gleason's Heir v. Scott, 3 Hen. &
Nokes V. Smith, 1 Yeates (Pa.) M. (Va.) 278.
Chap. XV. § 542.] ALIENATION BY SALE. 463
in tail.^ In the case of Gilliam v. Jacocks, it is said
that if a tenant in tail bargain and sell the entailed land
in fee, "it is not a discontinuance of the estate- tail, for
that is a separation of the right from the estate ; for the
issue in tail claims not from the tenant in tail, but per
formam doni ; he is therefore a stranger to the bargainor,
and as to him the bargain and sale passes only an estate
for the life of the bargainor ; his estate remaining still in
him, he is not put to his action to recover it, for he has
not lost it ; he may enter, which is the touchstone by
which it is ascertained whether an estate is lost or not,
for if the tenant is disseized, and has not by a descent or
otherwise lost his right of entry, he may compel the lord
to avow upon him, and in all respects recognize him as one
having the estate. " This right of entry, it was said, ' ' will
support a contingent remainder dependent upon his estate
as the precedent freehold, and as the issue in tail after
the death of the bargainor may enter, it proves beyond
a doubt that the estate-tail is in him and not in the bar-
gainee, that is, the bargainee has no estate of any kind ;
for there cannot be two persons in the same estate at the
same time holding adversably." ^
Sec. 542. Same— Doctrine In United States.— In this coun-
try it has been held in some of the states that a tenant in
tail has the power to defeat the entailment, and can con-
vey in fee-simple, although the will creating the estate in
tail was made and approved before the passage of the
statute giving the power.* In a case, however, where a
n V. Robinson, 5 N. J. L. (3 Brogden v. Walker, 2 Har. & J.
South.) 689. (Md.) 385 ;
was held in Wells v. Newbold, Howard v. Moale, 3 Har. & J.
1 Tayl. (N. C.) 166, that a bar- (Md.; 249 ;
gain and sale by the tenant in Gleaaon v. Scott, 3 Hen. & M.
tail worked a discontinuance, (Va.) 378.
and was a bar to the entry of But in Maryland, an heir or issue
the issue, but this case was in tail, claiming per formam
subsequently overruled by Gil- doni, is not compellable to ful-
liam V. Jacocks, 4 Hawks. (N. All a contract, entered into by
(5.) 310. the tenant in tail, for sale of
2 4Hawks.'(N. C.)310. the entailed lands. Nor has
3 See : Eidgely v. McLaughlin, 3 the Court of Chancery power to
Har. & McH. (Md.) 330 ; decree a specified execution of
Mayson's Lessee v. Sexton, 1 such a contract against the heir
Har. & MoH. (Md.) 275. or issue in tail.
^ Eiggs V. Sally, 15 Me. (3 Shep.) Partridge v. Dorsey, 3 Har. & J.
464
STATUTORY BAR BY DEED.
[Book III.
tenant in tail aliened by deed of conveyance containing a
covenant for himself and his heirs to warrant and defend,
and secure the possession to the alienee against all law-
ful claims, it was held that this conveyance did not work
a discontinuance, and that the warranty was a purely
personal covenant of the alienor, and not binding on the
heirs, notwithstanding assets descended.-^ A deed of
bargain and sale, by the heir in tail, in the lifetime of
his ancestor, when he is not tenant, will not work a dis-
continuance ; ^ and a bargain and sale with warranty by
a feme covert, who is a tenant in tail, will not work a
discontinuance of the estate.^ It has been said that a
covenant to stand seized to the use of the covenantee will
not work a discontinuance, even though the deed be in
form one usually accompanying livery of seisin, no
such livery in fact having been made.*
Sec. 543. Same— Statutory bar by deed.— In many if not
most of the states of the Union there are statutory
provisions whereby estates-tail may be barred by deed
executed with greater or less formality ; such as Del-
aware,^ Maine, ^ Maryland,'' Massachusetts,^ Pennsyl-
413, provided that any tenant
in tail, "being of full age, by-
deed, subscribed before two or
more credible witnesses, and
acknowledged and recorded for
a good and valuable considera-
tion, bona fide to grant lands
held in tail in fee-simple," was
sufficient and effectual to bar
all tails and to vest the absolute
inheritance in fee-simple in the
purchaser or grantee without
any force or common recovery.
"Good and valuaWe consideration"
was necessary under this stat-
ute where a deed of an estate-
tail was made, purporting to
be in consideration of a sum of
money and of a lease of the
land to the grantor for one
year, at an apparently normal
rent ; and before the expiration
of the lease, declaration of trust
was made by the grantee,
among other things, to permit
the grantor to have possession
during his life, and the grantor
' Den d. Jacocks v. Gilliam, 3
Murph. (N. C.) 47.
"Hopkins v. Threlkeld, 3 Har. &
McH. (Md.) 448.
^ Mayson v. Sexton, 1 Har. & McH.
(Md.) 375.
■' Watts V. Cole, 3 Leigh (Va.) 653.
= Laws of 1874, p. 507.
* The statute of 1871, c. 36, § 4,
reacted the Massachusetts stat-
ute of 1791, c. 61, and was both
prospective and retroactive in
operation and force, affecting
estates-tail already in b.eing, as
well as those created after the
passage of the act.
See : Willey v. Haley, 60 Me. 176;
Riggs V. Salley, 15 Me. 408.
' By the statute of 1783, o. 23, a
tenant in tail was empowered
to convert his estate into a fee
by conveying to another and
taking back a conveyance in
fee-simple.
See : Laidler v. Young's Lessee,
3 Har. & J. (Md.) 69.
8 The statute of 1791, c. 61, § 1, p.
Chap. XV. § 544.] FORMALITY OF DEED.
405
vania,^ Ehode Island, ^ Virginia,^ and perhaps other
states. These statutes docking entails take the place,
for all practicable purposes, of common recovery, but
have not all the privileges and properties thereof. Thus,
while a common recovery cannot be set aside on account
of the infancy or insanity of a person suffering it, a deed
under a statute barring an entry may be avoided by
proof either of the infancy or insanity of the grantor.*
But a deed barring an entail destroys the remainders
and reversion depending upon it,^ the same as, and is as
effectual as, a common recovery.
Sec. 54i. Same— Formality of deed.— It has been held in
Ohio ^ that an estate-tail cannot be barred by an ordinary
deed with covenants of warranty ; but this is not the
prevailing doctrine. In Massachusetts it is said that a
tenant in tail of an undivided half of land may bar the
entail by conveying in fee, by quit-claim deed, all his
right, title, interest, and estate.'^
continued in possession from
the time of giving his deed ; it
was held that, prima facie,
the deed was given upon a
valuable consideration and
bona Jide,-aiid so, in these re-
spects, was, prima facie, suffi-
cient to bar the entailment,
under a statute allowing estates-
tail to be so barred.
Nightingale v. Burrell, 33 Mass.
(15 Hck.) 104 ;
Soule V. Soule, 5 Mass. 61.
Same — "love and affection" is en.
"good" consideration under
this act.
Wheelwright v. Wheelwright, 3
Mass. 447 ; s.c. 3 Am. Deo. 66.
Under this statute a tenant in
tail may convey by deed an un-
divided part of the estate-tail.
HaU V. Thayer, 71 Mass. (5 Gray)
533
' In 1791 (3 Smith's Laws, 388)
was passed the statute at pres-
ent in force in Pennsylvania
providing that any tenant in
tail in possession, reversion, or
remainder may convey his
land as in fee-simple, provided
the deed states the intention of
the grantor to bar the entry
30
and it be acknowledged in
court.
Eobbs V. Ankeny, 4 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 128.
Under tliis statute a deed exe-
cuted for the express purpose
of barring an estate-tail, al-
though for a nominal consider-
ation, and in trust, an imme-
diate reconveyance being re-
q^uired, is good for its special
purpose.
Lawrence v. Lawrence, 105 Pa.
St. 335.
The- deed of an infant or lunatic
under this statute will not bar
an estate-tail, or in remainder
or reversion, as a common re-
covery would.
Wood V. Bayard, 63 Pa. St. 330.
2 Rev. Stat., c. 145, § 3.
See : Manchester v. Durfee, 5 R.
I. 549.
•'> Watts v' Cole. 3 Leigh (Va.) 653.
" Wood V. Bayard, 63 Pa. St. 320.
' Greeawalt v. Greeawalt, 71 Pa.
St. 483.
8 Pollock V. Speidel, 17 Ohio St. 439.
■■ Coombs V. Anderson, 138 Mass.
376, 378.
Citing : Allen v. Ashley School
Fund, 103 Mass. 363, 265 ;
466 ALIENATION BY MORTGAGE. [Book III.
Sec. 64:5. Same— Conveyances of limited interests.— Where
a limited interest is conveyed- by a tenant in tail, upon
the expiration of the particular estate granted the tenant
in tail again takes the estate- tail, as originally held.^
Thus a lease for seven years, made by a tenant in tail,
will have the effect of passing the estate only for the
term therein expressed.^
Sec. 646. Same— Becord of deed.— A deed made to bar
an estate-tail w^ill be ineffectual for that purpose if not re-
corded as required by the statute ; ® and a deed made to
bar an estate-tail will not bar it if not recorded in the
proper county, even though by a decree of the chancellor
it is afterwards recorded in the proper county.*
Sec. 54T. Same— By mortgage.— A tenant in tail may
mortgage the lands entailed,^ and such mortgage defeats
the estate-tail for a limited time ; if the money secured
by the mortgage is paid the old estate is revived ; ^ but
if the land mortgaged is sold for the repayment of the
money loaned, the estate-tail will be barred ; and if the
right of redeeming the estate is sold on execution against
the tenant in tail, and a deed therefor duly executed
to the purchaser by the officer making the sale, and the
tenant in tail afterwards duly executes a quit-claim deed
to the purchaser, the estate-tail will be barred, and an
inheritance in fee-simple vested in the purchaser.'
Sec. 648. Same— By partition.— Whether an estate-tail
would be barred by partition is a doubtful question.
This subject was discussed but not decided in an early
Pennsylvania case,* and in a recent North Carolina case
it is said that where no members of a class to whom a
conditional limitation is limited are in esse, a proceeding
Hall V. Thayer, 71 Mass. (5 Gray) George v. Morgan. 16 Pa. St. 95.
523 ; 1 Ridgely v. McLaughlin, 3 Har. &
Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass. McH. (Md.) 320.
1"5- ° Todd V. Pratt, 1 Har. & J. (Md.)
' Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. & J. 465.
(Md.) 69. ■■■ Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. & J.
"Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. & J. (Md.) 69.
(Md.) 69. ' Cufifee v. Milk, 51 Mass. (10 Met.)
'^ Tlieologioal Seminary v. Wall, 44 366.
Pa. St. 853 ; s Tieman v. Roland, 15 Pa. St. 429.
Chap. XV. §§ 549, 550.] SALE ON EXECUTION. 46Y
for partition, to which all of the parties in interest who
are in esse are parties, will not give them a fee-simple.^
The statute of 31 Henry VIII., conferring upon joint
tenants and tenants in common the right of partition,
was limited in its operation to estates of inheritance,
common manors, lands, tenements, and hereditaments ;
the remedy given being analogous to that before open to
parceners by the writ of partition. ^ The statute of 32
Henry VIII. extended the remedy to estates for terms of
life or years, and also to estates in which some of the co-
tenants held for terms of life or years, and others had
estates of inheritance.^ It did not aflfect estates in
remainder or contingency,* and therefore it is thought
that estates at will and estates-tail were not within either
of the statutes referred to, and that no writ of partition
can be sued out against the tenant of such an estate.
Sec. 549. Same— By sale on execution.— A sale under a
judgment against a tenant in tail does not bar the estate-
tail.^ Such a sale does not so divest the tenant in tail of
the inheritance that he may not afterwards execute a
deed, in pursuance of the statute, for the purpose of
barring the estate-tail.*^ But if an estate-tail, created by
a will, is sold for a debt of the testator, the purchaser
becomes vested with a title discharged of the devise, and
the proceeds must be substituted for the land.'
Sec. 550. Same — By leases and releases. — A deed of lease
and release by a tenant in tail works a discontinuance of
the estate-tail.^ Thus it has been held in Maryland that
a lease for seven years, made by a tenant in tail, will
have the effect to pass the estate for the term therein ex-
pressed.^
' Overman v. Sims, 96 N. C. 451 ; " Elliott v. PearsoU, 8 Watts & S.
B.C. 2 S. E. Rep. 373. (Pa.) 38.
' See : Allantt on Part. 57 ; ' Matlack v. Eoberts, 54 Pa. St.
Freeman on Coten. & Part. (2d 148.
ed.), § 439. * Orndoflf v. Turman, 3 Leigh (Va.)
3 See : Freeman on Coten. & Part. 300 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 608.
(3d ed.), § 439. See : Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. &
^ Bipsham's Prin. Eq., § 488. J. (Md.) 69.
See : Allantt on Part. 64. * Laidler v. Young, 3 Har. & J.
" Doyle V. MuUady, 33 Pa. St. 264. (Md.) 69.
468 ABOLITION AND CURTAILMENT. [Book III.
Sec. 551. statutory abolition and curtailment.— All limit-
ations upon the right of free disposal of land are against
the policy of our institutions ; and shortly after the
Declaration of Independence there sprang up a general
tendency throughout the Union to either abolish estates-
tail entirely or to restrict the time in which they should
be allowed to exist. Thus in Alabama estates-tail have
been converted into fee-simple estates in the hands of
the donee or devisee in tail ; ^ in Arkansas an estate-tail
is a life estate in the first taker, with a remainder in fee-
simple to the common-law heir ; ^ in California estates-
tail are abolished, and a limitation in tail vests an estate
in fee-simple absolute, unless there is a valid devise over,
in which case it is declared valid, although after a fee,
and vests on a definite failure of issue ; ^ in Colorado an
estate-tail created by will or gift becomes a life estate in
the first taker, with a remainder in fee-simple to the heir
at common law ; * in Connecticut an estate-tail becomes
an estate in fee-simple in the issue of the first taker ; ^ in
Florida estates-tail are prohibited by statute ; ^ in
Georgia they are abolished and a gift or devise in tail
becomes a fee-simple ; '' in Illinois an estate-tail becomes
a life estate in the first taker, with a remainder in fee to
the heir at common law ; ^ in Indiana estates-tail are
' Alabama Bev. Stat. 1867, § 1570 ; pi. 3.
Id. 1876, § 2179. ' Ga. Act 1799, 1821 ;
Alabama mle. — Under the statute Code 1873, p. 391.
in force in Alabama (Clay's See : Ford v. Cook, 73 Ga. 215 ;
Digest, 157, § 37), which con- PourneU v. Harris. 29 Ga. 736 ;
verts an estate in fee-tail into Brown v. Wever, 28 Ga. 377.
an estate in fee-simple in the Statute of another state regarding
first taker, under a devise to enforced. — A devise as follows :
the testator's eldest son and "I lend the use of certain
his lawful male issue, and, in slaves to A for her life, and at
case he should die leaving none, her decease I give them to the
then to the second son and his heirs of her body," gives A a
lawful male issue, the eldest son fee-tail, which by the law of
took an absolute estate in fee. Virginia, where the will was
Bibb V. Bibb, 79 Ala. 437, overrul- made, became an estate in fee-
ing Edwards v. Bibb, 43 Ala. simple.
666 ; 8.0. 54 Ala. 475. PourneU v. Harris, 29 Ga. 786.
° Arkansas Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 373 ; A devise to daughters and their un-
Id. 1888, p. 266, § 6. horn children creates an estate-
= Cal. Civil Code 1872,- §§ 763, 764. taU, that is a fee under our
"Colo. Gen. Laws 1877, c. XVIII., statute, which passes to their
§ 165, p. 134. husbands.
» Conn. Act 1784. Brown v. Wever, 28 Ga. 377.
See: Gen. L. VL, § 3. ^1\\. Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 273; Id.
« Thompson Dig., tit. 2, c. 1, § 4, 1880, p. 266, § 6.
Chap. XV. § 551.] ABOLITION AND CURTAILMENT.
460
abolished, and in the absence of a vahd remainder over
the fee vests in the donee or devisee ; ^ in Iowa all limit-
ations suspending the power of alienation for a longer
period than lives in being and twenty-two years after,
are void ; ^ in Kentucky estates-tail are converted into
fees-simple ; ^ in Maryland it was declared by a statute
in 17S6,* that if a tenant in tail general^ should die
intestate the lands should descend in fee-simple, which
has been construed to change only the course or manner of
transmitting the estate-tail by making the land to descend
to all the children of the tenant in tail, cutting out col-
lateral heirs ; "^ in Massachusetts a statute was passed in
1791 ' regulating entails ^ and making them liable for the
debts of the tenant in tail ; ^ in Michigan estates- tail
have been abolished and all estates of inheritance are f ee-
' Ind. Rev. Stat. 1876, p. 368.
■> Iowa Stat. 1873, § 855.
3 Ky. Gen. Stat. 1878, p. 585.
See : Sale v. Cruchfleld, 8 Bush
(Ky.) 636 ;
Daniel v. Thomson, 14 B. Mon.
(Ky.)662;
Deboe v. Lowen, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.)
616.
" Md. Act 1786, c. 45.
See : Rev. Stat., art. 47, § 1 ; Id.,
art. 44, g 7.
Where a testator devised as fol-
lows : "Unto my wife, E. C,
all my lands during her life,
and after the death of my said
wife, I give, etc., all the said
lands to my son R. and my
daughters, Ann, A., E.. and
Agnes, to have and to hold the
same during their single lives ;
and in case my said children,
here mentioned, should marry,
or my son R. should die without
lawful issue, then, and in that
case, it is my desire that my
son W. have and enjoy the
whole of said lands, to him, his
heirs and assigns, forever."
Held, that the son R. took an
estate in fee-tail ; and that, as
the statute of Maryland makes
such an estate a fee-simple,
R.'s wife was entitled to dower
therein.
Chew V. Chew. 1 Md. 163.
5 Estates-tail speoial,it is thought, still
exist in Maryland unaffected
by the statute.
See : Newton v. Griffith, 1 Har.
& G. (Md.) 111.
' Roe, Lessee of Posey v. Budd, 21
Md. 477 ;
Smith V. Smith, 2 Har. & J. (Md.)
314.
' Mass. Act 1791, c. 60.
* In the case of Perry v. Kline, 66
Mass. (13 Cush.) 118, three
brothers, Benjamin, Lambert,
and Stephen, by the will of
their father, took estates tail
with cross remainders. In
1805, Lambert conveyed his
third to Benjamin and Stephen,
in fee, with covenants of war-
ranty, by deed executed in
presence of two witnesses, for
a valuable consideration, and
duly acknowledged. Held,
that, under St. 1791, c. 60, § 1,
this deed barred the entail, and
vested Lambert's third equally
in the grantees in fee, and that
Benjamin and Stephen then
held each one-half of the estate,
viz., two-sixths in tail under
the wiU, and one-sixth in fee
under said deed.
9 The statute of 1791, c. 60, § 2, mak-
ing estates-tail " subject to the
payment of the debts of the
tenant in tail, in the same man-
ner as otlier real estates," did
not make a remainder in tail
liable to the debts of the re-
mainderman.
Holland v. Cruft, 69 Mass. (3 Gray)
162.
470
ABOLITION AND CURTAILMENT.
[Book III.
simple, either conditional or absolute ; ^ in Minnesota
estates-tail are abolished by statute, and all estates are
declared to be estates in fee-simple absolute in the absence
of an estate limited after a limited estate granted ; ^ in
Mississippi estates-tail are converted into fee-simple
estates, but lands may be limited to two living donees in
succession, and then to the heirs of the body of the
remainderman, and in default of such heirs, to the heirs
by the donor in fee-simple ; ^ in Missouri an estate- tail
carries an estate for life, with a remainder to the children
of the devisee or donee as tenants in fee-simple ; * in New
Hampshire the statute of 1789 impliedly repealed the
statute -De Donis, and since that time entailed lands
descend to the children of the tenant equally ; ^ in New
Jersey, as early as 1784 and 1786, it was provided by statute
that an estate-tail should become an estate in fee-simple
after one descent ; in 1799 the statute was repealed,
and under the further statute of 1820 a gift or a devise
in tail gives the first taker an estate for life, with a
vested remainder in fee-simple in the heir ; ^ in New
' 3 Mich. Compl. L. 1871, c.
CXLVII.,§3, p. 1335.
« Minn. Rev. Stat. (Bissell's ed.), S
3, p. 613.
3 Miss. Stat. 1871, §3286.
See : McKenzie v. Jones, 39 Miss.
330;
Jordan v. Roache, 33 Miss. (3
George) 481.
" Mo. Stat. 1886, p. 443.
5 N. H. Stats. 1789, pp. 76, 77.
See : Jewell v. Warner, 35 N. H.
176.
Before this decision it was not
settled that estates-tail in New
Hampshire were abolished.
See : Dunning v. Wherren, 19 N.
H. 9;
Laddw. Harvey, 31 N. H. (1 Fost.)
536 ;
Bell V. Seammon, 15 N. H. 381 ;
B.C. 41 Am. Dec. 700 ;
HaU V. Chaflfee, 14 N. H. 315 ;
Frost V. Cloutman, 7 N. H. 9 ;
B.C. 26 Am. Dec. 783.
' Den d. Doremus v. Zabriskie, 15
N. J. L. (3 J. S. Gr.) 404 ;
Den ex d. James v. Dubois, 16 N.
J. L. (1 Harr.) 385, 287 ;
Den ex d. Spaoius v. Spacius, 16
N. J. L. (1 Harr.) 173 ;
Morehouse v. Cotheal, 1 N. J. L.
(Coxe) 480.
The Supreme Court of the United
States say, in the case of Croxall
V. Sherrerd, 73 U. S. (5 WaU.)
268 ; bk. 18 L. ed. 573, that the
Legislature of the state of New
Jersey has power to bar an en-
tail by a private act, and divide
the estate equally between the
children in fee. Where all
the parties interested consent
thereto, no imputation of fraud
is made, the partition is by dis-
interested commissioners, and
their action is confirmed by
mutual conveyances and re-
leases.
By tie present statute of New Jersey,
in every case in which an es-
tate-tail by the rules of the
common law is created, the
eleventh section of the New
Jersey act of descents — abolish-
ing fees-tail — applies ; and this
result would obtain if an estate--
tail with a fee-simple expectant
thereon should be created.
Redstrake v. Townsend, 39 N. J.
L. (10 Vr.) 373.
Chap. XV. § 551.] ABOLITION AND CURTAILMENT.
471
York estates in tail were abolished by the statutes 1782
and 1TS6, and converted into fee-simple estates ; ^ in
North Carolina tenants of an estate-tail are deemed
seized in fee-simple under the statute ;2 in Ohio, by
statute, an estate-tail becomes an estate in fee-simple in
' See : Nellis v. Nellis, 99 N. Y.
505: S.C. 3 N. E. Rep. 59; 1
Cent. Rep. 396, 299 ;
Lott V. Wykoff, 3 N. Y. 355,
affirming s.c. 1 Barb. (N. Y.)
565;
Lion V. Burtiss, 20 John. (N. Y.)
483;
Anderson v. Jackson, 16 John.
(N. Y.) 383 ; s.c. 8 Am. Deo.
330;
Roosevelt v. Thurman, 1 John.
Ch. (N. Y.) 320.
The New York act of 1786 ap-
plied to estates-tail in remain-
der equally with those in posses-
sion.
Wendell v. CrandaU, 1 N. Y. 491 ;
Van Rensselaer v. Poucher, 5
Den. (N. Y.) 35 ;
Grout V. Townsend, 3 Den. (N.
Y.) 366 ;
Vanderheyden v. CrandaU, 3 Den.
(N. Y.) 9 ;
Jackson v. Van Zandt, 13 John.
(N. Y.) 169.
Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, 53
U. S. (11 How.) 297 ; bk. 13 L.
ed. 703.
The Supreme Court of the United
States say, in the case of Van
Rensselaer v. Kearnev, 52 U. S.
(11 How.) 397 ; bk. "l3 L. ed.
703, that the statute of New
York of February 23, 1786,
abolishing estates-tail, and pro-
viding that all persons who
then were, or who, but for that
statute, would thereafter, by
virtue of any devise or convey-
ance, become seized in fee-tail
of any real estate, should be
deemed to be seized of the same
in fee-simple, has been con-
strued by the courts of New
York to include estates-tail in
remainder, as well as in posses-
sion, and their construction is
followed by the courts of the
United States.
Limitation over to survivors cut off.
— Where a testator, by his will,
which took effect in 1801, de-
vised his real estate to his four
sons and the heirs of their
bodies, share and share alike ;
if any one of them should die
without issue, his share was to
gotothesurvivors, to be equally
divided among them ; and if all
the sons should die without
issue, the estate was to go to
the children of the daughters ;
the court held : (1) That, by the
primary devise to the sons, they
took estates-tail, with contin-
gent cross-remainders, which,
by the New York statute of
1786, abolishing entails, were
converted into absolute estates ;
(2) that the limitations over to
the survivors among the sons,
and to the children of the
daughters, were cut off by that
statute.
Lott V. Wykoff, 3 N. Y. 355 ; s.c.
1 Barb. (N. Y.) 565.
See : Lion v. Burtiss, 20 John. (N.
Y.) 483.
= Battle's Rev. 1873, p. 383.
See : Ross v. Toms, 4 Dev. (N. C.)
L. 376 ;
Sanders v. Hyatt, 1 Hawks. (N.
C.)247;
Wells V. Newbold, 1 Tayl. (N. C.)
166 ; s.c. C. & N. Conf. 375.
The act of North Carolina of 1784, c.
22, converted no estates-tail into
estates in fee, but such whereof
there was a person "seized or
possessed," and confirmed only
such alienations in fee as had
been made by tenants in tail in
possession since the year 1777.
Wells ^J. Newbold, 1 Tayl. (N. C.)
166 ; s.c. C. & N. 375.
Under this statute a devise of
lands to A for life, and after
her death to be equally divided
among the heirs of her body,
and for want of such heirs tlien
over, gives A an estate-tail in
the land, which, by the act,
is converted into a fee. '
Ross V. Toms, 4 Dev. (N. C.) L.
376.
See Sanders v. Hyatt, 1 Hawks.
(N. C.) 247.
472
ABOLITION AND CURTAILMENT.
[Book III.
the issue of the tenant in tail ; ^ in Pennsylvania it is
provided by a statute,^ that when " by any gift, con-
veyance, or devise an estate-tail would be created accord-
ing to the existing laws of the state, it shall be taken
and construed to be an estate in fee-simple, and as such
shall be inheritable and freely alienable ; " in Ehode
Island estates-tail are limited to the children of the first
devisee ; ^ in Virginia an act was passed in 1T76 abolish-
ing all entails and converting them into fees-simple ; *
1 1 S. & C. Rev. Stat. 550.
Under the Ohio entailment act of
1812, § 355,— providing that all
estates given in tail shall be
and remain an absolute estate
in fee-simple, to the issue of the
first devisee in tail, — where
realty is devised to the children
of A for life, and in case of
death of one or more of said
children, before the devise
takes effect, leaving issue, then
the share of such child to such
issue for life, with remainder
over for life to the issue of such
issue, and in this manner down
in entailment as far as may be
allowed by the statute, the fee
does not vest in the issue of the
children of A, but in the issue
of such issue ; and in default
of the issue of such issue, the
property reverts to the heirs
at law of the testator.
Gibson v. Moulton, 2 Disn. (Ohio)
158.
2 Act April 37, 1855, § 1 ;
P. L. 368 ;
IPrud. Dig., p. 630, pi. 8.
This act applied only to estates-
tail created after ite passage.
Reinhard v. Lantz, 37 Pa. St. 488,
491.
Descant of estates-taU in Pennsyl-
vania.— Estates-tail descend in
Pennsylvania as at common
law.
See : Nicholson v. Bettle, 57 Pa.
St. 384 ;
Reinhard v. Lantz, 37 Pa. St.
491;
Guthrie's Appeal. 37 Pa. St. 9.
Sale of estate-tail on execution. — A
testator devised his dwelling to
one for " his natural life, not to
be sold or exchanged while he
lives, and at his death to vest in
his heirs as tenants in com-
mon ; " but should he die with-
out issue, then the said prop-
erty to be equally divided
among, and descend to, the
surviving heirs of the testator.
The devisee's interest having
been sold by the sheriff, on case
stated as to the title conveyed
thereby, it was held, that the
devisee took an estate-tail in
the dwelling, which under the
act of 15th April, 1859, became
a fee-simple in the purchaser at
sheriff's sale.
Curtis V. Longstreth, 44 Pa. St.
397
3R. L Gen. Stats., c. 171, § 3, p.
OLD,
This statute has been held tD continue
an entailment through the life of
the first devisee in tail, and
then to enlarge the estate to a
fee-simple in the children of
the devisee.
Wilcox V. Heywood, 13 R. I. 196,
overruUng Lippit v. Huston, 8
R. I. 415, 434 ; s.c. 94 Am. Dec.
115.
See: Sutton v. Miles, 10 R. I.
348.
^ See : Tinsley v. Jones, 13 Gratt.
(Va.) 389 ;
Eldridge v. Fisher, 1 Hen. & M.
(Va.)559;
Doe V. Craiger, 8 Leigh (Va.)
Thomason v. Andersons, 4 Leigh
(Va.) 118 ;
Bramble v. Billups, 4 Leigh (Va.)
Jiggetts V. Davis, 1 Leigh (Va.)
368.
Ball V. Payn, 6 Rand. (Va.) 73.
Kendall v. Eyre, 1 Rand. (Va.)
388.
This act has been characterized
as "a great general common
recovery."
Chap. XV. § 552.] EQUITABLE ESTATES-TAIL. 4Y3
in West Virginia the law is the same as the law in Vir-
ginia ; ^ in Vermont an estate-tail becomes a life estate
in the first taker, with a remainder in fee-simple to the
heir at common law ; ^ in Wisconsin estates-tail are
abolished, and all estates of inheritance are fees-simple
absolute, in the absence of a limited estate carved out of
the fee-simple.^
Sec. 552. Equitable estates-tail.— An equitable estate-
tail may be barred in the same manner as an estate-tail
at law,* and a mere covenant with a remainderman
will not prevent a bar of such an estate.^ The Supreme
Court of the United States says in the case of Croxall v.
Sherrerd,^ that a trust estate, like a legal estate, is
descendible, devisable, alienable, and barrable by the act
of the parties, and by matter of record. Generally,
whatever is true at law of the legal estate is true in
equity of the trust estate.''
See : Omdoff v. Turman. 3 Leigh « 73 U. S. (5 WaU.) 368, 381 ; bk.
(Va.)200 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 608. 18 L. ed. 273, 377.
1 See : W. Va. Code 1868, 460. ' See : Walton v. Walton, 7 John.
2 Vt. Gen. Laws 1863, p. 446. Ch. (N. Y.) 358 ; s.c. 11 Am.
3 Wis. Rev. Stat. 1878, c. 95, § Dec. 456 ;
3027. Doe v. Laning, 2 Burr. 1109 ;
*See: Croxall v. Sherrerd, 73 U. Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 3 Jac.&
S. (5 Wall.) 368, 381 ; bk. 18 L. W. 148.
ed. 573. Philips v. Brydges, 3 Ves. 137.
5 Doyle V. Mullady, 33 Pa. St. 264.
CHAPTER XVI.
ESTATES FOR LIFE.
SECTlOil I. Nature and incidents of life estates.
Section II. Duties incident to life estates, tenures, etc.
Section III. Estate pitr autre vie.
Section IV. How estates for life created.
Section V. Emblements.
Section VI. Estovers.
Section VII. Waste.
Section I. — Nature and Incidents of Lite Estates.
Sec. 553. Introductory.
Sec. 554. Estate for life under feudal law
Sec. 555. Same — Term of grant — Formal words of instrument,
Sec. 556. Definition of a life estate.
Sec. 557. Estate for life a freehold.
Sec. 558. What constitutes an estate for life.
Sec. 559. Kinds of estates for life.
Sec. 560. Estates for life of the tenant.
Sec. 561. Quasi tenants for life — Ecclesiastical persons.
Sec. 563. Determinable estates for life.
Sec. 563. Same — Special occupant.
Sec. 564. Life estate by implication.
Sec. 565. Same — ^What creates life estate by implication.
Sec. 566. Same — Adding words of limitation.
Sec. 567. Same — Absurd and superfluous expressions.
Sec. 568. Same — Same — Eeason for the rule.
Sec. 569. Tenancy by the curtesy, etc.
Sec. 570. Conditions attached to life estates.
Sec. 571. Same — Liability for debts of tenant.
Sec. 573. Enlargement of life estate to a fee.
Sec. 573. Same — Power of disposition by wiU.
Sec. 574. Nature of an estate for life.
Sec. 575. Same — Possession of tenant possession of reversioner.
Sec. 576. Same — Adverse title — Purchase by life tenant.
Sec. 577. Same— Not entailable.
Sec. 578. Bights and incidents of an estate for life — 1. Right to posses-
sion and products.
Sec. 579. Same — Same — Right of possession of title-deeds.
Sec. 580. Same — 3. Right to recover damages.
474
Chap. XVI. § 553.] ESTATES FOR LIFE.
475
Sec.
581.
Sec.
583.
Sec.
583.
Sec.
584.
Sec.
585.
Sec.
586.
Sec.
587.
Sec,
588.
Sec.
589.
Sec.
590.
Sec.
591.
Sec.
592.
Sec.
593.
Sec.
594.
Sec.
595.
Sec. 596.
Same — Same — Rules of valuation of life estate.
Sam.e — 3. Eight to estovers, etc.
Same — 4. Right to work mines, quarries, etc.
Same — Same — Right to open new mines, pits, and shafts.
Same — Same — Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Mining Co.
Same — 5. Right to lease.
Same — 6. Eight to rents and profits.
Same — Same — Apportionment of rent.
Same— 7. Right to protection against sudden determination
of estate.
Same — 8. Right of alienation.
Same — Same — Restraint on alienation.
Same — Same — Same — Active trust — Pennsylvania doctrine.
Same — Same — Same — Withdrawing estate from creditors.
Same — Same — Must be made by deed.
Same — Same — How great an estate may be conveyed by life
tenant.
Same— Same — Passes by assignment for benefit of creditors.
Section 553. introductory.— An estate for life ranks next
in importance to an estate in fee-simple because its dura-
tion is usually measured by a human life, and the estate
is regarded as a freehold.^ This estate embraces all free-
holds not of inheritance, including, alike, estates held
by a tenant for the term of his own life ; for the life or
lives of another person or persons ; for an indefinite period
that may*endure for the life or lives of a person or per-
sons in being, and not beyond the period of a life ; ^ and
a general grant without defining the limits of the estate.^
■See: Post, §557.
^ Hewlins v. Shippam, 5 Barn. & C.
321, 228 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 487,
440.
Such as a grant or lease as long
as the grantee shall dwell in a
certain house (3 Co. Litt. , 19th
ed., 42a); continue vicar of the
parish (Brewer v. HiU, 2 Anstr.
413; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 596);
maintain salt-works on his own
land (Hurd v. Gushing, 34
Mass., 7 Pick., 169), or a cheese
factory on the land devised
(Warner v. Tanner, 88 Ohio St.
118); or until the grantor makes
B bailey of his manor (Butler
& Ridgeley, H. 37 EL).
2 3BI. Com. 121.
Grant for uncertain length of time —
Freehold estate. — In the case of
Hewlins v. Shippam, 5 Barn. &
C.221,238 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 437,
440, the declaration claimed, as
a Ucense and authority granted
of tlie plaintiff's landlords,
their Iieirs and assigns, to make
a drain, and have the foul
water pass from their scuUery
through tlie drain across the
defendant's yard. One of the
counts claimed it indefinitely,
without fixing any limits ;
others restricted it either to the
time the defendant should con-
tinue possessed of his yard or
house, or so long as it should
be requisite for the convenient
occupation of the plaintiff's
house ; some stated, as part of
the consideration, that defend-
ant's landlords should do some
repairs to the defendant's
premises ; others did not. The
court say : "Now, what is the
interest these counts stated ? A
476 GRANTING ESTATE FOR LIFE. [Book III.
Sec. 554:. Estate for life xmder feudal law.— Estates for
life are the most interesting, if tHey are not the most
ancient, class of estates in land. Under the feudal
system, from which, as we have already seen,i our laws
relating to and governing real property are derived, and
1 to which they owe so much of their character, an estate
for life was esteemed of higher dignity than the longest
estate for years ; and was inalienable, unless the consent
of the lord of whom the tenant held could be first
obtained.^
Sec. 555. Same— Term of grant— Formal words of instru-
ment.—By the feudal law a grant of lands to a person
was considered a grant to him as long as he could hold
them — that is, during his life — and no longer.^ The
reason for this was because the feudal donations were
taken strictly, and not extended beyond the precise terms
of the gift by any presumed intent.* On the tenant's
death the lands granted reverted to the lord of the manor,
who was the grantor, or to his heirs. Where it was in-
tended that the descendants of the tenant should, on his
decease, succeed to the tenancy, this intention was incor-
porated in the instrument by additional words of grant,
and the gift was to the tenant "and his heirs," or, in
other words, expressive of the intention. The heir thus
became a nominee in the original grant and took the
freehold interest. In Coke on Litt., 19th ed., 42a) specifies
Littleton, page 42, it is said : 'If two or three other instances,
a man grant an estate to a but adds, that in pleading, the
woman dum sole, etc. , or as limitation ought to be pleaded
long as the grantee dwells in and continuance averred ; and
such a house, etc., or for any Blackstone, in his Commen-
like uncertain time, which taries (vol. II., p. 121), lays it
time, as Bracton saith, is tern- down that a general grant,
pus indeterminatum, • in all without defining the limits of
these cases, if it be of lands or the estate, passes an estate for
tenements, the lessee hath, in life ; and Brewer v. Hill, 3
judgment of law, an estate for Anstr. 413 ; s.c. 3 Eev. Eep.
life determinable, if livery be 596, is an authority to show
made ; and if it be of rents, that a lease fronii a vicar, so
advowsons, or any other things long as he should continue
that lie in grant, he hath a like vicar, passes an estate for life."'
estate for life by the delivery ' See : Ante, § 148, et seq.
of the deed, and in court or ' 2 Bl. Com. 57 ;
pleading he shall allege the Wright, Ten. 29.
lease, and conclude that by ' Bract., lib. II., fol. 92b, par. 6.
force thereof he was seized ^ Wright, Ten. 1?, 152.
generally for the term of his See : 2 Bl. Com. 121'.
Ufe.' Lord Hale (note to 1 Co.
Chap. XVI. §§ 556, 557.] DEFINITION OF THE ESTATE. 477
estate from the grantor and not from his ancestor. In
such a case the ancestor and the heir took equally as a
succession of usufructuaries, each of whom, during his
life, enjoyed the beneficial, but none of whom possessed,
or could lawfully dispose of, the direct or absolute
dominion of the property.^
Sec. 556. Definition of a life estate.— Strictly speaking,
an estate for hfe is an interest in land which is limited
to the life of the tenant, or to the life or lives of another
person or persons than that of the tenant ; but the term
has been so extended as to include all freehold estates
not of inheritance, the duration of which may be deter-
mined by the happening or not happening of an uncertain
event.^
Sec. 557. Estate for life a freehold.— An estate for life
denoted anciently an estate held by a freeman, indepen-
dently of the mere will and caprice of the feudal lord ;
and the term was used in contradistinction to an
estate for a term of years in lands held in villeinage or
copyhold, which estates were originally liable to be deter-
mined at pleasure.^ Under the feudal law these estates
were created by livery of seisin, and for that reason the
tenants owed fealty to the lord, not homage, which was
due only from the one who had the inheritance. Under
our laws any estate of inheritance or for life in real
property, whether it be a corporeal or an incorporeal
1 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 191a, note 1. Foster v. Joyce, 3 Wash. C. C.
See : Burgess v. Wheate, 1 Wm. 498 ;
Bl. 133. Hewlins v. Shippam, 5 Barn. &
= Eldridge v. Preble, 34 Me. 148, C. 221, 228 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L.
151; 437,440;
Hurd V. Gushing, 24 Mass. (7 2 Bl. Com. 121 ;
Pick.) 169 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a.
Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280, Bracton siys : "Ad tempus mdeter-
285 ; minatum absque aliqua certa
Clark V. Owens, 18 N. Y. 434 ; temporis praafinitione." Bract.,
Roseboom v. Van Vechten, 5 lib. IV., c. 28, fol. 207.
Den. (N. Y.) 414 ; Justinian's definition. — An estate
Jackson v. Myers, 3 John. (N. Y.) for life is in most respects
388 I s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 504 ; similar to the usufructus of the
People ex rel. Norton v. GriUis, 24 civil law, whicli is thus defined
Wend. (N. Y.) 201 ; by Justinian in Iiis Institutes :
Garland v. Crow, 2 -Bail. (S. C.) ""Usufructus est jus alienis re-
L. 24 ; bus utendi fruendi, salva rerum
Deiamatte v. Allen, 5 Gratt. (Va.) substantia. "
499 ; " 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 23, 27.
478 WHAT CONSTITUTES. [Book III.
hereditament, may justly be termed a freehold. Under
■the ancient law a freehold interest brought to the owner
certain valuable rights and privileges, which conferred
apon him importance and dignity as a freeholder and
freeman. Thus he became a suitor of the courts, and
was entitled to sit as juror ; he had the right to vote for
members of Parliament, and to defend the title to his
land ; he was a necessary party in real actions, and had
a right to call in the aid of the revisioner or the remain-
derman when the inheritance was demanded.-^
Sec. 568. What constitutes estate for life.— An estate
will be regarded as an estate for life where there is a
grant or devise to a person expressly for life,^ or to him
without words of limitation,^ or to him for the life or lives
of another person or persons ;* or as long as he shall main-
tain salt-works,'' or a cheese-house,® or keep a saw-mill
and grist-mill doing business^ on the devised premises ;
or to a woman so long as she shall remain a widow,® or
to a man and wife during coverture, or to a man as long
as he shall live in a certain house, ^ or until the rental
shall pay a specified sum,^" or a like uncertain period. ^^
A life estate may be created by reservation as well as
grant. Thus, where land is granted, reserving to the
grantor the use and control of the lands during his
natural life, the reservation creates a life estate in the
land granted. ^^
To this rule as to the creation of life estates, by grant
or devise, there is an exception in those cases where there
is a devise of lands to executors in trust until the
testator's debts are paid, such devises passing a chattel
and not a freehold interest.
' 1 Prest. Est. 206-310. s gee : Eoseboom v. Van Vechten, 5
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 43a. Den. (N. Y.) 414
2 3 Bl. Com. 131. 9 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 43a.
<See: HewUnsu. Shippam, 5Barn. '"See: People ex rel. Norton v.
& C. 331, 228 ; s.o. 11 Eng. C. Gillis, 34 Wend. (N. Y.) 201.
L. 437, 440. " 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 43a.-
5 Kurd V. Cushing, 24 Mass. (7 Pick.) See : Ante, § 553.
169. 14 Richardson v. York, 14 Me.
« Warner v. Tanner, 38 Ohio St. 216 ;
^ 118- Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18,
Sperry s Lessee v. Pond, 5 Ohio 23 : s.c. 66 Am. Deo. 705, 707.
387 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 296.
Chap. XVI. §§ 559, 560.] KINDS OF LIFE ESTATES. 479
Sec. 559. Kinds of estates for life.— The most manifest
division of estates for life is into estates limited in dura-
tion to the term of the life of the tenant, or to the life
or lives of another person or persons. In the latter case
the estate is termed an estate pur autre vie.^ Estates
for life are again divided as to the method of their
creation ^ into conventional life estates, or those created
by the act of the parties themselves ; and legal life estates,
or those estates created by operation of the law.^ Of the
latter class are tenancy by curtesy,* tenancy by dower,®
tenancy in tail after possibility ; ^ and estates hy mar-
riage,'^ homestead,* and jointure.^
The following is thought to be a complete list of estates
for life or lives :
1. An estate for the life of the tenant himself, includ-
ing—
a. Estates by express limitation and by limitation by
implication ;
6. Estates of tenants in tail after the possibility of
issue extinct ;
c. Estates of tenants by the curtesy ;
d. Estates of tenants in dower ;
2. An estate for the life of another person or persons,
or pur autre vie ;
3. An estate for the joint life of several persons ; and
4. An estate for the life of the longest liver of several
persons.^"
Sec. 560. Estate for life of the tenant.— In the estima-
tion of the law, an estate for the life of the tenant him-
■ Walker Am. L. 335, § 131. 303 ;
See : Post, section III., this chap- Eldridge v. Preble, 84 Me. 151 ;
ter. Millar v. Williamson, 5 Md. 319 ;
« See: Pos^, section IV., this chap- Cooper v. Adams, 60 Mass. (6
ter. Cush.) 87 ;
8 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 24. Noe v.. Miller s Executors, 31 N.
* See : Post, chapter XVII. J. Eq. (4 Stew.) 234 ;
5 See : Post, chapter XVIII. Irwin v. Covode, 34 Pa. St. 163 ;
' See : Ante, § 466. Brooks v. Brooks, 13 S. C. 433 ;
' See : Post, chapter XXIV. Hohnes v. Bridgman, 15 Vt. 28,
8 See : Pos^, chapter on "Home- 37;
steads." Dejarnatte v. Allen, 5 Gratt.
9 See : Eountree v. Talbot, 89 111. (Va.) 499 ;
246 . Reg. V. London, etc., Ry. Co., 3
Estep 'v. Morton, 6 Ind. 489 ; Eng. L. & Eq. 345.
Slemmer v. Crampton, 50 Iowa '» See : Challis' Real Prop. 273.
480 QUASI TENANTS FOR LIFE. [BOOK III.
self is higher in quality and better in nature than any
other estate that can be carved out of the fee ; and it is
said that in contemplation of law such an estate is equal
to a purchase of seven years of the fee.^ In England,
when the monasteries flourished and times were tur-
bulent and life itself uncertain, it was customary to
limit estates for life to persons during their "natural"
lives, to the end that their civil death might not deter-
mine the estate and put an end to the revenue derived
therefrom ; but in this country, where there is no forfeit-
ure of property for felony, and attainder of treason does
not work corruption of blood or forfeiture of property,
except during the life of the person attainted,^ this form
of conveyance has never been observed.
Sec. 561. Quasi tenants for life— Ecclesiastical persons.—
Under the English law, archbishops and bishops were
formerly considered as tenants in fee-simple of the lands
which they held in right of their churches. As to rec-
tors, parsons, and vicars. Lord Coke says, that for the
benefit of the church, and of their successors, they were
in some cases esteemed in law to have a fee-simple quali-
fied ; but to do anything to the prejudice of their succes-
sors, in many cases the law adjudged them to have, in
effect, but an estate for life. Since the several statutes
by which all ecclesiastical persons and corporations are
restrained from alienation, except by leases for three
lives, or twenty-one years, they were generally considered
as quasi tenants for life only.^ Consequently it was
enacted by a statute of Henry VIII.,* that in case any
incumbent, before his death, hath caused any of his glebe
lands to be manured and sown, at his own proper costs
and charges, with any corn or grain, that then all the
said incumbents may make and declare their testaments
of all the profits of the corn growing upon the said glebe
lands so manured and sown.^
Sec. 562. Determinable estates for life.— Estates for life
1 Garland v. Crow, 2 Bail. (S. C.) L. 2 Co. Inst. (17th ed.) 343a-345a.
24. ■'28Hen. VIII.,c. 11, §6.
' U. S. Const., art. 3, § 3. » 1 Cruise, Real Prop. (4th ed.) 114,
3 1 Co. Inst. (17th ed.) 44a, 341a & b; §§ 55-56.
Chap. XVI. §§ 563, 564.J SPECIAL OCCUPANT. 481
may be made to depend upon a contingency, the happen-
ing or non-happening of which may determine the estate
before the death of either the tenant, the donor, or the
person for whose life the estate was given. Thus we
have seen ^ that a grant or devise, as long as the devisee
shall maintain salt-works,^ a cheese-house,^ a saw-mill
and grist-mill * on the premises devised or granted ; or a
devise or grant to a woman so long as she shall remain
a widow ;'' or to a person as long as he shall dwell in a
certain house, ^ or continue vicar of the parish, '^ and the
like, constitute a life estate that is determinable upon the
happening of the event upon which the contingency is
made to depend.^
Sec. 563. Same — Special oeoupant. — At common law,
where an estate was held pur autre vie, and the tenant
died during the life of the cestui que vie, the estate was
thereby opened to any general occupant during the life of
the cestui que vie ; but if the grant was to a person and
his heirs during the life of a third person, and the tenant
died during the lifetime of such cestui que vie, the heir
took as a special occupant. By a statute of Charles II.,*
such estates were made devisable, and if they were not
devised by the tenant, the heir was made special occu-
pant, and charged with the estate as assets by descent. ^*
During the reign of George II. a statute was passed ^^
which provided that if there was no such special occu-
pant named, and the land was not devised by the tenant
for life, it should be administered as personal estate. ^^
Sec. 564:. Life estate by implication.— An estate for life
is frequently raised by implication, particularly in de-
vises. Thus, where a testator devises land to his heirs
after the death of B, B is held to take an estate for life
' See : Ante, § 558. « 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a.
' Hurd V. Cushing, 24 Mass. (7 ' Brewer v. Hill, 3 Anstr. 413 ; s.o.
Pick.) 169. 3 Rev. Rep. 596.
3 Warner v. Tanner, 38 Ohio St. « See : Bract., lib. IV., o. 88, § 1 ;
118. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 26.
* Sperry's Lessee v. Pond, 5 Ohio ' 29 Char. II., c. 3.
387 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec. 296. '» 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 26.
' Roseboom v. Van Veohten, 5 Den. " 14 Geo. II., c. 20.
(N. Y.) 414. ''^ 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 27.
31
482 CREATION BY IMPLICATION. [Book III.
by necessary implication. The reason for this seems to
be, because, under this form of devise, no one can take
the estate except the heir, and he is postponed by the will
until after B's death. It is said, however, that if the de-
vise is to a stranger after the death of B, then the heirs
of the testator will take by descent during the life of B.'
Sec. 565. Same — What creates life estates by implication. —
Any conveyance, otherwise valid and capable of taking
effect, which nominates a grantee, but neither limits nor
purports to limit any estate, will, in the absence of any
further indication, operate by implication of law to pass
an estate for the life of the grantee ; ^ and the same is
true where the limitation is "for term of life," without
saying for whose life.^ In the latter case, however, an
estate for the life of the grantor will pass, if the grantor
may rightfully grant that estate, but cannot rightfully
grant for the life of the grantee.* The implication of law
upon which the estate arises is liable to be rebutted by
the manifestation of a contrary intention. For example,
if the estate by implication should arise in the premises
of a deed, it may, by the habendum, be cut down to an
estate for years, or at will ; and this may happen even
though the habendum itself be technically void as a lim-
itation, and therefore not capable of taking effect other-
wise than as a manifestation of intention.^
Sec. 566. Same— Adding words of limitation.— The addi-
tion to the name of the gi'antee of any words designed to
serve as words of limitation, and not being such as by the
common law are appointed to the limitation of a fee, will
not pass an estate of inheritance ; and in general will not
pass any greater estate than would have passed by the
mere nomination of the grantee. It has been recently
held by the English Court of Exchequer that the addi-
tion to the name of the grantee of the words " his execu-
tors, administrators, and assigns," in the premises of the
deed, will, when the grantor has an estate for his own
life, pass the whole estate of the grantor to the grantee,
' 1 Jarm. Wills, 466, 476. s j q„ Lj^t (^g^h ed.) 42a.
« 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 43a, 183a ; " 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 43a, 130b.
Litt., § 38. =• Buckler's Case, 3 Co. 55,
Chap. XVI. §§ 567, 568.] WORDS OF LIMITATION. 483
SO as to make the habendum, if proper to grant a less or
an impossible estate, void for the inconsistency.^
Sec. 56T. Same — Absurd and superfluous expressions.—
In the case of Boddington v. Eobinson, ^ the will, which
purported to create a freehold I'ti futuro, having been
drawn by an incompetent draftsman, happened to con-
tain some absurd and superfluous expressions. The court,
being very desirous to escape from declaring the lease
under consideration void, made use of these absurdities
to impute to the instrument a legal operation which, in
respect to the time of the term's commencement, was
manifestly not the intention of the parties. In this case
the material facts were as follows : A, being tenant for
his own life of a house, by a deed, dated, and presumed
to be delivered, on the 10th November, 1864, purported
to grant, demise, and lease to B, his executors, adminis-
trators, and assigns, the house in question, to have and
to hold the same from the 13th of November for the term
of the aforesaid A, for the term of his natural life. This
lease, therefore, purported to create, on the 10th Novem-
ber, 1864, an estate pur autre vie, to commence from the
13th day of some undefined month of November ; but
from certain circumstances connected with the dealings
with the house which had taken place, the court inferred
that the intended year was 1874. The principal question
was, whether this was void, as being a freehold in futuro
purporting to be created by what is for this purpose a
common-law assurance. The court held that the words
contained in the premises were sufficient expressly to
pass the whole estate of A, and that they were not cut
down by the words contained in the habendum import-
ing the omission of the interval between the 10th
November, 1864, and the 13th November, 1874. In the
opinion of the court, it followed that the freehold
created by the deed was an immediate freehold and not a
freehold in futuro.
Sec. 568. Same— Same— Reason for the rule.— The reason-
1 Boddington v. Eobinson, L. R. 10 Excli. 370 ; s.c. 14 Moak's Eng.
Rep. 559.
^g^ REASON FOR THE RUX,E. [Book IIL
ing upon which this conclusion is based seems to consist
of two propositions. The first imports that an express
estate contained in the premises of a deed, and which is
capable of taking effect by virtue of the deed without any
such extraneous ceremony as livery of seisin, is not liable
to be abridged or avoided by anything contained in the
habendum — a proposition which has for a very long time
past been settled beyond question; The second proposi-
tion— which is much more dubious — imports that the
addition of the words, "his executors, administrators,
and assign^," to the name of a grantee, will, when the
grantor has an estate for his own life, expressly convey
the whole estate of the grantor to the grantee. This
second proposition is thought to be a purely arbitrary
proposition, unsupported by any shadow of authority,
and seems to have been invented expressly to suit the
exigencies of the particular case. The only reason alleged
by the court in favor of the second proposition was, that
the words, "his executors, administrators, and assigns,"
are " proper words of limitation " for granting the whole
of the estate of the grantor in prcesenti. But this seems
to the writer to be very arbitrary doctrine. There exists
no authority to show that those words, unaccompanied
by the words, ' ' during the life of the grantor, " would
have any such effect. And the last-mentioned words
would have that effect, without any need for the mention
of executors, administrators, or assigns. This was, in
fact, a material part of the grounds upon which general
occupancy was permitted by the common law ; because
the assignor or grantor, having parted with the whole
estate during the life of the cestui que vie, had himself no
better right to enter upon the lands, after the grantee's
death, than anybody else had.
Sec. 569. Tenancy by the curtesy, etc.— Tenancy by the
curtesy is an estate for life, created by act of the law,
as is also dower, homestead, jointure, and marriage
estates, — all of which are fully treated in subsequent
chapters.
Sec. 570. The conditions attached to life estates.— As we
Chap. XVI. § 571.] LIABILITY FOR DEBTS. 485
have heretofore seen/ conditions may be attached to a
gift or grant of a life estate, which may determine the
estate upon the happening of a condition specified. Such
conditions, however, must be clearly expressed, and in
case of doubt the estate for life will be upheld.^ Where
these conditions are attached to an estate for life created
by devise, the rule laid down for their construction is as
follows : ' ' The court is to collect the intention of the tes-
tator, whether his intention was that the life interest
should not continue ; and it is to collect the intention
from the whole will, looking to the primary disposition
for the purpose of seeing to what extent the interest is
given, and to the ulterior disposition for the purpose of
seeing to what extent and in what events the primary
disposition is defeated. If, on the one hand, the court,
upon this examination, finds that there is a limitation
over, and that it meets the event which has occurred, it
is plain that the testator did not intend the life estate to
continue in that event, and it ceases accordingly ; but if,
on the other hand, the court, upon examination, finds
that the limitation over does not meet the event which
has occurred, there is no evidence of the testator's inten-
tion that the life interest should not continue in that
event, and it therefore continues. " ^
Sec. 571. Same— Liability for debts of tenant.— It is
thought that at common law a life estate was liable for
the debts of the life tenant,* and by statute in most of
the states ^ the estate of a life tenant is made subject
to a levy on execution.* Where it is sought to subject
the estate of a life tenant to the payment of debts, any
' See : Ante, § 562. Eyriok v. Hetrick, 13 Pa. St. 488;
« Craig V. "Watt, 8 Watts (Pa.) 498. Snavely v. Wagner, 3 Pa. St.
' Eoohford v. Hackman, 9 Hare 481. 275 ; s.o. 45 Am. Dec. 640 ;
See: Scruggs v. Murray, 2 Lea Near v. Watts, 8 Watts (Pa.) 319;
(Tenn.) 44. Howell v. Wollfort, 3 U. S. (3
' 1 Freem. Exc, § 172, p. 494. DaU.) 75 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 395.
' Pennsylvania was formerly an See : Mendenliall v. Randon, 3
exception to this rule. Stew. & P. (Ala.) 251 ;
Gordon v. Ingraham, 32 Pa. St. Hitchcock u Hotohkiss, 1 Conn.
314 ; s.c. 1 Grant (Pa.) 156. 470 ;
See : Kintz v. Long, 30 Pa. St. Boyce v. Waller, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.)
501, 503 ; 91 ;
Commonwealth v. AUen, 80 Pa. Coombs v. Jordan, 3 Bland Ch.
St. 49 ;
486 ENLARGEMENT OF ESTATE. [Book III.
levy upon the land in which the life estates subsist is
regarded, as a levy upon the estate itself.^
Sec. 572. Enlargement of life estate to a fee.— In certain
conditions of grant and relation of the parties, a life
estate, upon the happening of a contingency, may be en-
larged into a fee. Thus, where lands were devised to L
and his heirs, in trust to permit and suffer A to take the
rents and profits during A's life, "with this proviso, to
pay " W out of the same an annuity for her . life, and if
A died before W, to permit W to enjoy the lands for her
life ; and after the deaths of A and W the lands were to
go to the heirs male of A with remainder over. A and
W both survived the devisor. A survived W, and the
court held that, assuming L to have had a legal estate
during Ws life, that A was legal tenant in tail male
after Ws death. ^
Sec. 573. same— Power of disposition by will.— A general
devise to a grantee and such person as he shall appoint,
or to the grantee with full power of disposal, will raise
an estate for life to a fee ; ^ but the grant of a simple
power of disposal by will does not, of itself, enlarge an
interest in the donee of the power beyond that which is
expressly limited, although the power and life estates are
granted by the same instrument ; * the rule in such cases
being that where a devise is made to one expressly for
life, and after his death to such person or' persons as he
shall appoint, the devisee does not take the fee.^ The
(Md.) 284; s.o. 22 Am. Dec. Wheeler v. Gorham, 2 Root
236 ; (Conn.) 328.
Fitzhugh V. Hellen, 3 Har. & J. « Adams v. Adams, 6 Q. B. 860 ; s.c.
(Md.) 206 ; 51 Eng. C. L. 860.
Westervelt v. People, 20 Wend. See : Doe d. Davies v. Davies, 1 Q.
(N. Y.) 416. B. 430 ; s.o. 41 Eng. C. L. 611.
' See : Mechanics' Bank v. Williams, ^ Pepper's Estate, 1 Pars. (Pa.) 436 ;
34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 438, 441; Shields v. Netherland, 5 Leigh
Roberts -y. Whiting, 16 Mass. (Va.) 10, 193.
186. 4 Ward v. Armory, 1 Curt. C. C. 419.
Appraisement of estate.— When See : Bradley -y. Westcott, 13 Ves.
levied upon, the estate of a life 445, 452 ; s.o. 9 Rev. Rep. 207;
tenant should be appraised the Nannock v. Horton, 7 Ves. 391 ;
same as any other estate of Croft v. Slee, 4 Ves. 60.
freehold, and only so much ' See : Denson v. Mitchell, 26 Ala.
thereof taken as, including the 360, 371 ;
debtor's whole interest, will be Dimning v. Vandusen, 47 Ind.
sufacient to pay the debt. 423 ; s.c. 17 Am. Rep. 709 ;
Chap. XVI. § 573.] POWER OF DISPOSITION.
487
distinction between these cases is slight, but "well estab-
lished.^ To enlarge the estate the power must be full,
any restrictions upon its exercise being fatal to such
enlargement. Thus where a devise was to a grantee for
life, " and if he should want for his support to sell any
part or the whole of it for his maintenance, my will is
Benesoh v. Clark, 49 Md. 497 ;
Buiieigh v. Clough, 52 N. H. 267 ;
S.C. 13 Am. Reg. 23 ;
Eaton V. Straw, 18 N. H. 320, 031 ;
Pepper's Estate, 1 Pars. (Pa.) 436 ;
Henderson v. Vaulx, 10 Yerg.
(Tenn.) 30 ;
Weir V. Smith, 62 Tex. 1 ;
Wimberly v. Bailey, 58 Tex. 225 ;
Orr V. O'Brien, 55 Tex. 154 ;
Philleo V. Halliday, 24 Tex. 38,
40;
Reynolds v. Lee, 12 Rep. 702 ;
Goodill V. Brigham, 1 Bos. & P.
197;
Doe ex d. Thorley v. Thorley, 11
East 438 ; s.c. 10 Rev. Rep.
352;
Liefe v. Saltingstone, 1 Mod. 189 ;
Tomlinson v. Dighton, 1 Pr.
Wms. 149 ; s.c. 1 Salk. 239.
The Virginia doctrine is tliought to
differ from tlie general current
of decisions in this country.
See : Missionary Society v. Cal-
vert's Admr., 32 Gratt. (Va.)
357 •
May v. Joyes, 20 Gratt. (Va.) 693.
Distinction between right of prop-
erty and power of disposal. — In the
case of Burleigh v. Cluff, 52 N.
H. 267 ; s.c. 13 Am. Dec. 23, 26,
the court say that there is an
evident difference between a
power of disposal and an abso-
lute right of property (citing
Holmes v. Coghill, 7 Ves. 406,
499 ; s.c. 6 Rev. Rep. 166 ; 4
Kent Com. (13th ed.) 335), and
proceed to say that " a power,
when conferred by will, is a
bare authority derived from
the will. It is not an estate,
and has none of the elements of
an estate. It is defined by
Bouvier as 'an authority en-
abling a person, through the
medium of the statute of uses,
to dispose of an interest in real
property, vested either in him-
self or in another person.'
(See : Williams' R. P. 245 ; 2 Co.
Litt. 271b, Butler's note, 231,
§ 3, pi. 4.) ' A power of au-
thorify enabling one person to
dispose of the Interest which is
vested in another.' (Buller,
J., in Goodill v. Brigjiam, 1
Bos. & P. 197.) 'A general
power of disposition, existing
as a power, does not imply
ownership ; in fact, the exist-
ence of such a power, as a tech-
nical power, excludes the idea
of an absolute fee-simple in the
party who possesses the power.'
(Perkee, C. J., in Eaton v.
Straw, 18 N. H. 331.) In this
case the appellants contend, in
argument, that this will miist
be constmed as devising a fee,
because tlie power annexed to
the devise was general, and not
a mere power of ajipointment
in favor of specified persons.
She had, they say, an unquali-
fied right to dispose of the
whole property, — she was a free
moral agent ; and, because she
could do with the property all
that an owner in fee could,
simply by executing the power,
therefore she must' be the
owner in fee ; and, by further
consequence, the limitation
over to Dennis is by way of ex-
ecutory devise, with which the
right of disposition, given to
Mrs. Hersey, is incompatible.
The court say : ' It is quite ob-
vious that such argument is the
result of confounding the dis-
tinction between property and
power. The estate given Mrs.
Hersey is a property ; the power
of disposal, a mere authority,
which Mrs. Hersey may exer-
cise or not in her discretion.' "
• Bradley v. Westcott, 13 Ves. 445,
452 ; s.c. 9 Rev. Rep. 207, 311.
See : Re Thomson's Estate, 14 Ch.
Div. 263 ; 49 N. J. L. 632 ; 43
L. T. 35 ;
Pennook v. Pennock, L. R. 13 Eq.
144 ; s.c. 41 L. J. Ch. 141 ; 25
L. T. 691.
488 NATURE OF LIFE ESTATE. [Book III.
that it should be at his disposal," the estate granted was
held to be a life estate subject to be enlarged to a fee on
the happening of the contingency named.^
Sec. 574. Nature of estate for life.— Tenants for life hold
of the grantors by fealty, and such other reservations
as are contained in the instrument by which the estate
is created. Where there is no reservation they hold by
fealty only, this estate not being comprehended within
the provisions of the statute Quia Emptor es.'^ A tenant
for life will forfeit his estate by disclaiming ^ to hold of
his lord, or by affirming or impliedly admitting that the
reversion is in a stranger.* This is upon the well-known
feudal principle, that if the vassal denied the tenure, he
forfeited his feud.^ This denial may be made when the
tenant claims the reversion himself, or accepts a gift of it
from a stranger, or acknowledges it to be in a stranger ;
for in one and all of these cases he denies that he holds his
lands of the lord. Under the English law, as by the
feudal law, the tenant must be convicted of his denial,
and those acts which plainly amount to a denial must be
done in a court of record in order to constitute them a
forfeiture, because such act of denial appearing on record
is equivalent to a conviction upon solemn trial. ^ In this
country, however, such disclaimer need not be made in a
court of record, but may be by deed in pais. ''
Sec. 575. Same— Possession of tenant possession of rever-
' Hull V. Culver, 34 Conn. 403. 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 638, 637 ;
« 1 Cruise (4th ed.) 103, § 9. 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 2.53a.
See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 92a, § A parol disclaimer, with a declara-
132. tion that the tenant had ac-
3 The disclaimer need not be made in a cepted a deed with warranty
court of record, but may be made from a stranger, is a waiver of
in pais. a formal demand of rent.
Jackson ex d. Ten Eyck v. Rich- Jackson ex d. Van Rensselaer v.
ards, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 617, CoUins, 11 John. (N. Y.) 1 ;
630 ; Jackson ex d. Schaick v. Vincent,
Jackson ex d. Schaick ■«. Vincent, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 633, 637.
4 Wend. (N. Y.) 633, 637. ' See : Ante, § 188 ; Post, § 613.
» Affirming the revision to be in a stran- « See : Butler's Case, 3 Co. 35.
ger by accepting his fine, at- ' Jackson ex d. Ten Eyck v. Rich-
toming as his tenant, coUu- ards, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 617, 630-
sively pleading, and the like, 631 ;
amount to a forfeiture of the Jackson ex d. Schaick v. Vincent,
tenant's particular estate. 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 633, 637.
Jackson ex d. Schaick v. Vincent,
Chap. XVI. § 575.] POSSESSION OF TENANT. 489
sioner.— From the foregoing it is manifest that the pos-
session of a tenant for Kf e, like the possession of a tenant
for a term of years, is not adverse to but consistent with
the title of the reversioner in fee ; ^ and during the exist-
ence of the special estate the tenant for life cannot dis-
seize his reversioner by an adverse claim of title. Should
the life tenant be disseized by a stranger, such disseisin
will not affect the rights of the reversioner during the
life of the tenant ; and he may recover possession of the
property at any time within the statutory period of lim-
itation after the death of the life tenant, at which time
the statute begins to run.^ Where a person enters upon
the land under an agreement with the life tenant, his
title will be no better than, or in any way different from,
that of the life tenant ; and after the latter's death he
will become a mere trespasser as to the reversioner,^ and
may be dispossessed at any time within the statute as
above pointed out. Any act on the part of the tenant
for life by which he incurs a forfeiture of his estate does
not affect the interest of the reversioner ; * and in such
event the reversioner is not bound to treat the estate as
merged in his own and enter immediately, but may bring
his action after the death of the tenant for life, within
the statutory period.
' Grout V. Townsend, 2 Hill (N. Y.) ackson ex d. Hardenbergh v.
554, 557, afE'd2Den. (N. Y.) 336. Sohoonmaker, 4 John. (N. Y.)
See : Christie v. Gage, 71 N. Y. 390 ;
189, 193 ; Jackson ex d. McCrea v. Mancius,
BedeU v. Shaw, 59 N. Y. 46, 50 ; 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 357 ;
Wilson I'. Wilson, 32 Barb. (N. Y,) Guion v. Andei-son, 8 Humph.
338, 344 ; (Tenn.) 298, 325 ;
Buck V. Binninger, 3 Barb. (N. McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3
Y.) 391, 402 : Humph. (Tenn.) 267 ; s.c. 30
Wilson V. Wilson, 20 How. (N. Am. Dec. 165.
Y.) Pr. 41, 57 ; See : Jackson ex d. Swartwout r.
Cleveland v. Crawford, 7 Hun Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74;
(N. Y.) 616, 621 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 438 ;
Smith ex d.Teller^?.Burtis,9 John. Bradford v. Caldwell, 2 Head
(N. Y.) 174 ; (Tenn.) 496 ;
Eoe V. Ferrars, 2 Bos. & P. 543. Woodson v. Smith,l Head (Tenn.)
2 Austin V. Stevens, 34 Me. 530, 376, 277 ;
526 ; Haynie v. Hall's Exec. , 5 Humph .
Vamey v. Stephens, 22 Me. 331, (Tenn.) 290 ; s.c. 42 Am. Dec.
334; 437;
Archer v. Jones, 26 Miss. 583 ; Williams v. Conrad, 11 Humph.
Foster v. Marshall, 22 N. H. (3 (Tenn.) 412.
Fost.) 491 ; ' Williams v. Castor, 1 Stro bh. (S.
Grout V. Townshend, 2 Hill (N. C.) Eq. 130.
Y.) 554 ; * Archer v. Jones, 26 Miss. 583, 589.
490 NOT ENTAILABLE. [Book III.
Sec. 576. Adverse title— Purchase by life tenant.— A life
tenant in possession will not be allowed to purchase an
outstanding incumbrance or an adverse title and set it up
against the reversioner or remainderman. ^ The purchase
of such an incumbrance or title by such life tenant will
be regarded as having been made for the joint benefit of
himself and the reversioner or remainderman, and the
law will not permit him to hold it for his own exclusive
benefit if the reversioneror remainderman will contribute
his share of the sum paid.^
A life tenant may, of course, at any time surrender his
estate to the reversioner or remainderman, so long as
that estate is kept intact ; but if a life tenant has lost his
estate by an adverse possession under the statute of lim-
itations, he cannot by surrender of his interest to the
reversioner or remainderman give to the latter an imme-
diate right to recover the possession of the land.^
Sec. 577. same— Not entailable.— An estate for life, not
being an estate of inheritance, is not capable of being en-
tailed under the statute De Bonis ; consequently, where
an estate for life or lives is limited to a person and the
heirs of his body, the latter words only operate as a de-
scription of the persons who shall take as special occu-
pants during the life or lives for which the estate is held.
In such a case the grantee will take the absolute prop-
erty which he may dispose of by deed.*
Sec. 578. Eights and incidents of an estate for life— 1. Eight
to possession and products.— There are certain rights and in-
cidents attendant upon an estate for life, which are appli-
cable alike to those estates which are expressly created by
deed or devise and to those created by act and operation
of the law. Among these are the right of the tenant for
' Cauf man v. Presbyterian Congre- creditor of the estate for that
gation of Cedar Springs, 6 amount.
Binn. (Pa.) 59. Daviess v. Myers.lSB. Mon. CKy.)
2 Whitney v. Salter, 36 Minn. 103 ; 511.
s.c. 1 Am. St. Eep. 656 ; 30 N. ' Moore v. Luce, 29 Pa. St. 260 ; s.c.
W. Rep. 755. 72 Am. Dec. 629.
If the life tenant in such case ^ Mogg v. Mogg, 1 Mer. 654 ;
pays more than his proportion- Ex parte Sterne, 6 Ves. 156 ;
ate share, he simply becomes a Low v. Burron, 8 Pr. Wms. '363.
Chap. XVI. § 579.] RIGHTS AND INCIDENTS. i^Ql
life to the possession and usufruct, or annual produce of
the land/ during the continuance of his estate, without
having the absolute property and inheritance of the land
itself, which is vested in some other person ; ^ and where
such possession is necessary for the full enjoyment of the
estate, a court of equity will put the equitable life tenant
into possession as against his trustee.^
Sec. 679. Same— Same— Right to possession of title-deeds. —
Being entitled to the possession and profits of the estate,
it follows as a natural sequence that the tenant for life is
also entitled to those rauniments of title by means of
which that estate can be established or supported, and
his rights protected ; hence we find that in England,
where the preservation of title-deeds is a matter of much
greater importance than in this country,^ the life tenant
has been held, prima facie, entitled to the possession of
the title-deeds of the estate ; ^ and they will not be taken
from his possession by a court of equity, unless there is
evidence of spoliation on his part.'^ Although it is a well-
established rule, under the English law, that every per-
son having a freehold interest has a right to the custody
and control of the title-deeds, yet Lord Hardwick says,
in the case of Surges v. Mawbey,^ that it was the com-
mon practice for the Court of Chancery to direct the title-
deeds to be taken from the tenant for life and deposited
in court for the better security of the person entitled to
the inheritance.
The question is of very little, if any, importance in this
' See : Post, section V. , this chapter. Allwood v. Haywood, 1 Hurl. &
2 Eldridge v. Preble, 34 Me. 148, C. 745 ;
151. Dryden v. Frost, 3 Myl. & C. 670 :
A husband at common law had a life Show v. Show, 12 Price 163 ;
estate in land, of which his Bowles v. Stewart, 1 Sch. & L.
wife owned the fee, and such 309, 223 ;
interest might be taken on ex- Purges v. Mawbey, 1 Turn. & R.
ecution for his debts. 174 ;
Eldridge v. Preble, 34 Me. 148, Ford v. Peering, 1 Ves. Jr. 72 ;
151 ; Duncombe v. Mayer, 8 Ves. 320 ;
Deiarnettei;. AUen, 5 Gratt. (Va.) 1 Sugd. Vend. 468.
499. « Smith v. Cooke, 3 Atk. 378 ;
'■ See : Williamson v. Wilkins, 14 Crop v. Morton, 2 Atk. 74.
Ga. 416. ' 1 Turn. & R. 174.
* 2 Bl. Com. 428. See : Papillon v. Voice, 2 Pr.
' See : Ivie v. Ivie, 1 Atk. 439 ; Wms. 477 ;
Hicks V. Hicks, 3 Dick. 650 ; Ivie v. Ivie, 1 Atk. 429, 431.
492
EIGHT TO DAMAGES.
[Book IH.
country, because, under the American system of regis-
tration, a certified copy of a registered deed is prima facie
evidence,-^ and dispenses with the production of the origi-
nal, except where a grantee relies on the immediate deed
to himself ; or where, from the nature of the conveyance,
the deed is presumed to be in his own custody or power, ^
even where the grantee lives within the commonwealth,^
until a question of fraud is raised.*
Sec. 580. Same— 2. Eight to recover damages.— From
the right of the tenant for life to the possession of pro-
ducts of the estate flows the right to maintain an action
for any damage thereto which is detrimental to or in any
way tends to diminish those rights. The tenant for life
may defend his estate and have proceedings for damages
done to such estate without joining the remainderman.^
In such an action the right of recovery will be limited
' See : Soanlan v. Wright, 30 Mass.
(13 Pick.) 533 ; s.c. 25 Am. Dec.
344;
Hathaway v. Spooner, 26 Mass.
(9 Pick.) 23.
Sabscribing witness ueeJ not be called.
— Aii,oflB.ce copy being prima
facie evidence, this of course
dispenses with the necessity of
calling a subscribing witness.
Ward V. FuUer, 33 Mass. (15 Pick.)
185, 187 ;
Scanlan v. Wright, 30 Mass. (13
Piok.)523 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. 344;
Hathaway v. Spooner, 36 Mass.
(9 Pick.) 33 ;
Eaton V. Campbell, 24 Mass. (7
Pick.) 10, 12.
When the registered copy is duly ad-
mitted in evidence, the very
register proves the execution,
for the deed cannot be effectu-
ally registered without an ac-
knowledgment before a mag-
istrate.
Hathaway v. Spooner, 26 Mass.
(9 Pick.) 23, 26.
See ; Scanlan v. Wright, 30 Mass.
(13 Pink.) 523; s.c. 25 Am.
Dec. 344 ;
Ward V. Fuller, 32 Mass. (15
Pick.) 185, 187 ;
Eaton V. Campbell, 34 Mass. (7
Pick.) 10.
» Scanlan v. Wright, 30 Mass. (13
Pick.) 523, 537; s.c. 25 Am.
Dec. 344, 347.
^ Eaton V. Campbell, 24 Mass. (7
Pick.) 10.
" Eaton V. Campbell, 24 Mass. (7
Pick.) 10.
See : Knox v. SiUoway, 10 Me. (1
Fairf.) 201 ;
Kent V. Weld, 11 Me. (3 Fairf.)
459;
Hewes v. Wiswell, 8 Me. (8
Greenl.) 94 ;
Woodman v. Ooolbroth, 7 Me. (7
Greenl.) 181 ;
Scanlan v. Wright, 30 Mass. (13
Pick.) 533; s.c.25 Am.Dec.344 ;
Burghardt v. Turner, 29 Mass. (12
Pick.) 534;
Hathaway v. Spooner, 26 Mass.
(9 Pick.) 23 ;
Montgomery v. Dorion, 7 N. H.
475;
Southerin v. Mendum, 5 N. H.
420, 428 ;
Van Cortlandt v. Tozer, 17 Wend.
(N. Y.) 338.
Maine doctrine. — In the case of
Knox V. Silloway, 10 Me. (1
Fairf.) 301, it is said that the
original deed may be received
as evidence without proof of its
execution, in all cases where
an office copy may be used.
' See : Railroad v. Boyer, 13 Pa. St.
497;
Ex parte Staples, 21 L. J. Cli. 351 ;
S.C. 9Eng. L. &Eq. 186.
Chap. XVI. § 581.] RULES OF VALUATION. 493
by the damage sustained by the Ufe estate.^ But where,
under the power of eminent domain, the land is con-
demned and taken, in whole or in part, for public pur-
poses, the life tenant will be entitled to receive separate
damages for injuries done to his life interest.^ Such
tenant for life may have his damages assessed alone,^ or
he may join with those who are entitled to the remainder
or reversion, and have the entire damages assessed in one
action.* When general damages are given the life
• tenant will be entitled to their use until the time of his
death, ^ and if they are assessed and paid to the rever-
sioner or remainderman as owner, he will be liable to the
life tenant in an action for money had and received.^
Sec. 581. Same— Same— Rules for valuation of life estate. —
Where damages are assessed to the estate on the applica-
tion of the tenant for life, it is proper for the court to lay
down a rule as to the value of the life estate, as an in-
dependent estate entitled to damages ; but the annual
value of the premises damaged, multiplied by the years
of the life tenant's expectancy of life, and reduced by
calculation to the present cash value, is not a proper
mode of deterixiining the value of the life estate as com-
pared with the value of the remainder in fee.'^ In the
case of a taking by a railroad, the true rule for valuing
the damages as a whole is the difference between the
value of the property before the building of the road and
its value after the road is constructed, as affected by it,
and of this difference the life tenant is entitled to the
' Sagar v. Eckert, 3 111. App. 412. said in the case of Joyner v.
* See : Joyner v. Conyers, 6 Jones Conyers, 6 Jones (N. C.)Eq. 78,
(N". C.) Eq. 78; that where general damages are
Pittsburgh, V.&C. R. Co. v. Bent- given for the taking of land,
ley, 88 Pa. St. 178; s.c. 6 W. the general rule is that they be-
N. C. 289 ; long to the life tenant and re-
Harrisburg v. Crangle, 3 Watts & mainderman in proportion to
S. (Pa.) 460. the inconvenience suffered by
' Pittsburgh, V. & C. R. Co. v. Bent- each.
ley, 88 Pa. St. 178; s.c. 6 W. « See : Tamm «. KeUogg, 49 Mo. 118 ;
N. C. 289. Meginnis v. Nunamaker, 64 Pa.
■• Reading R. Co. v. Boyer, 13 Pa. St. 374.
St. 497. ' Pittsburgh, V. & C. R. Co. v. Bent-
5 Kansas City, S. & M. R. Co. v. ley, 88 Pa. St. 178 ; s.c. 6 W.
Weaver, 86 Mo. 473. N. C. 289.
Apportionment of damages, — It is
494 ESTOVERS— MINES. [Book III.
proportion of the whole which the vakie of the Hfe estate
bears to the whole difference.-'
Sec. 582. Same— 3. Right to estovers, etc.— The right of
the life tenant to the possession and usufruct carries
with it a right, in the absence of any agreement control-
ling, to take upon the land devised or granted reasonable
estovers or botes. ^ The reason for this rule is the fact
that the tenant has the full use and enjoyment of the
land and all its profits during his estate therein ; ^ but
he will not be permitted to cut timber, or to commit
other waste upon the premises.*
Sec. 583. Same— 4. Right to work mines, quarries, etc.—
Where mines, quarries, clay-pits, gravel-pits, and the
like have been opened on the premises and worked by a
former owner of the fee, the tenant for life may continue
to work them^ without restriction^ or limitation,^ for
the reason that such mines have been made part of the
profits of the land.^ If a mine or quarry has been worked
for commercial profit, that must ordinarily be decisive
of the right of the life tenant to continue working ;
but, on the other hand, it has been said that if mines
have been worked or used for some definite purpose, that
alone would not give the life tenant a right to continue
the working.^
Sec. 684:. Same— Same— Right to open new mines, pits, and
shafts.— The life tenant, where he has a right to mine,
' Pittsburgh, V. & C. B. Co. v. Bent- « KeasonaWe and necessary use and en-
ley, 88 Pa. St. 178. joyment.— Under a statute pro-
" See : Post, this chapter, section viding that the tenant for life
VI., "Estovers." shall have "reasonable and
^ 2 Bl. Com. 123. necessary use and enjoyment "
* See : Post, this chapter, section of the land, the right to work
VII., "Waste." mines, quarries, etc., will not
' Billings V. Taylor, 37 Mass. (10 be limited or restrained.
Pick.) 460 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. See : Westmoreland Coal Co.'s
533 ; Appeal, 85 Pa. St. 344 ;
Executors of Eeed v. Reed, 16 N. Kier v. Petersen, 41 Pa. St. 357 ;
J. Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 248 ; Irwin v. Covode, 24 Pa. St. 163.
Rockwell V. Morgan, 13 N. J. L. ' Crouch v. Puryear, 1 Rand. (Va.)
(2 Beas.) 384, 389 ; 258 ; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 528.
Coates V. Cheever, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) » Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Mining
460, 474 ; Co. , 32 N. J. Eq. (5 Stew.) 86.
Lynn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; » Elias v. Snowden Slate Quarries
Neel V. Neel, 19 Pa. St. 323, 324. ^ Co., L. R. 4 App. Cas. 454, 465.
Chap. XVI. § 585.] OPENING NEW MINES. 495
in order to more advantageously pursue such work, may-
open new pits and sink new shafts.^ But the operating
of mines and the opening of new pits and shafts must be
conducted and done on the tract of land already worked,
and not upon a different tract of land and in a place
where the mine or vein has never been opened or worked,^
because a tenant for life has no right to open new mines,
the opening of new mines forfeiting the estate where
such tenant is punishable for waste.^ The American
cases, however, have greatly modified the law of waste,
so as to adapt it to the conveniences and requirements
of a new and growing country, in order to encourage
tenants for life to make a reasonable use of wild and
undeveloped lands.*
Sec. 585. Same— Same— G-aines v. Green Pond Iron Mining
Co.— In the case of Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Mining
Co. ,^ on the first hearing, it was said that there is a dis-
tinction to be made as to abandoned mines ; that it does
not follow from a life tenant's right to work and use
opened mines, that he has a right to open mines that
have been completely abandoned, or to open and use
those which were unopened, though preparations were
made therefor.^ The court held that those mines which
have been abandoned merely for want of market for the
time being for the minerals may be worked by the ten-
ant for life, but where the abandonment has been long
continued, and took place with a view to advantaging
the estate thereby, that the life tenant cannot work
them.^ The court said that the mere fact that ore was
1 Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Mining * Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Mining
Co., 32 N. J. Eq. (5 Stew.) 86 ; Co., 33 N. J. Eq. (6 Stew.) 603 ;
Crouch V. Puryear, 1 Eand. (Va.) Ballentine v. Poyner, 3 Hayw.
258 ; S.C. 10 Am. Dec. 528. (N. C.) 110 ;
See : Claveringw. Clavering, 2Pr. Irwin v. Covode, 24 Pa. St. 163 ;
Wms. 388. Neel v. Neel, 19 Pa. St. 323 ;
' Westmoreland Coal Co.'s Appeal, Hastings v. Crunileton, 3 Yeates
85 Pa. St. 344. (Pa.) 261 ;
3 Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Mining Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.)
Co., 33 N. J. Eq. (6 Stew.) 603 ; 134 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 733.
Coates V. Cheever, 1 Cow. (N. Y ) <■ 33 N. J. L. (5 Stew.) 68.
460, 474 ; ' Viner v. Vaughan, 2 Beav. 466.
Viner v. Vaughan, 3 Beav. 466 ; ■> The court cite on this point:
Whitfield V. Bewit, 3 Pr. Wms. Bagot v. Bagot, 33 Beav. 509 ;
243. Legge v. Legge, 33 Beav. 515.
49G
EIGHT TO LEASE.
[Book HI.
taken out by a former owner by digging will not of itself
authorize the working of mines on the property, if it ap-
pears that such former owner never intended to open a
mine, especially in a case where the digging ceased more
than sixty years before the working by the life tenant
began, although the law gives to the life tenant the right
to pursue, by mining, the same means of deriving
profits from the lands which were taken by the former
owner, even though it be destructive of the substance of
the estate itself ; ^ and that if it appears that the former
owner never intended to mine at all, the life tenant will
not have the right. When this case was brought before
the Court of Errors and Appeals for review, it was held
that the life tenant has a right to use a mine for his own
profit where the owner of the fee, in his lifetime, opened
it, even though he may have discontinued work upon it
for a long period of years ; that a mere cessation of work,
for however long a period, will not defeat the life tenant's
right to work the mine, but that an abandonment for one
day, with an executed intention to devote the land to some
other use, will be fatal to the claim of the life tenant.^
Sec. 586. Same— 5. Eight to lease.— A tenant for life
has the right and power to make under-leases for a term
less than or equal to that of his own, and the under-ten-
ant wUl have powers and privileges during his tenancy
like to those incident to the tenant for life ; ^ but at com-
^ See : Rook-well v. Morgan, 13 N.
J. Eq. (2 Beas.) 384.
2 Gaines v. Green Pond Iron Mining
Co., 33 N. J. Eq. (6 Stew.) 603.
■■' MUes V. Miles, 33 N. H. 147 ; s.c.
64 Am. Dec. 363 ;
Jackson ex d. Murphy v. Van
Hoesen, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 325.
Under-tenants or lessees had greater
indulgences at common law,
Blackstone declares, than their
lessors, the original tenants for
life. The same ; for the law of
estovers and emblements, with
regard to the tenant for life, is
also law with regard to his
under-tenant, who represents
him and stands in his place ;
and greater, for in those cases
where tenant for life shall not
have the emblements, because
the estate determines by his
own act, the exception shall
not reach his lessee, who is a
third person. As in the case
of a woman who holds durante
viduitate, her taking husband
is her own act, and therefore
deprives her of the emblements;
but if she leases her estate to
an under-tenant, vsrho sows the
land, and she then marries,
this her act will not deprive
the tenant of his emblements,
who is a stranger and could
not prevent her. The lessees
of tenants for life had also at
common law another most un-
reasonable advantage; for at
the death of their lessors, the
Chap. XVI. g§ 587, 588.] RENT— APPORTIONMENT. 497
mon law a tenant for life, unless expressly authorized by
the instrument creating the estate, could grant no lease
which would have force after the termination of the life
estate ; and if he desired to convey his whole interest in
the estate he had to do so by deed.^
Sec. 587. Same— 6. Eight to rents and profits.- Being en-
titled to the possession of the land the life tenant has an
absolute right to the rents and profits of the land accru-
ing during the term of his estate,^ and on his death such
rents and profits will go to his executors,^ even though
the estate is held under a will providing that "none of
the property shall be sold before the death of the life
tenant, * * * * but the same, together with the
increase thereof, shall be kept together."*
Sec. 588. Same — Same— Apportionment of rent. — At com-
mon law where a tenant for life granted a lease for years,
the rent to be paid on a fixed day, and died before the
rent became due, the personal representative had no
right of action for rent accruing between the last
pay-day and the day of the life tenant's death. ^ This
rule of the common law was so strictly enforced that we
are told in Peere Williams' reports "^ of a case where the
rent lacked one hour of falling due when the life tenant
died, and the reversioner took the rent. But this rule of
the common law has been remedied by statutory changes
in England, and in this country in such cases the rent is
tenants for life, these under- Forsey v. Luton, 3 Head (Tenn).
tenants might, if they pleased, 183.
quit the premises and pay no ^ See : Post, § 589.
rent to anybody for the oocu- '' Tatum v. McLellan, 56 Miss. 353,
pation of the land since the last i* Fitchburg Cotton Co. v. Melvin,
quarter-day, or other day as- 15 Mass. 268 ;
signed for the payment of rent. Perry v. Aldrich, 13 N. H. 343 ;
2 Bl. Com. 123, 124 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 493 ;
Clun's Case, 10 Co. 127. Clun's Case, 10 Co. 138 ;
' Stewart v. Clark, 54 Mass. (13 Met.) 2 Bl. Com. 134.
79 ; See : Smith v. Shepard, 32 Mass.
Jackson exd. McCrae v. Mancius, (15 Pick.) 147 ; s.c. 25 Am. Dec,
3 Wend. (N. Y.) 357, 365. 432.
' McCampbell v. McCampbell, 5 * Strafford v. Wentworth, 1 Pr. Ch.
Litt. (Ky.) 93 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 555.
48 ; See : Rockingham v. Penrice. 1
Neel V. Neel, 19 Pa. St. 333 ; Pr. Wms. 178.
Brooks V. Brooks, 13 S. C. 433 ;
32
498
PROTECTION AGAINST ENDING.!
[Book III.
apportioned between the life tenant and the reversioner
or remainderman, giving to each his pro rata share ac-
cording to the time the estate was enjoyed before and
after the hfe tenant's death. ^
Sec. 589. Same — 7. Eight to protection against sudden
determination of estate.— The determination of an estate
for hfe being contingent and uncertain, a tenant for life
is entitled to protection from its sudden ending, and he
or his representatives will be entitled to the emblements
or profit of the crops produced by his annual planting
and culture.^ This is because the estate was determined
by the act of God, and it is a well-established rule that
actus Dei nemini facit injuriam, the act of God does in-
jury to no man ; in other words, no one shall be held re-
sponsible in damages for, or made to suffer in his rights
because of, such happenings and events as grow out of,
and result from, the constitution of nature, which are
commonly denominated as " acts of God."^
' See : Price v. Pickett, 21 Ala. 741;
Borie v. Crissman, 83 Pa. St. 135 ;
3 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 469, 470.
^ Fruits, the product of permanent roots,
like grasses, the fruits of trees
and shrubs, and the like, are
not included.
Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. (N.
Y.) 108.
Mere preparation of the soil for crops,
without their having been act-
ually planted when the estate
tei'minates, will not give the
tenant a right to emblements.
Price V. Pickett, 21 Ala, 741;
Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. (N.
Y.) 108 ;
Thompson v. Thompson, 6 Munf.
(Va.) 514.
A tenant for the life of another on the
death of the cestui que vie, or
he on whose life the land is
held, after the crop is sown,
wiU be entitled to the emble-
ments. The same is also the
rule where a life estate is de-
termined by the act of law.
2 Bl. Com. 138.
Where an estate for life is determined
by the tenant's own act, as by for-
feiture for waste committed,
or marriage, — where the estate
is given to a woman during
widowhood, — and the like, the
tenant, having thus determined
the estate by his own act, will
not be entitled to take the em-
blements.
Oland's Case, 5 Co. 116.
^ Chidester ■;;. Consolidated Ditch
Company, 59 Cal. 197 ;
Bradley v. Bailey, 56 Conn. 374 ;
B.C. 7 Am. St. Eep. 316 ; 15 Atl.
Rep. 746 ; 1 L. R. A. 437 ;
People V. Utica Cement Co., 33
111. App. 159 ;
Ogden V. Robertson, 15 N. J. Eq.
(3 J. 8. Gr.) 134, 125 ;
State V. Traphagen, 45 N. J. L.
(16 Vr.) 134 ;
Smith V. Hance, 11 N. J. L. (6
Halst.) 244, 257 ;
Garretsie v. Van Ness, 3 N. J. L.
(1 Penn.) 21, 34 ;
Blumfield's Case, 5 Co. 87a ;
Shelley's Case, 1 Co. 97b ;
Rex V. Edwards, 4 Taunt. 309 ;
Forward v. Pittard, 1 T. R. 37, 38;
s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 143.
By the feudal law, if a tenant for
life died between the beginning
of September and the end of
February, the lord of the manor,
who was entitled to the rever-
Chap. XVI. §§ 590, 591.] ALIENATION— RESTRAINT ON. 499
Sec. 590. Same— 8. Eight of alienation.— One of the most
important rights appertaining to a life estate, as well as
to an estate in fee-simple/ is the power of alienation.
While it is true that a tenant for life has merely a lim-
ited interest, and cannot, of course, make any disposition
of the land to take effect after the determination of his
estate, yet such tenant is regarded as the possessor of an
independent estate, and unless restrained by the terms of
his grant, or through covenant or agreement, may con-
vey the whole estate, or cut it iip into any number of
small estates, so long as he does not exceed the interest
he has in the land.^
Sec. 591. Same— Same— Restraint on alienation.— We have
heretofore seen that general restraints on alienation of
fee-simple estates are void at common law, since the pas-
sage of the statute Quia Emptor es in the year 1290.^
The same rule applies to a general restraint on the alien-
ation of a life estate, either voluntary by the donee or in-
voluntary by process of law.* It is thought that, upon
principle, there is no ground upon which, by an arbitrary
provision, the grantor or devisor can take away the nat-
ural incidents of the estate granted.^
sion, was also entitled to the Hooberry v. Harding, 10 Lea
profits of the whole year ; but (Tenn.) 393 ;
if the tenant died between the Turleyy. MessengiQ, 7Lea(Tenn.)
beginning of March antl the 353 ;
end of August the heirs of the Davidson v. Chalmers, 33 Beav.
tenant received the whole crop. 653 ;
2 Bl. Com. 123-123 ; Mildmay's Case, 6 Co. 40 ;
Feudal 3, t. 28. Stukeley v. Butler, Hob. 168 ;
' See : Ante, § 364, et seq. Renaud v. Tourangeau, L. R. 2
' Jackson ex d. Murphy v. Van P. C. 4 ;
Hoesen, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 325. Re Wolstenholme, 43 L. T. 753 ;
^ See : Ante, § 284, et seq. Pierce v. Win, 1 Vent. 321 ; s.c.
■• See : Ante, §§ 289-291. PoUexf. 345 ;
' McCleary v. Ellis, 54 Iowa 311 ; Bradley v. Peixoto, 3 Ves. Jr.
s.c. 37 Am. Rep. 205 ; 6 N. W. 334 ; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 7 ;
Rep. 571 ; Re Dugdale, 38 Ch. D. 176 ; s.c.
Rona V. Meier, 47 Iowa 607 ; s.c. 57 L. J. Ch. 634 ;
29 Am. Rep. 493 ; Corbett v. Corbett, 14 P. D. 7 ;
MandlebauQi v. McDonnell, 29 s.c. 57 L. J. P. 97.
Mich. 78.; s.c. 18 Am. Rep. 61 ; In Bradley v. Peixoto, 3 Ves. Jr.
Hardenburgh v. Blair, 30 N. J. 334; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep.7,the Master
Eq. (3 Stew.) 42 ; of the Rolls says: "I have
Andersen v. Carey, 36 Ohio St. looked into the cases that have
506; s.o. 38 Am. Rep. 602 ; been mentioned, and find it
McCuUough V. Gillmore, 11 Pa. laid down as a rule long ago
St. 370 ; established, that where there
500 ACTIVE— TRUST. [BOOK III.
Sec. 592. Same— Same— Same— Active trust— Pennsylvania
doctrine.— Some of the American cases ^ go far toward up-
holding a provision prohibiting alienation. It is well
settled in Pennsylvania, and perhaps in other states, that
a benefactor has the power of restraining the enjoyment
of his bounty, through the medium of the trustee, dur-
ing the life of the beneficiary.^ The courts hold that,
wherever there is a trust of this nature, it is of necessity
an active trust, requiring the legal estate to be vested in
the trustee.^ Thus, where there is a devise to a trustee
for a life or lives, imposing upon him certain active and
continuous duties which are necessary to be performed
for the preservation of the remainder, or of the estate
granted against the husband or creditors of the donee, or
against the improvidence of children, and requiring such
trustee to hold the property, and to collect and pay to
the beneficiary or otherwise apply the rents and profits,
the trust carries with it the legal estate in the lands ; *
but where the trust imposed consists simply in a direc-
tion to permit a third person to receive the rents and
is a gift with a condition in- s.o. 86 Am. Deo. 502 ;
consistent with and repugnant Kaj' v. Scates, 37 Pa. St. 31, 37 ;
to such gift, the condition is s.c. 78 Am. Dec. 399.
wholly void." * See : Locke v. Barbour, 62 Ind.
See, also : Brandon v. Robinson, 577, 584 ;
18 Ves. 429. Goehriag's Appeal, 81* Pa. St.
' See : Rife v. Gteyer, 59 Pa. St. 283 ;
393 ; s.o. 98 Am. Dec. 351 ; Ogden's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 501 ;
White V. White, 30 Vt. 338. Wells v. McCaU, 64 Pa. St. 207,
' Dodson V. Ball, 60 Pa. St. 493, 496 ; 313 ;
100 Am. Deo. 586, 590 ; Sheets' Estate, 52 Pa. St. 257, 267 ;
Rife V. Geyer, 59 Pa. St. 593 ; s.c. Shanklan's Appeal, 47 Pa. St. 113 ;
98 Am. Dec. 351 ; Keyser v. Nicholas, 7 PhUa. (Pa.)
Girai-d Life Insurance and Trust 151 ;
Company v. Chambers, 46 Pa. Cridland's Estate, 7 Phila. (Pa.)
St. 485 ; s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 513 ; 58 ;
Bamett's Appeal, 46 Pa. St. 392 ; Clarke's Estate, 6 Phila. (Pa.) 163.
s.c. 86 Am. Dec. 502 ; Discretion of trustee — Vesting of
Fisher v. Taylor, 2 Rawle (Pa.) profits.— It is said by the Su-
33;
preme Court of Pennsylvania,
Holdship V. Patterson, 7 Watts in the case of Keyser tJ.Mitchell,
(Pa.) 547 ; 67 Pa. St. 473, that where in a
Vaux V. Parke, 7 Watts (Pa.) 19 ; trust the direction for payment
Ashhurst v. Given, 5 Watts & S. of rents and profits permits
(Pa.) 323. such payments to be made or
» Rife V. Geyer, 59 Pa. St. 393 ; not, in the trustee's discretion,
S.C. 98 Am. Dec. 351 ; such rents and profits until
Fisher v. Taylor, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 33. paid do not vest in the benefl-
See : Shankland's Appeal, 47 Pa. clary so as to be subject to
St. 113 ; attachment or execution.
Bamett's Appeal, 46 Pa. St. 399 ;
Chap. XVI. §§ 593-595.] CONVEYANCE OF LIFE ESTATE. 501
profits, the trust does not carry the legal title, and the
estate will vest immediately in the beneficiary.^
Sec. 593. Same— Same — Sam.e— Withdrawing estate from
creditors.— A provision that an equitable fee shall not be
subject to the claims of creditors is void ; ^ but a limita-
tion over on alienation or attempt at alienation by the
grantee or donee, or on his becoming a bankrupt, is
valid,* and will be more fully discussed hereafter, when
we come to treat of trust estates.
Sec. 694. Same— Same— Must be made by deed.— A life
estate is a freehold, and all freehold estates can be con-
veyed only by deed properly executed* and duly sealed. **
Calling an instrument a deed and delivering and treating
it as such is of no avail, unless it be sealed.'^
Sec. 595. Same— Same— How great an estate may be con-
veyed by life tenant.— A life tenant being regarded as pos-
sessing a separate estate, as already pointed out,^ is
entitled to convey the whole or any portion of the estate
' Tappan's Appeal, 55 N. H. 317, H. 393 ;
321. Goodyear i\ Vosburgh, 57 Barb.
2 Taylor v. Harwell, 65 Ala. 1 ; (N. Y.) 243 ; s.c. 39 How. Pr.
Gray v. Obear, 59 Georgia 675 ; 3T7 ;
Gray v. Obear, 54 Georgia 231 ; Jackson ex d. Wads worth v.
Keyser's Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 336. Wendell, 12 John. (N. Y.) 355 ;
' Ancona i'. Waddell, 10 Ch. Div. Jackson ex d. Gouchv. Wood, 12
157 ; s.c. 26 Moak's Eng. Rep. John. (N. Y.) 78 ;
594 ; People ex rel. Noi-ton v. GiUis, 24
Rochford v. Haokman, 9 Hare Wend. 201.
475; s.c. 21 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. « Deming ?;. BuUitt, 1 Blackf . (Ind.)
511 ; 10 Eng. L. & Eq. 64 ; 241 ;
Craven v. Brady, L. R. 4 Ch. 296 ; State v. Peck, 53 Me. 284, 299 ;
Cox V. Fonblanque, L. R. 6 Eq. Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey, 38
482 ; Mass. (21 Pick.) 417 ;
Eoffey V. Bent, L. R. 3 Eq. 759 ; Bradford v. Randall, 32 Mass. (5
Oldham v. Oldham, L. R. 3 Eq. Pick.) 496 ;
404 ; Alexander v. Polk, 89 Miss. 737 ;
White V. Chitty, L. R. 1 Eq. 372. Davis v. Brandon, 3 Miss. (1 How.)
< See : Stewart v. Qark, 54 Mass. 154 ;
(18 Met.) 79 ; Atlantic Dock Company v. Lea-
Jackson ex d. Gouch v. Wood, 13 vitt, 54 N. Y. 35 ;
John. (N. Y.) 73 ; Mackay v. Bloodgood, 9 John.
People ex rel. Norton v. Gillis, 24 (N. Y.) 385 :
Wend. (N. Y.) 301 ; Warren v. Lynch, 5 John. (N. Y.)
Jackson exd. McCreat). Mancius, 239 ;
3 Wend. (N. Y.) 357, 365. Wadsworth v. Wendell, 5 John.
' Barger v. Hobbs, 67 111. 593 ; Ch. (N. Y.) 324 ;
Pile V. McBratney, 15 111. 314 ; Taylor v. Glazer, 2 Serg. & R.
McCable v. Hunter, 7 Mo. 855 ; (Pa.) 503.
Underwood v. Campbell, 14 N. ■" See : Ante, § 590.
502 ASSIGNMENT FOR CREDITORS. [Book III.
which he possesses. ^ If the tenant for hf e should attempt
to create a greater estate than he himself possesses — as
to convey by deed in fee-simple — the instrument must
necessarily be void, upon the principle that nemo dat
quad habet. If the party entitled to the inheritance
should join in the" deed with the tenant for life, however,
the instrument will convey the entire inheritance. Under
the English common law, if a tenant for life conveyed a
greater estate than he was by law entitled to, such
conveyance worked a forfeiture of his estate to the next
person entitled in remainder or reversion ; for the reason
that by such conveyance the tenant for life put an end
to his original interest, and the act, in its nature, tended
to divert the expectant estate in the remainder or rever-
sion.2
Sec. 596. Same — Same— Passes by assignment for benefit of
creditors.— A proviso in a deed or bequest, that the prop-
erty shall not be subject to the debts or contracts of the
grantee or legatee, he being of full age and competent to
contract debts, btit that the same shall remain in his pos-
session for his sole use during his life, with remainder
over, is void ; ^ and such a life estate will pass by assign-
ment under insolvent laws.*
Section II. — Duties Incident to Life Estates, Tenures, etc.
Sec. 597. Duties of tenants of life estates— 1. To defend title— Praying
in aid.
Sec. 598. Same— 2. To pay taxes— a. Ordinary taxes.
Sec. 599. Same — Same— b. Betterments.
Sec. 600. Same— 3. To make repairs.
Sec. 601. Same — Same — Exception to the rule
Sec. 603. Same — 4. To keep down interest.
Sec. 603. Same — Same — Former rule.
Sec. 604. Same — Same — Rule as to widows.
Sec. 605. Same— 5. To pay incumbrances.
Sec. 606. Same — Same — Apportionment of incumbrances.
Sec. 607. Same — Same — Rule where widow is life tenant.
Sec. 608. Same— 6. To insure.
'Jackson ex d. Murphy v. Van * See : Verdierw. Youngblood, Rich.
Hoesen, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 335. (8. C.) Eq. Cas. 330 ; s.c. 34
* See : Post, § 614. Am. Deo. 417.
' See : Ante, §§ 591, 593.
Chap. XVI. § 597.] DUTIES OF LIFE TENANT. 503
Sec. 609. Tenure of estate for life.
Sec. 610. Permanent improvements — Eights of parties.
Sec. 611. Same — Exceptions to the rule.
Sec. 613. Partition by life tenant.
Sec. 613. Forfeiture of life estate.
Sec. 614. Same — 1. By conveying in fee.
Sec. 615. Same — 2. By adverse possession.
Sec. 616. Same— 3. By waste.
Sec. 617. Valuation of life estate.
Sec. 618. Same— English rule.
Sec. 619. Same — American rule.
Sec. 630. Merger of life estates.
Sec. 621. Same — Estates pur autre vie.
Sec. 623. Termination of life estate.
Sec. 623. Same — Exception to the rule.
Sec. 624. Same — Presumption of death.
Section 597. Duties of tenants of life estates— 1. To defend
title— Praying in aid.— There are certain duties incumbent
upon the tenant of a life estate, among which is that of
defending the title of the estate, when it is attacked in
any of the real actions at common law which concluded
the title. The reason for this is because the interests of
the reversioner or remainderman might be affected by
the judgment rendered in such an action against the
tenant for life. At common law, in all real actions, a
tenant for life might call for the assistance of the per-
sons entitled to the inheritance to assist him in the
defense of ' his title ; because the tenant for life is gen-
erally presumed to have in his custody the muniments of
title and evidences necessary to establish the right to the
inheritance.^ This was technically called " praying in
aid." The life tenant was not obliged to "pray in aid,"
but being in law the proper tenant of theprcecipe, might
go on and defend without resorting to or calling in the
aid of the owner of the inheritance, except those whose
estates were dependent on the result of the action.^
The custom of "praying in aid" formerly existed in
this country, as in Massachusetts, where it has been dis-
1 See : Scanlan v. Wright, 30 Mass. 2 BI. Com. 428 ;
(13 Pick.) 523 ; s.c. 35 Am. Dec. Booth's Real Act. 60.
344 ; 2 See : 1 Prest. Est. 307, 208 ;
Hathaway v. Spooner, 36 Mass. (9 Stern's Real Act. 99 ;
Pick.) 33 ; Termes de la Ley, " Aid."
504
PAYING TAXES.
[Book III.
continued by the abolition of the writs of right ; ^ and in
England the custom passed away with the abolition of
the real actions.^
Sec. 598. Same — 2. To pay taxes— a. Ordinary taxes. —
Another duty of the tenant of a life estate is to pay and
keep down the ordinary taxes assessed upon the land
during the continuance of his estate.^ Should the
tenant of the life estate neglect or refuse to pay the
ordinary taxes assessed against the land during his life,
the remainderman or reversioner may make application
to a court and have a receiver appointed to collect the
rents and income, and apply so much thereof as may be
necessary to the payment of such taxes and costs.* In
some of the states, as in Ohio, non-payment of taxes by
a life tenant works a forfeiture of. the estate.^ Where
the life tenant neglects or refuses to pay the taxes, and
suffers the land to be sold therefor, and buys it in at the
sale, he will not be allowed to set up the tax title against
' See : Mass. Pub. Stat., c. 173, § 1 ;
Stem's Real Act. 103.
s See : 1 Prest. Est. 307 ;
1 Spenoe Eq. Jur. 207.
^ See : Prettyman v. Walston, 34
lU. 175, i92 ;
Fox V. Long, 8 Bush (Ky.) 551 ;
Johnson v. Smith, 5 Bush (Ky.)
103;
Vamey v. Stevens, 33 Me. 331 ;
Plympton v. Boston Dispensary,
106 Mass. 544, 547 ;
Pierce v. Burroughs, 84 N. H.
304;
Jonas V. Hunt, 40 N. J. Eq. (13
Stew.) 660 ;
Cadmus v. Combes, 37 N. J. Eq.
(10 Stew.) 364;
Thomas v. Evans, 105 N. Y. 601,
613 ; s.c. 59 Am. Eep. 519 ; 13 N.
E. Rep. 571 ; 7 Cent. Rep. 804 ;
25 Cent. L. J. 77 ;
Deraismes v. Deraismes, 73 N. Y.
154;
Cairns v. Chabert, 3 Edw. Ch. (N.
Y.) 313 ;
Fleet V. Borland, 11 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 489 ;
Wade V. Malloy, 16 Hun (N. Y.)
336 ;
Re Miller's Estate, 1 Tuck. (N.
Y.) 346 ;
McBonald v. HeyUn, 4 Phila.
(Pa.) 73;
Piper's Estate, 2 W. N. C. 711 ;
Jewell's Estate, 1 W. N. C. 404 ;
Phelau V. Boylan, 25 Wis. 686 ;
Patrick v. Sherwood, 4 Blatchf.
C. C. 112 ;
Newby v. Brownlee, 23 Fed. Rep.
330; ^
Pike V, Wassell, 94 U. S. 711 ; bk.
24 L. ed. 807, 810 ;
Fountaine v. Pellet, 1 Ves. Jr.
337.
^ See : Sidenberg v. Ely, 90 N. Y.
257, 264 ; s.c. 11 Abb. N. C. (N.
Y.) 358 ; *
Cairns v. Chabert, 3 Edw. Ch. (N.
Y.) 312. ^
' See : Lessee of McMillan v. Rob-
bins, 5 Ohio 28.
* This ease is partially reported in 43
Am. Bep. 163, but the editor in his
superior wisdom has cut out, as
unimportant, all the matter relating
to this point, and simply jj^ves that
portion of the opinion which deals
with the right ol a mortgagee to
pay taxes and add the amount to
the mortgage debt where the mort-
gagor refuses and neglects to do so,
and there is no provision in the
mortgage giving such a power.
Chap. XVI. § 599.] BETTERMENTS. 505
the reversioner or remainderman/ because that would
be allowing him to take advantage of his own fraud, ^
which is not permissible. Under such circumstances
courts will presume that the life tenant made the pur-
chase for the joint benefit of himself and the reversioner
or remainderman.^
Sec. 599. Same— Same— b. Betterments.— The rule that
the tenant for life must keep down taxes does not apply
to extraordinary assessments for permanent improve-
ments or betterments of the land, such as an assessment
levied upon the laying out of a road ; * although such
assessment is a tax, yet it is an extraordinary assess-
ment for betterments laid upon the premises, in view of
the permanent increased value of the estate by reason of
the improvement.® For this reason the assessment must
be treated, as between the tenant for life and the remain-
derman or reversioner, as an incumbrance on the whole
estate, to which the tenant for life must contribute to
the extent of interest on the amount paid during his life,
and at his death the remainderman to bear the charge
of the principal. Equity apportions the burden upon the
land between the tenant who has the present enjoyment
of the property and the remainderman whose right of
enjoyment is postponed until the death of the life tenant.^
' See : Ante, g 576. Y. 601, 612 ; s.c. 59 Am. Rep.
2 Patrick v. Sherwood, 4 Blatchf. 519 ; 12 N. E. Rep. 571 ; 7 Cent.
C. C. 112. Rep. 804 ; 26 Cent. L. J. 77 ;
3 See : Prettyman v. Walston, 34 Peck v. Sherwood, 56 N. Y. 615 ;
111. 175, 192 ; Stillwell v. Doughty, 2 Bradf. (N.
Vamey v. Stevens, 22 Me. 331, Y.) 311 ; .
334; Fleet v. Borland, 11 How. Pr,
Whitney v. Salter, 36 Minn. 103 ; (N. Y.) 489 ;
s.c. 1 Am. St. Rep. 656 ; 30 N. Dewitt v. Cooper, 18 Hun (N. Y.)
W. Rep. 755. 67 ;
* It is said in the case of Peck v. Gunning v. Carman, 3 Redf . (N.
Sherwood, 56 N. Y. 615, that Y.) 69 ;
a municipal acsessment for the Estate of Miller, 1 Tuck. (N. Y.)
flagging of sidewalks is not in 346.
the nature of an annual tax, to = See : Plympton v. Boston Dispen-
be paid entirely by a tenant for sary, 106 Mass. 544, 547 ;
life of the premises assessed. Codman -y. Jolmson,104 Mass.491;
Nor is it such a permanent im- Harvard College v. Alderman of
provement as that he should Boston, 104 Mass. 470.
not contribute to its payment, ' Peck v. Sherwood, 56 N. Y. 615 ;
but it should be appoitioned Cairns v. Chabert, 3 Edw. Ch.
between him and the remain- (N. Y.) 312 ;
derman. King v. King, 9 Jones & S. (N.Y.)
Sec : Thomas v. Evans, 105 N. 516.
5()G MAKING REPAIRS. [Book III.
But this rule as to contribution between the life tenant
and the remaindernaan or reversioner must be confined
to such assessments as are for permanent improvements ;
consequently in those cases where the improvement is
required by a local ordinance or statute, and from its
nature is of such a character that it will require frequent
renewals, the expense of making the improvement is to
be paid by the life tenant alone. ^
Sec. 600. Same— 3. To make repairs.— Another duty in-
cumbent upon a life tenant is to keep the property in
repair so far as may be necessary to prevent its running
to decay and ruin.^ He must keep the premises in as
good repair as he received them ; ® if a roof is needed, he
is bound to put it on ; if paint wears off, he is bound to
repaint.* If the life tenant receives a house in a state of
dilapidation, which can be rendered habitable by repairs,
he is bound to make them,^ if it can be done without
expending an extraordinary sum ; ^ and if the house is
in such a state as not to be repairable, or in such dilapi-
dation that the expenses of repairs would be beyond
the value of the house, the life tenant is not bound to
repair, and may leave the house or other building to its
natural destruction.'^
Sec. 601. Same— Same— Exception to the rule.— To the
general rule, stated in the preceding section, that if a
new roof is needed the life tenant is bound to put it on,
See: Cogswell v. Cogswell, 3 Edw. ^ Natural wear and tear not excepted
Ch. (N.Y.)231; say the New Jersey Court of
Fleet V. Borland, 11 How. Pr. Chancery.
(N. y.) 489 ; In re Steele, 19 N. J. Eq. (4 C. E.
Bloodgood V. Clark, 4 Paige Ch. Gr.) 130.
(N. Y.) 574. 4 In re Steele, 19 N. J. Eq. (4 C. E.
1 Hitner v. Ege, 23 Pa. St. 305. Gr.) 130.
See ! Whyte v. Mayor of Nash- See : Wilson v. Edmonds, 34 N.H.
viUe, 2 Swan (Tenn.) 364, in (4 Post.) 517 ;
which this distinction seems to Piper's Estate, 3 N.W. C. 711.
have been overlooked. » Clemenoe v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373 ;
2 Executors of Kearney t'. Kearney, s.c. 53 Am. Deo 621
17 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.) 59 ; " Wilson v. Edmonds, 24 N. H. 517;
Id. 504 ; Brooks w. Brooks, 13 S. C. 433.
Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 273 ; ' Clemenoe i\ Steere, 1 R. I. 372 ;
s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621 ; s.c. 53 Am. Deo. 631 ;
Cochran v. Cochran, 3 Des.(S. C.) Wilson v. Edmonds, 34 N H.
531 ; (4 Post.) 517 ;
Brough V. Higgins, 3 Gratt. (Va.) Brooks v. Brooks, 13 S. C. 422.
408.
Chap. XVI. § 601.] EXCEPTION AS TO EEPAIES. 507
there is an exception in those cases where the estate con-
sists of a room or rooms, in a dwelling or other building,
which are not located in juxtaposition to the roof ; neither
will the tenant be liable to contribute toward the expense of
making such repairs.^ The reason for this is because such
life tenant and the other owners or occupiers of the dwell-
ing are simply adjoining tenants, with as essentially
separate and distinct interests as if they were one by the
side of the other. ^ Thus in the case of Wiggin v. Wig-
gin,^ it was held that a tenant for life of lower rooms
of a house and chambers above is not obliged to share in
the expenses of repairing the roof of the building, unless
incurred at his request. In this case the will gave to
the plaintiff, to use an occupancy during her life, all the
westerly lower room in the testator's house, the chamber
over it, and the northerly front lower room. The de-
fendant was the owner of the reversion, and also of the
rest of the house. It was claimed by counsel that the
plaintiff and defendant were like tenants in common,
and that the plaintiff was bound to repair her part of the
house. The court say : "If this were so we find no
authority that would sanction the making of the repairs
by one tenant, without the request of the other, and the
recovery of a share of the expenses in assumpsit. In
such case the remedy at common law is by writ de re-
2iaratione facienda.* So where one's house is ruinous
and likely to fall on his neighbor's house, the same
remedy is said to exist, ^ and an action on the case will lie
for the neglect to repair by reason of which his neighbor
Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn. StockweU v. Hunter, 53 Mass.
318 ; s.c. 36 Am. Deo. 396 ; (1 1 Met.) 448 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec.
Ottumwa Lodge v. Lewis, 34 230, 223 ;
Iowa 67 ; s.c. 11 Am. Eep. 135
Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575.
See: Adams v. Marshall, 138 Mass
338, 338-9 ; s.c. 53 Am. Rep,
271;
C ilvert V. Aldrich, 99 Mass. 74
s c. 96 Am. Dec. 693 ;
Wiggin V. Wiggin, 43 N. H. 561
Proprietors of Meeting-house v.
City of Lowell, 43 Mass. (1 Met.)
541 ;
Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575.
43 N. H. 561 ; s.c. 80 Am. Deo.
192.
See : Bowles' Case, 11 Co. 79, 82 :
Tenant v. Goldwin, 1 Salk. 360 ;
s.c 80 Am. Dec. 192. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 54b; 3 Id.
' Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Conn. 300b ;
318 ; s.c 26 Am. Deo. 396 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 370.
McCormick v. Bishop, 38 Iowa * 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 56b.
333, 337 ;
508 KEEPING DOWN INTEEEST. [Book III.
is injured ; ^ but here the parties are not tenants in com-
mon at all, but the plaintiff is seized of certain rooms
and the defendant of the remainder of the house ; and in
legal contemplation each has a distinct dwelling-house,
although they are adjoining ; and no authority is cited
or found that would sustain an action at law, by one
against the other, to recover for repairs made without
request. In Loring v. Bacon,^ the defendant was seized
of a lower room and cellar under it, and tlie plaintiff of
the chamber above and the remainder of the house ; and
repairs to the roof being necessary, the defendant, on
request, refused to join in making them ; whereupon
the i^laintiff made them and brought assumpsit for a
share of the expense. It was held, upon full examina-
tion of the authorities, that the action would not lie, and
that the defendant was not bound to contribute to the
expense ; but that the case stood like that of owners of
separate but contiguous houses or mills, where the appro-
priate remedy, in case one suffers his building to become
ruinous and to endanger or injure the other, is by writ
de reparatione facienda, or action on the case. So in
Cheeseborough v. Green, ^ where the plaintiff owned and
occupied the foundation and the first and second stories
of a building, and the defendant the third story and
roof, which had become leaky and ruinous, whereby the
plaintiff's goods were injured, it was held that an action
on the case would not lie, but the remedy must be sought
inequity."^
Sec. 602. Same — 4. To keep down interest.— Another
duty charged by equity upon the life tenant is that of
keeping down, during the continuance of the estate, the
interest upon any incumbrance affecting the inheritance,
which incumbrance existed at the time of entering upon
the estate.^ This doctrine arises from a reasonable rule
'■ 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 56b, note 2 ; Kent's Com. 371-412.
Fitzh. N. B. 127, note a. ' Barnum v. Barnum, 43 Md. 251 •
■■' 4 Mass. 575. Thomas v. Thomas, 17 N. J. L. (3
'10 Conn. 319; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. Harr.) 356 ;
^„ 396. Moseley i;. Marshall, 22 N.Y. 300 ;
* See, also : Campbell v. Mesiei-, 4 rev'g s.c. 27 Barb (N Y ) 42 •
John Ch. (N. Y.) 334; s.c. 8 Cogswell «. Cogswell, 3 Edw. Ch,
Am. Dec. 570 ; (N. Y.) 281 ;
Chap. XVI. § 602.] AMOUNT TO BE PAID.
509
in equity, the object of which is to make every part of
the ownership of real estate bear a ratable part of all
incumbrances thereon, and to apportion the burden equit-
ably between the parties.^ The tenant for life con-
tributes only during the time he enjoys the estate,^ and
must keep down the interest during that time even
though to do this the rents and profits of the estate be
exhausted.^ But the life tenant will not be required to
pay towards the interest on the incumbrance anything
beyond the amount of the rents accruing, and should he
do so he will be a creditor of the estate to the amount of
such excess.* And if the profits of a property given for
life, and then over, are taken for payment of debts, the
tenant for life may claim, from the remaindermen or
reversioners, a contribution, in proportion to their respect-
ive interests.® The interest of the tenant for life is
ascertained according to the common life tables.^ The
incumbrance, however, must be a substantial claim dur-
ing the existence of the life estate ; consequently where a
Jones i\ Sherrard, 2 Dev. & B.
(N. C.)Eq. 179;
McDonalds. Heylin, 4Phila.(Pa.)
73;
Jewell's Estate, 1 W. N. C. 404 ;
Hunt V. Watkins, 1 Humph.
(Tenn.)498;
White V. White, 4 Ves. 24 ; s.c. 4
Rev. Rep. 61 ; on appeal, 9
Ves. 554; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 175 ;
Penihyn v. Hughes, 5 Ves. 99.
' 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 74.
' The fonner English rule was that the
rents and profits of an estate
for life should be applied not
only in payment of all interest
due during the possession of
the tenant for life, but also all
interest due before the com-
mencement of that estate.
See : Tracy v. Hereford, 2 Bro.
C. C. 128 ;
Penrhyn v. Hughes, 5 Ves. 99.
The later English decisions, how-
ever, have held that where the
estate, subject to a charge
bearing interest, is limited to
several persons in succession as
tenants for life, each tenant for
life is liable only for the in-
terest for his own time ; but
that to liquidate the arrears
during his own time, he must
furnish, if necessary, all the
rents during the whole of his
life.
Caulfleld v. Maguire, 2 Jones &
La T. (Ir. Ch.) 141.
' See : Caulfield v. Maguire, 2 Jones
& La T. (Ir. Ch.) 141 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 74, 75.
* See : Doane v. Doane, 46 Vt. 485 ;
Kensington v. Bouverie, 7 DeG.
M. & G. 134.
^ See : Chesson v. Chesson, 8 Ired-
.(N.C.)Eq. 141.
* See : Barnum v. Barnum, 42 Md.
251 •
Wade' V. Malloy, 16 Hun (N. Y.)
226;
Hunt V. Watkins, 1 Humph.
(Tenn.) 488 ;
Foster v. HilUafd, 1 Story C. C.
77;
Casborne v. Scarfe, 1 Atk. 606 ;
Tracy v. Hereford, 2 Brown C. C.
128;
Burges v. Mawbey, Turn. & E.
167;
Penrhyn v. Hughes, 5 Ves. 99 ;
Amesbury v. Brown, 1 Ves. Sr.
477, 480 ;
Revel V. Watkinson, 1 Ves. 98.
510 RULE AS TO WIDOWS. [Book III.
debt which is a charge upon the land is not established
until after the death of the life tenant, his estate cannot
be called iipon to contribute to the payment of either
principal or interest.^
If a mortgage or other incumbrance is called in by the
mortgagee, or other incumbrancer, the reversioner or
remainderman must pay his just proportion.^ If the life
tenant is required to contribute toward the payment of a
part of the principal, he will be entitled to a credit for
the amount of money so paid by him, as against the re-
mainderman or reversioner,^ with the qualification of not
receiving interest during his life.*
Sec. 603. Same— Same— Former rule.— The old rule was
that the life estate was to bear one-third part of the
entire indebtedness on the land in addition to the annual
interest, and the remainderman the residue ; ^ but Sir
EiCHARD Pepper Arden, Master of the EoUs, in the case of
White V. White, ^ denounced this doctrine to be a most
absurd rule, and declared the annual interest alone, aris-
ing during the tenant's estate, his just proportion.
Sec. 604. Same— Same— Rule as to widows.— The rule in
equity above referred to,'' the object of which is to make
every part of the ownership of real estate bear a ratable
part of the incumbrances upon such estate, requires a
widow holding a dower interest in encumbered lands, to
keep down one-third part of the accruing interest,^
because she has the present possession and enjoyment of
the estate in but one-third of the land.'' And where the
• Poindexter's Exrs. v. Green's Shrewsbury, 1 Ves. Jr. 227 233
Exrs., 6 Leigh (Va.) 504. 4 Ves. 24, 32 ; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 161,
= Cogswell V. Cogswell, 2 Edw. Ch. 169.
(N. Y.) 331. ' See : Ante, § 602.
'Hunt V. Watkins, 1 Humph. « House t'. House, 10 Paige Ch ' CN
(Tenn.) 498. Y.) 158, 164. ^ '
'' See : Earl of Buckinghamshire v. ' Swaine v. Perine, 5 John Ch
Hobart, 3 Swanst. 186, 199. (N. Y.) 482 ; s.c. 9 Am Dec
' See : Faulkner v. Daniel, 3 Hare 318.
199. 217 ; See : McMahon v. Russell, 17 Fla.
Ballet V. Sprainger, Prec. in Ch. 698, 705 ;
^.63 ; Gibson v. Crehore, 22 Mass. (5
Rives V. Rives, Prec. in Ch. 21 ; Pick.) 146 ;
Rowel V. Walley, 1 Rep. in Ch. Pollard v. Noyes, 68 N. H. 185 •
219; s.c. Atl. Rep. ;
County of Shrewsbury v. Earl of Norris 13. Morrison, 45 N. H. 490 •
Chap. XVI. §§ 605, 606.] PAYING INCUMBEANCES. 5H
mortgage is given for purchase money of the property
in which the dower estate is held, when the mortgage
is required to be paid off, the widow must contribute
towards such payment a sum which will be equal to the
then value of an annuity of the amount of one-third of
the interest upon the sum uni)aid at her husband's death
for the residue of her life.^
Sec. 605. Same— 5. To pay incumbrances.— Although a
tenant for life is charged with the important duty of
keeping down the interest of any incumbrance on the
land during the continuance of the estate, he is not
required to pay off the principal, or any part of it ; that
is to be done by the owner of the inheritance,^ otherwise
the life estate might not only be of no value, but even a
burden. If the life tenant, however, pays off the incum-
brance of his own accord, he will be presumed to have
done so for the benefit of himself and the reversioner or
remainderman, who is bound to contribute his portion,
and for which contribution the life tenant has a lien on
the land ; ^ but if he is compelled to pay off the incum-
brance, or to contribute thereto, he will become the
creditor of the estate to' the amount of the incumbrance
paid or contribution made,* less the interest he would
have been required to pay during his term as tenant for
life.5
Sec. 606. Same— Same— Apportionment of incumbrances.—
Woods V. "Wallace, 30 N. H. (10 " Daviess v. Meyers, 13 B. Mon. (Ky.)
Fost.) 384 ; 511.
Hastings v. Stevens, 29 N. H. (9 ^ Mosely v. Marshall, 37 Barb. (N.
Fost.) 564 ; Y.) 42 ; s.o. 22 N. Y. 200 ;
Kossiter v. Cossit, 15 N. H. 38 ; Cogswell v. Cogswell, 2 Edw. Ch.
Cass V. Martin, 6 N. H. 25 ; (N. Y.) 231 ;
Denton v. Nanny, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) Jones v. Sherrard, 2 Dev. & B.
618, 621 ; (N. C.) Eq. 179.
Gunning v. Carman, 3 Eedf. Compare : King «. Morris, 2 B.
(N. Y.) 69, 71. Mon. (Ky.) 99, 104 ;
House V. House, 10 Paige Ch. (N. Hunt v. Watkins, 1 Humph..
Y ) 158, 166. (Tenn.) 498 ;
See : Bell v. New York, 10 Paige Wainright v. Hardisty, 3 Beav.
Ch. (N. Y.) 49. 363.
' House V. House, 10 Paige Ch. ^ Mosely v. Marshall, 27 Barb. (N.
(N. Y.) 158. Y.) 43 ; s.c. 22 N. Y. 200 ;
See : Mosely v. Marshall, 23 N. Warley v. Warley, 1 Bailey (S.
Y. 200 ; C.) Eq. 397 ;
Warley v. Warley, 1 Bail. (S. C.) Saville v. Saville, 3 Atk. 463 ;
Eq. 397. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 76.
512 APPOETIONING INCUMBRANCES. [BOOK III.
Where the incumbrance on the land subject to a life
estate is paid off, the amount of money required for that
purpose will be apportioned. Formerly, as we have
before seen,^ the life estate was required to bear one-
third, and the inheritance two-thirds, of the burden ; but
this has been discarded as unreasonable, and the general
rule which prevails in this country at the present time in
regard to the apportionment of the contribution toward
paying off incumbrances, between the life tenant and
the remainderman or the reversioner, is that the life
tenant shall contribute in proportion to the benefit he
receives from the liquidation of the debt.^
Sec. 607. Same— Same— Same— Rule where widow the life
tenant.— Where a widow is the life tenant the question is
how she is to contribute ratably to the discharge of the
mortgage, if the estate in fee, in one equal third part of
the premises, ought to pay the one equal third part of
the mortgage debt and interest, then what proportion
ought the widow's life estate in that one-third part to
pay ? This question is fully discussed by Chancellor
Kent, in the case of Swaine v. Ferine,^ where it is said
that as she "has only a life interest in the dower, and
payment of the entire one -third of that debt would be
unjust, it would be making her pay for a life estate
equally as if it was an estate in fee. The more accurate
rule would appear to be, that she should keep down one-
third of the interest of the mortgage debt, by paying,
during her life, to the defendant, to be computed from
the date of such payment ; but as it would be inconven-
ient and embarrassing to charge her with such annuity,
then let the value of such an annuity from the plaintiff
(her age and health considered) be ascertained by one of
the masters of the court, and be deducted from the
amount of the rents and profits so coming to her ; and if
that value should exceed the amount of the rents and
profits so coming to her, that then the residue of such
1 See : Ante, § 603. See : 1 Story Eq. Jur. (13th ed.)
' Whiting V. Salter, 36 Minn. 103 ; 487.
s.c. 1 Am. St. Rep. 656 ; 80 N. ^ 5 John. Ch. (N. Y.) 483 ; s.c. 9
W. Rep. 755. Am. Dec. 318, 334.
Chap. XVI. §§ 608, 609.] DUTY TO INSURE. 513
value be deducted from the dower to be assigned to her,
out of the house and land mentioned in the bill."
Sec. 608. Same— 6. To insure.— While a life tenant has
an insurable interest in the buildings on the land to
which the life estate attaches, yet it is no part of his duty
to procure insurance thereon for the benefit of the re-
mainderman or reversioner.^ But if he neglects to do so
and biiildings are destroyed through his carelessness, he
will be required to rebuild. Where insurance is desira-
ble each party should pay for the insurance of his re-
spective estate ; ^ and where such insurance has been taken
out, and there is a partial loss, either the life tenant or
the remainderman or reversioner has the right to require
that the money received in payment for the loss sustained
shall be applied to the repair of the property.^ Where
such property has been insured and there is a total loss,
the insurance money takes the place of the property, and
the life tenant will be entitled to the interest during his
life, and after his death the remainderman or reversioner
will take the principal.*
Sec. 609. Teinire of estate for life.— We have already seen
that tenants for life hold of their grantors by fealty,^
and that the possession of the tenant for life, like the
possession of the tenant for a term of years, is considered
the possession of the reversioner or remainderman,® so
far as to prevent the raising of an adverse estate ; '' but
the statute of limitation does not begin to run against the
reversioner or remainderman during the existence of the
particular estate.^ No acts or laches on the part of the
' As to insurance, see : Kearney's HaxaU's Exrs. v. Shippen, 10
Exrs. V. Kearney, 17 N. J. Eq. Leigh (Va.) 536 ; s.c. 34 Am.
(2 C. E. Gr.) 59 ; Id. 504 ; Dec. 745.
Peck ■y.Sherwood,56 N. Y.615,618 ; « See : Ante, § 574.
Graham v. Roberts, 8 Ired. (N. « Grout v. Townsend, 3 HiU (N. Y.)
C.) Eq. 99 ; 554.
Brough V. Higgins, 3 Gratt. (Va.) ■" See : Ante, § 575.
408. " McCorry v. King's Heirs, 8
' Kearney's Exrs. v. Kearney, 17 Humph. (Tenn.) 267 ; s.c. 39
N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.) 59 ; Id. Am. Deo. 165.
504. See : Jackson ex d. Swartwout v.
" Brough V. Higgins, 2 Gratt. (Va.) Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ;
408. s.o. 15 Am. Dec. 433 ;
* See : Graham v. Roberts, 8 Ired. Bradford v. Caldwell, 3 Head
(N. C.) Eq. 99 ; (Tenn.) 496 ;
33
514 PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS. [Book III.
tenant for life can affect the interest of the party enti-
tled in reversion or remainder ; ^ consequently a forfeit-
ure of the estate by the act of the tenant for life will not
affect the interest of the reversioner or remainderman,
who will not be bound to enter until the natural ter-
minus of the life estate.^
Sec. 610. Permanent improvements— Rights of parties.—
While a tenant for life is bound to keep the premises in
repair, yet he has no right or power to make repairs or
permanent improvements at the expense either of the re-
mainderman, reversioner, or the inheritance ; ^ and if the
remainderman or reversioner makes improvements of a
perm.anent character on the land during the existence of
the life estate, such improvements become real estate,
and inure to the benefit of the life tenant.*
Sec. 611. Same— Exceptions to the rule.- To the general
rule above stated, however, there are exceptions. Thus,
where the donor of a life estate has commenced an im-
provement permanently beneficial to the estate, and the
life tenant goes on and completes it, the remainderman
or reversioner may be required to contribute to the ex-
penses thereof,^ and the expense of putting into tenant-
able repair an estate for life is chargeable on the estate
at large, while the keeping of it in repair after putting
in tenantable condition is chargeable on the life tenant,^
Woodson V. Smith, 1 Head See : Austins v. Stevens, 24 Me.
(Tenn.) 376, 377 ; 530 ;
"Williams v. Com-ad, 11 Hmnph. Merritt v. Scott, 81 N. C. 385 ;
(Tenn.) 413; Thompson v. Bostiok, McMuU
Jackson ex d. Erwin v. Moore, (S. C.) Eq. 75 ;
Cow. (N. Y.) 706, 727 ; s.o. 7 Dellet v. Whitmere, Chev. (S. C.)
Am. Dec. 398 ; Eq. 313.
Jackson ex d. McCreai!. Mancius, Compare: Ex parte Palmer, 3
2 Wend. (N. Y.) 357, 369 ; Hill (S. C.) Eq. 315.
Fogal V. Pino, 10 Bosw. (N. Y.) ^ Cooper v. Adams, 60 Mass. (6
113. Cush.) 87.
' Jackson ex d. Hardenbergh v. See : Poor v. Oakman, 104 Mass.
Schoonmaker, 4 John. (N. Y.) 309, 317.
390. ' Sohier v. Eldridge, 103 Mass. 345.
^ Jackson ex d. McCrea v. Mancius, See ; Parsons v. Wioslow, 16
3 Wend. (N. Y.) 357. Mass. 361 ;
2 Sohier v. Eldridge, 103 Mass. 345, Ex parte Palmer, 2 HiU (S. C.)
351 ; Eq. 315, 317.
Thurston v. Dickinson, 2 Rich. •• Parsons v. Winslow, 16 Mass. 361 ;
(S. C.) Eq. 317; s.o. 46 Am. Sohier v. Eldridge, 103 "^
Dec. 56. 345, 351.
Chap. XVI. §§ 612, 613.] PARTITION— FOEFEITUEE. 515
and where the life tenant has made an improvement for
the benefit of himself and the remainderman or rever-
sioner, and the property is subsequently sold to promote
the interest of both, the life tenant is entitled to be al-
lowed the value of the improvement at the time of the
sale.^
Sec. 612. Partition "by tenant for life.— A tenant for life
as well as for years, both in law and in equity, can com-
pel a partition, but he cannot compel the reversioner or
remainderman to join him, neither can he occasion a com-
pulsory partition binding after the terminus of his es-
tate.^ The statutes of the various states of the Union
uniformly provide that partition may be made on the ap-
plication of a tenant for life.^ In Indiana the owner of a
life estate in a moiety of lands may compel a partition
and, if necessary, a sale of such lands.'*
Sec. 613. ForfeitTire of life estates.— At common law,
estates for life may be forfeited because of certain acts
done or omitted to be done by the tenant ;* as where the
tenant undertakes to convey by feoffment and livery of
seisin an estate in fee-simple,® because this act constitutes
a renunciation of the feudal connection between the life
tenant and his lord, and the person in remainder or re-
version could enter for the forfeiture.^ At common law,
if the tenant for life levied a fine or suffered a common
recovery, this worked a forfeiture of his estate ; * and this
' Gambril v. Gambril, 3 Md. Ch. (Pa.) 168 ; s.c. 19Am. Dec. 633 ;
259. Ackland v. Lutley, 9 Ad. & E.
' Bool V. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 879 ; s.c. 36 Eng. C. L. 457.
119 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 285 ; « See : French v. Rollins, 21 Me.
Gaskell v. Gaskell, 6 Sims. 643 ; 373 ;
Austin V. Rutland R. Co., 45 Vt. Jackson exd. McCreai;. Mancius,
215 ; 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 357 ;
Wills V. Slade, 6 Ves. 498 ; Redfern v. Middleton, 1 Rice (S.
Baring v. Nash, 1 Ves. & B. 551. C.) L. 459.
See : Doe v. Exrs. of Dungan, 8 ' See : Gil. Ten. 38 ;
Ohio 87 ; s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 432. Wright, Ten. 203.
' See ; Ackerly v. Dygert, 33 Barb. ^ Grant v. Chase, 17 Mass. 446 ; s.c.
(N. Y.) 176, 189 ; 9 Am. Dec. 161 ;
Van Arsdale v. Drake, 2 Barb. Stump v. Findlay, 2 Rawle (Pa.)
(N. Y.) 599, 600. 168 ; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 632.
* Shaw V. Beers, 84 Ind. 538. See : Salmon v. Clagett, 8 Bland,
s 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 351 ; Ch. (Md.) 135, 173 ;
2 Bl. Com. 374. Dawson v. Dawson, 1 Rice (S. C.)
See : Stump v. Findlay, 3 Eawle L. 243 ;
516 CONVEYING IN FEE. [BOOK m.
is the case whether the common recovery were valid or
void.^
Sec. 614. Same— l. By conveying in fee.— The common-
law doctrine respecting forfeiture of a life estate by at-
tempting to convey a greater estate than the tenant held,
which had its origin and reason in the feudal system, has
never been adopted in this country ; ^ and there is no good
reason for maintaining it under our system of govern-
ment ; ^ consequently a deed of conveyance by a tenant
for life purporting to convey the title in fee passes the
life estate, the largest estate the tenant could lawfully
grant,* but does not forfeit the estate to the reversioner
or remainderman," the rule being that a deed by the ten-
ant for life, purporting to give a greater estate than that
of which he is seized, passes the estate that he possesses,
and is void as to the residue ; ® this is on the principle
that nemo dat quod non habet. A life tenant not being
able to transfer more or a greater estate than he has,' it
follows that a conveyance by a life tenant in fee will not
affect remainders, though in form contingent.* In a case
where the husband becomes seized of an estate by the
curtesy, and during the life of his wife assumes to con-
vey the fee of the land, and puts his grantee in posses-
sion, the conveyance of the husband is a vaM transfer
Pelham's Case, 1 Co. 15 ; Quimby v. DUl, 40 Me. 528 ;
Stump V. Findlay, 3 Eawle (Pa.) Griffin v. FeUows, 81* Pa. St. 114 ;
108; s.c. 19 Am. Dec. 633, 637. McKee v. Pfout, 3 U. S. (3 Dal.)
' Smith V. Packhurst, 3 Atk. 135. 486 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 690.
' It seems that in some of the or- ' See : Rogers v. Moore, 11 Conn.
iginal thu'teen states convey- 553, 557 ;
ance by feoffment, with Ht ery Robinson v. Miller, 1 B. Mon.
to seizment, worked forfeiture. (Ky.) 88, 94 ;
See : Grout v. Townsend, 3 Hill Quimby v. Dill, 40 Me. 528 ;
(N. Y.) 554 ; Griffin v. FeUows, 81* Pa. St. 114 ;
Jackson ex d. MoCrea V. Manoius, McKee w. Pfout, 3 U. S. (3Dal.)
3 Wend. (N. Y.) 357 ; 486 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 690.
Pendleton v. Vandevier, 1 Wash. ^ Cai-penter v. Denoon, 29 Ohio St.
(Va.) 381. 379.
'Koltenbrock v. Cracraft, 36 Ohio "McCorryi;. King's Heirs,3Humnh.
St. 584, 590 ; (Tenn.) 367 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec.
Carpenter v. Denoon, 39 Ohio St. 165.
379, 398. 1 Davis v. Whitesides, 1 Bibb (Ky.)
See: Rogers v. Moore, 11 Conn. 510, 513;
553 ; Jackson ex d. McCrea v. Mancius,
Martin v. Sterling, 1 Root (Conn.) 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 537 ;
310; Pendleton v. Vandevier, 1 Wash.
Robinson v. Miller, 1 B. Mon. (Va.) 881.
(Ky.) 88, 94 ; « Smith v. Cooper, 59 Ala. 494.
Chap. XVI. § 615.] ADVERSE POSSESSION.
517
to the extent of his estate,^ and if he survives his wife
the statute of hmitations does not commence to run
against her heirs until the termination of his hfe estate.^
Sec. 615. Same. — 2. By adverse possession. — A tenant for
life may forfeit his estate by permitting an adverse pos-
session thereon for the statutory period, in which case
he can neither recover the land himself nor by transfer
of his claim enable any one else to do so before the ter-
mination of his life estate, because adverse possession for
the period prescribed by the statute of limitations gives
a perfect title.^
' Koltenbrock v. Cracraft, 36 Ohio
St. 584, 589.
' See : Van Arsdall v. Fauntelroy, 7
B. Mon. (Ky.) 401 ;
Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John-
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ;
Koltenbrock v. Cracraft, 36 Ohio
St. 584, 589 ;
Denny v. McCabe, 35 Ohio St.
576, 578 ;
Carpenter v. Denoon, 39 Ohio St.
398;
aark V. Clark, 30 Ohio St. 138 ;
Lessee of Thompson v. Green, 4
Ohio St. 217 ;
Lessee of Borland v. Marshall, 3
Ohio St. 308 ;
Lessee of Canby v. Porter, 12
Ohio 81 ;
King V. NutaU, 7 Baxt. (Tenn.
231, 326 ;
GiUespie v. Worford, 2 Caldw
(Tenn.) 641.
' Moore v. Luce, 29 Pa. St. 360 ; s.c
73 Am. Dec. 639 ;
Hole ■;;. Rittenhouse, 19 Pa. St.
306;
Pederick v. Searle, 5 Serg. & R.
(Pa.) 236, 240 ;
Watson V. Gregg, 10 Watts (Pa.)
395 ; s.c. 36 Am. Deo. 176.
See : Beverly v. Burke, 9 Ga. 440 ;
s.c. 54 Am. Dec. 351 ;
Moody V. Fleming, 4Ga. 115 ; s.c.
48 Am. Dec. 210 ;
Fitzhugh V. Crighan, 2 J. J.
Marsh. (Ky.) 439 ; s.c. 19 Am.
Dec. 139 ;
Trotter v. Cassady, 3 A. K. Marsh.
(Ky.) 365; s.c. 13 Am. Deo.
183;
Taylor v. Buckner, 2 A. K. Marsh.
(Ky.) 18 ; s.c. 12 Am. Dec. 354 ;
Webbs V. Hynes, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.)
388; s.c. 50 Am. Deo. 515;
Berthelemy v. Johnson, 3 B. Mon,
(Ky.) 90 ; s.c. 38 Am. Dec. 179 ;
School District v. Benson, 31 Me.
381 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 618 ;
Stump V. Henry, 6 Md. 201 ; s.c.
61 Am. Deo. 300 ;
Alexander v. Walter, 8 GUI (Md.)
239 ; s.c. 50 Am. Deo. 688 ;
Jackson v. Pixley, 63 Mass. (9
Cush.)490; s.c.57 Am.Dec. 64;
Stevenson's Heirs v. McReary, 30
Miss. (13 Smed. & M.) 9 ; s.c.
51 Am. Dec. 102 ;
Strimpfler v. Roberts, 18 Pa. St.
283 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 606 ;
Brown v. McKinney, 9 Watts
(Pa.) 565 ; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 139 ;
University of Vermont i\ Rey-
nold's Exrs., 3 Vt. 543 ; s.c. 23
Am. Dec. 234.
The qaestion of adverse possession is
one for the jury and not for the
court.
Beverly v. Burke, 9 Ga. 440 ; s.c.
54 Am. Dec. 351, 356 ;
Graham r. Cammamm, 3 Cai.
(N. Y.) 168, 169 ;
Foot V. Wiswall, 14 John. (N. Y.)
304, 307 ;
Jackson v. Wood, 13 John. (N.
Y.) 242 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 315 ;
Springstein i\ Schermerhorn, 12
John. (N. Y.) 357 ;
Jackson ex d. Gillespy ■«. Woolsey,
11 John. (N. Y.) 446 ;
Jackson v. McCaU, 10 John. (N.
Y.) 377, 380 ; s.c.6 Am.Deo.343 ;
Smith d. Teller v. Lorillard, 10
John. (N. Y.) 338 ;
Jackson v. Price, 10 John. (N. Y.)
414, 417 ;
Doe ex d. Clinton v. Campbell,
10 John. (N. Y.) 475 ;
518 VALUE OF LIFE ESTATE. [BOOK III.
Sec. 616. Same— 3. By waste.— The forfeit of a life estate
by permissive waste is a matter that will be fully dis-
cussed later on in section seven of this chapter.
Sec. 617. Valuation of life estate.— It is sometimes im-
portant to ascertain the value of a life estate, to the end
that the proceeds arising from the sale of the land to
which the life estate attaches may be divided equitably
between the life tenant and the remainderman, or that
an incumbrance or burden upon the land may be prop-
erly apportioned. 1 While it is impossible to ascertain
the absolute value of the life estate until after the death
of the life tenant, yet that value can be approximated
by taking into consideration all the contingencies and
surrounding circumstances.
Sec. 618. Same— English, rule.— The ascertaining and fix-
ing of the value of a life estate came before the English
Court of Chancery at an early date, and they valued the
life estate at one-third and the remainder at two-thirds
of the fee.2 This rule was adhered to by that court until
the year 1T18,^ with the single exception of James v.
Hales,* in which case a decree apportioning the burden
of paying off an incumbrance directed that the life tenant
pay two-fifths and the remainderman three-fifths of the
amount. These were purely arbitrary rules formed
Smith d. Teller v. Burtis, 9 John. Dunlop v. Ball, 6 TJ. S. (3 Or.)
(N. Y.) 174 ; 180, 184 ; bk. 2 L. ed. 246, 248 ;
Jackson ex d. Jadwin v. Joy, 9 Etting v. Bank of the United
John. (N. Y.) 102 ; States, 24 U. S. (11 Wheat.) 59,
Frier v. Jackson ex d. Van Allen, 75 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 419, 422 ;
8 John. (N. Y.) 490 ; Bright v. Eynon, 1 Burr. 397 ;
Jackson ex d. Stoutenburgh v. Doe d. Fishar v. Prosser, 1 Cowp.
Murray, 7 John. (N. Y.) 5 ; 217 ;
Van Gordon v. Jackson, 5 John. Mayor of Kingston v. Horner, 1
(N. Y.) 440, 467 ; Cowp. 103.
Jackson ex d. Jones v. Striker, 1 ' See : Ante, § 606.
John. Gas. (N. Y.) 284, 289 ; « Rowel v. Walley, 1 Gh. Eep. 219.
Wallace v. Duffield, 2 Serg. & R. » See : Gornish v. Mew, 1 Gas. Gh.
(Pa.) 527 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 660 ; 271 ;
Brenton v. Gannon, 1 Bay (S. G.) Flud v. Flud, Freem. Gh. 210 ;
483 ; Ballet v. Sprainger, Free. Gh. 62 ;
Armstrong v. Toler, 24 U. S. (11 Lock v. Lock, 2 Vem, 666 ;
Wheat.) 258, 267 ; bk. 6 L. ed. Thynn v. DuvaU, 3 Vem. 117 ;
468, 471 ; Glyat v. Batteson. 1 Vern. 404 ;
Hinde's Lessee v. Longworth, 24 Brent v. Best, 1 Vem. 69.
U. S. (11 Wheat.) 199, 209 ; bk. ^2 Vem. 267.
6 L. ed. 454, 456 ;
Chap. XVI. § 619.] VALUE— AMERICAN RULE,
519
without taking into consideration the condition and
health of the life tenant and other circumstances which
would affect the tenant and value of the life estate.
A rule based upon the probability of the life tenant was
formulated in the case of Freemoult v. Dedire/ which
was followed until the year 1879, when the one-third rule
was put aside as unjust and most absurd. ^ The present
rule is greatly aided by the use of the standard life tables.^
Sec. 619. Same— American rule.— The courts of this
country have resorted to various methods by which to
determine the value of a life estate/ but the prevailing
rule requires that regard must be had to all the sur-
roundings and circumstances of the case in estimating
the value of a life estate ; such as the age, health, and
habits of the life tenant, the rental value of the land, and
the probable amount of taxes and cost of repairs.^ One
trouble attending the ascertaining of the value of the life
' 1 Pr. Wms. 429.
■' White V. White, 4 Ves. 24, 32 ; s.c.
4 Rev. Rep. 161, 169 ;
Nightingale v. Lawson, 1 Bro. C.
C. 440.
3 See : Stone v. Theed, 3 Bro. C. C.
243;
Heathcote v. Paignon, 2 Bro. C.
C. 167 ;
Griffith V. Spratley, 1 Cox 389 ;
Penrhyn v. Hughes, 5 Ves. 107 ;
White V. White, 4 Ves. 24 ; s.c.
4 Rev. Rep. 161.
* Seven years' rule. — In an early South
CaroUna case the court declared
a life estate to be worth seven
years' purchase, and to arrive
at its value, directed the inter-
est to be computed on the value
of the whole fee for seven
years, and said that interest on
the several sums of annual in-
terest from the time the estima-
tion was made should be de-
ducted ; and with the rate of
interest at seven per cent., that
the present value of an estate
for life is a fraction more than
thirty-five per cent, of the
value of the absolute estate.
See : Garland v. Executors of
Crow, 2 Bailey (S. C.) 24.
Probabilities rule. — In the early
Maryland cases the court took
into consideration the probabil-
ities and Iiad regard for the age
and health of the widow as in-
gredients in fixing the valua-
tion of her life estate.
Cassanave v. Brooke, 3 Bland. Ch.
(Md.) 267, note ;
Greenwood v. Clarke, 3 Bland.
Ch. (Md). 268, note.
Sliding scale valuxtion. — In some of
the states, as in Maryland, a
sliding scale of valuation in life
estates has been adopted by the
courts varying from the case of
a healthy person under 30
years of age, whose estate is
valued at half of the fee, to
that of a liealthy person over 77,
whose estate is valued at three-
twentieths of the fee.
See : Williams' Case, 3 Bland. Ch.
(Md.) 186, 331.
' Sagar v. Eckert, B 111. App. 413 :
Greer v. Mayor of New York, 1
Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) N. S. 206 ;
Swaine v. Ferine, 5 John. Ch.
(N. Y.) 482 ; s.c. 9 Am. Dec.
318;
Gunning v. Carman, 3 Redf. (N.
Y.) 69 ;
Jones 1'. Sherrard, 2 Dev. & B.
(N. C.) Eq. 179 ;
Shippen's Appeal, 80 Pa. St. 391 ;
Carnes v. Polk, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.)
244.
520 MERGER OF LIFE ESTATE. [Book III.
estate is the fluctuation in the price of land ^ and the
unauthoritativeness of the mortality tables. In fixing
the valuation of an estate the value should be taken as
at the time when the burden fell upon the estate, or the
land was sold.
Sec. 620. Merger of life estates.— An estate for life is
subject to merger in the inheritance. This merger takes
place whenever the life estate and the inheritance unite
in one and the same person in the same rank, without
any intermediate estate.^ This rule at law is inflexible ;
but where the interest of the parties, or the rights of
strangers, not parties to the act that would otherwise
work an extinguishment of the particular estate, require
it, the estate will still have a separate continuance in
contemplation of law.^ Merger is not favored in equity,
and will not take place where the continuance of the
life estate is necessary to the protection of the owners
of the inheritance, though there would be a merger in
law.* The question is usually regarded in equity as de-
pending on the intention of the parties in whom the
interests are united. An intention to merger will not be
presumed in the absence of evidence, if such merger is
against the interest of the party owing the inheritance. *"
When a tenant for life acquires the absolute property
or inheritance of the lands to which the life estate
attaches, his estate becomes merged or drowned in the
' See : Atkins v. Kron, 8 Ired. (N. Champney v. Coope, 32 N. Y.
C.) Eq. 1 ; 543 ;
Sagar v. Eckert, 3 111. App. 413 ; Skeel v. Spraker, 8 Paige Ch. (N.
Greer v. Mayor of New York, 1 Y.) 182 ;
Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 206 ; Millspaugh v. McBride, 7 Paige
Gunning v. Cannon, 3 Redf. (N. Ch. (N. Y.) 509 ;
Y.) 69 ; Moore v. Luce, 29 Pa. St. 260 ;
Shippen's Appeal, 80 Pa. St. 391. s.c. 72 Am. Dec. 629.
' Allen V. Anderson, 44 Ind. 395 ; •• Dougherty v. Jack, 5 Watts (Pa.)
Fox V. Long, 8 Bush (Ky.) 551 ; 456 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 335.
James v. Moorey, 2 Cow. (N. Y.) ^ Huston v. Wickersham, 8 Watts
246 ; s.c. 14 Am. Dec. 475 ; (Pa.) 523 ;
Moore v. Luce, 29 Pa. St. 260 ; Dougherty v. Jack, 5 Watts (Pa.)
s.c. 72 Am. Deo. 629 ; 456 ; s.c. 30 Am. Dec. 335 ;
Pratt V. Bank of Bennington, 10 Penington v. Coats, 6 Whart.
Vt. 293 ; s.c. 33 Am. Deo. 201. (Pa.) 283 ;
« Huebsch v. Scheel, 81 111. 281 ; Helmbold v. Man, 4 Whart. (Pa.)
Edgarton v. Young, 43 111. 464 ; 423 ;
Purdy tK Huntington, 42 N. Y. Richards v. Ayers, 1 Watts & S,
384 ; (Pa.) 485, 487.
Bascom v. Smith, 34 N, Y. 820 ;
Chap. XVI. §§ 621-623.] TERMINATION OF ESTATE. 521
fee-simple ; ^ and where the remainderman acquires, by
lease or otherwise, the preceding life estate, the life estate
is merged in the inheritance, and he becomes the absolute
owner in fee.^
Sec. 621. Same— Estates pur autre vie.— An estate pur
autre vie ^ is also subject to merger in an estate for a man's
own life, the latter being to him the more valuable, and
in legal contemplation the greater estate. Thus where
an estate is limited to a person for the life of another,
with remainderman to himself for his own life, the first
estate is merged.*
Sec. 622. Termination of life estate.— An estate for
life in this country terminates only with the natural
death of the person,^ there being no such thing in this
country as the civil death of the English law. Monastic
seclusion does not exist in this country, bills of attainder
are prohibited by the constitution, and no crime works
corruption of blood or the forfeiture of an estate.^
Sec. 623. Same— Exception to the rule.— While a life
estate will, generally speaking, endure as long as the life
for which it was granted, there are cases where estates
for life may determine upon future contingencies, before
the life for which they are created expires.^ Thus where
an estate is granted to another so long as certain salt-
works shall be maintained thereon,^ or as long as the
grantee shall keep a furnace and buildings on the laud,"
or until the rents and profits shall discharge certain
claims,^" or to a widow durante vididtate,^^ or to a man
and woman during coverture, ^^ or as long as they shall
' 1 Co. iBst. 338b. » Hui-d v. Cushing, 24 Mass. (7
' Pynchon v. Steams, 52 Mass. (11 Pick.) 169, 174.
Met.) 312 ; s. c. 45 Am. Dec. 210. « Cook v. Bisbee, 35 Mass. (18 Pick.)
3 See : Post, section III. of this 527.
chapter. '" People ex rel. Norton v. Gillis, 24
^ Bowles' Case, 11 Co. 88b ; Weud. (N. Y.) 201 ;
Abbot of Bury v. Bokenham, 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a ;
Dyer 7, 10b. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 26.
^ WiUiams v. Gaston, 1 Strobh. (S. " Eoseboomv. VanVechten,5Den.
C.) L. 130. (N. Y.) 414, 424.
«See: "Walker Am. Law (9th ed.) '^ Jackson u. Myers, 3 John. (N. Y.)
326. 888 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 504.
' 2 Bl. Com. 121.
522
PRESUMPTION OF DEATH.
[Book III.
live in a certain house ; ' in all of which cases the grantee
takes an estate for life, determinable upon the happening
of the event on which the contingency is made to de-
pend.^
Sec. 624. Same— Presumption of death.— A presumption
of the death of the person to whom an estate is granted
for life arises from the absence of the person from the
state, without being heard from, for seven years.^ Such
absence merely furnishes ground for presuming the party
to be dead, and absence for a shorter period is not suffi-
cient to raise that presumption.* The only presumption
arising from such absence is that the party is dead, if he
has not been heard of in seven years ; not that he died at
any time within the seven years, not even on the last
day ; ® the time of the death, whenever a material
matter, is a fact subject to distinct proof. ^ A mere fail-
' Jackson v. Myers, 3 John. (N. Y.)
388 ; S.C. 3 Am. Dec. 504.
= 3 Bl. Com. 121 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 26.
' Ashbury v. Sanders, 8 Cala. 62 ;
s.c. 68 Am. Dec. 300 ;
Rockland v. Morrill, 71 Me. 457 ;
Stevens v. McNamara, 36 Me. 176;
s.c. 58 Am. Dec. 740 ;
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 88
Mass. (6 Allen) 591 ;
Loring v. Steineman, 42 Mass.
(1 Met.) 204, 311 ;
Newman v. Jenkins, 37 Mass.
(10 Pick.) 515 ;
McCartee v. Campbell, 1 Barb.
Ch. (N. Y.) 455 ;
Lewis V. Mobely, 4 Dev. & B.
(N. C.) L. 323 ; s.c. 34 Am. Dec.
379;
State exrel. Spencer v. Moore, 11
Ired. (N. C.) L. 160 ; s.c. 53 Am.
Dec. 401 ;
Hershey v. Shank, 58 Pa. St. 382,
385;
Holmes v. Johnson, 43 Pa. St. 159,
164;
Miller v. Bates, 3 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
490 ; s.c. 8 Am. Deo. 658 ;
Burr V. Sim, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 150 ;
s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 50.
Civil and canon law mle. — ITrider the
civil law death is never pre-
sumed from mere absence, be-
cause an absentee is presumed
to live until the contrary is
proved, or until he has attained
the age of one hundred years ;
that is to say, the most remote
period of the ordinary life of
man.
Hayes ■«. -Berwick, 3 Mart. (La.)
138 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 727 ;
1 Denisart 13, " Verbo Absens."
The same rule prevailed by the
canon law.
Whart. Confl. L., § 133.
Hall V. Commonwealth, Hard.
(Ky.) 479 ;
SpuiT V. Taimble, 1 A. K. Marsh.
(Ky.) 278 ;
Newman v. Jenkins, 27 Mass. (10
Pick.) 515 ;
Wainbourgh i\ Schank, 3 N. J. L.
(1 Penn.) 329 ;
MoCombe v. Wight, 5 John Ch.
(N. Y.) 263 ;
Innis V. Campbell, 1 Rawle (Pa.)
373 •
Wood's V. Woods, 3 Bay (S. C.)L.
476;
Batin v. Bigelow, 1 Pet. C. C.
452;
Doe d. Kjiightu Nepean, 5Barn.
& Ad. 86 ; B.C. 37 Eng. C. L. 45.
' McCartee v. Camel, 1 Barb. Ch.
(N. Y.) 455, 463 ;
State ex rel. Spencer v. Moore, 11
Ired. (N. C.) L. 160 ; s.c. 53 Am.
Dec. 401.
« Smith V. Sniith, 49 Ala. 156 ;
Chap. XVI. § 625.] PUR AUTRE VIE ESTATES 523
ure to hear from an absent person for seven years, where
such person is known to have a fixed place of residence
abroad, is not sufficient to raise the presumption of his
death, unless due inquiry has been made at his place of
residence abroad without getting information respecting
him.^
Section III. — Estates Puk Autre Vie.
Definition of the estate.
Quantum of the estate.
Nature of interest in tlie estate.
Methods by which estate created.
Riglits of tenants — Alienation, devise, and entail.
Same — Right to estovers.
Occupancy — 1. Corporeal hereditaments — a. General occu-
pancy.
Same — Same — Same — Abolition by statute.
Same — Same — b. Special occupancy.
Same — Same — Same — Who may be special occupants.
Same — 2. Incorporeal hereditaments.
Termination of estate.
Section' 625. Deflnition of the estate.— An estate for life
is granted either for a person's own life or for the life or
lives of another person or persons. Where the estate is
held for the life of another person it is technically called
an estate J3ur autre vie, ^ and the person for whose life
3IcDowell i: Simpson, 1 Houst. Spencer v. Roper, 13 Ired. (N. C.)
(Del.) 467 ; L. 333 ;
Doe V. Flanagan, 1 Ga. 538 ; State ex rel. Spencer v. Moore, 11
Whiting V. NichoU, 46 111.230, Ired. (N. C.) L. 160; s.c. 53Am.
234 ; ■ Dec. 401 ;
Spurr V. Taimble, 1 A. K. Marsh. Gibbes v. Vincent, It Rich. (S. C.)
(Ky.) 278 ; L. 333 ;
Stevens v. McNamara, 36 Me. 170; Primm v. Stewart, 7 Tex. 178;
s.c. 58 Am. Dec. 740 ; Davie r. Briggs, 97 U. S. 628 ; bk.
Flynn v. Coffee, 94 Mass. (13 Allen) 24 L. ed. 1086 ;
133 ; Montgomery v. Bevans, 1 Sawy.
Loring v. Steineman, 42 Mass. D. C. 653.
- (1 Met.) 204 ; ^ Wentworth v. Wenfrsvorth, 71 Me.
Lancaster v. Washington Life In- 74 ;
surance Company, 62 Mo. 131 ; Stevens v. McNamara, 36 Me. 176;
Hancock v. American Life In- s.c. 58 Am. Dec. 740.
surance Company, 62 Mo. 26 ; ^2 BI. Com. 120, 359 ;
Smith V. Knowlton, 11 N. H. 191; Belts' Sup. to Ves. Sr., vol. II., p.
McCartee v. Camel, 1 Barb. Ch. 41 ;
(N. y.) 455 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a ;
Stouvenel v. Stephens, 3 Daly 10 Viner Abr. 296.
(N. Y.) 319;
Sec.
635.
Sec.
636.
Sec.
637.
Sec.
628.
Sec.
639.
Sec.
630.
Sec.
631.
Sec.
632.
Sec.
633.
Sec.
634.
Sec.
635.
Sec.
636.
524 NATURE OF INTEREST. [Book III.
the estate is granted is technically called the cestui que vie. ^
This estate is derived from the estate for Uf e by being
signed over to another person ; and though it probably
arose from, or was suggested by, the assignment of the
estate for life, at common law it did not necessarily
arise by assignment, but admitted of being created de
novo by express limitation. This estate is terminated by
the death of the cestui que vie, and not by that of the
grantee or donee. At common law where an instrument
creating an estate did not provide for the disposition of
the estate in case of the death of the tenant before the
cestui que vie, the remaining portion of the term did not
descend to the heir or personal representative, but to the
first taker, to the exclusion not only of such heir and
personal representative but also of the remainderman. ^
Such estates were frequent under the common law, but
are seldom met with in this country. Now and then,
however, a case occurs where a tenant for life disposes of
his estate for the full remainder of his term.
Sec. 626. Quantum of the estate.— As regards the
quantum of estates pur autre vie they may be limited
to endure —
1. During the life of a single person ;
2. During the joint lives of several persons ; or
3. During the life of the longest liver of several
persons.
Sec. 627. Nature of interest in the estate.— Estatespwr
autre vie are regarded as the lowest estates of freehold,
not of inheritance, a man can have, being estimated
of less value than estates for a man's own life,^ because
of the possibility one man may have of outliving another.
An estate pwr autre vie has been said to be a descendible
estate, but this is questioned by Chancellor Kent.* The
estate is merely a freehold interest suh modo, or for cer-
tain purposes, and partakes of the nature of personal
' 3 Bl. Com 258 259 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 43a. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 26.
See : Post, §§631-633. ^ See : 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 37.
^2 Bl. Com. 130 ; . \ /
Chap. XVI. §§ 628, 629.] RIGHTS OF TENANTS. 525
estates in all other respects.^ In some of the states, as
in New York,^ estates pwr mitre vie, whether limited to
heirs or otherwise, are admitted to be freeholds only
during the life of the grantee or devisee, and after his
death are regarded and treated as chattels real.^
Sec. 638. Methods by which estate created.— An estate
2)ur autre vie may be created in three different ways, to
wit : (1) By express limitation either to a grantee or de-
visee simply during the life of the cestui que vie, or to a
grantee or devisee and his heirs during such life ; (2) by
an assignment to another person of an existing estate
for life, whether there is an express limitation either to
the grantee simply, or to him and his heirs during the
life of the cestui que vie ; or (3) by operation of law, as
under the common law where an estate for the term of
the life of an attainted traitor, who was entitled to an
estate for his own life, was by forfeiture cast upon the
king, or where a limitation was simply to a man during
the life of the cestui que vie, upon the death of such
tenant the possession was cast upon the general occu-
pant,* as is hereinafter most specifically pointed out.^
Sec. 629. Eights of tenants— Alienation, devise, and en-
tail.—At common law a tenant pur autre vie had an ab-
solute right to alienate inter vivos, whether his heir was
entitled as special occupant or not, and if the heir was
entitled as special occupant, the estate of the assignee
was not affected by the death of the assignor ; ^ but such
tenant could not devise the property by will, and if he
attempted to do so the heirs of his body took as special
occupants, by virtue of the gift that created the life
estate, in preference to the devisee of such tenant.^
Neither could an estate i^ur autre vie be entailed by
' Mosher v. Yost, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) " See : Challis' Real Prop. 286.
277 ; =• See : Post, % 630.
Doe V. Laxton, 6 Durnf . & E. (6 T. « Challis' Real Prop. 290.
R.) 289. ^ See : Dillon v. Dillon, 1 Ball & B.
« N. Y. Rev. St. (8th ed.) 2431, 8 6; 95 ;
3Rev. St., Codes &L. 2526, §73. Allen v. Allen, 2 Dreu. & W. 307 ;
See : Reynolds v. Collin, 3 Hill Gray v. Mannock, 3 Edn. 341 ;
(N. Y.) 441. 442. Campbell v. Sandys, 1 Sch. &
8 Reynolds v. Collin, 3 Hill (N. Y.) Lef. (Irish) 281.
441, 442.
526 ESTOVERS— OCCUPANCY. [Book III.
virtue of the statute De Donis, not being a heredita-
ment ; ^ but such estates are susceptible of limitation in
the nature of a quasi entail, which, if not destroyed
by the act of some quasi tenant in tail, give rise to a
quasi descent resembling the descent of an estate-tail.^
Sec. 630. Same— Right to estovers. — At common law
every tenant pur autre vie had the same right to estovers
as a tenant for his own life ; ^ but such tenant holding
under a settlement had no rights of usurer, or power to
deal with the land, other than those possessed by the
lessee pur autre vie holding merely under a lease of
rent.*
Sec. 631. Oceupaney — 1. Corporeal hereditaments — a. Gen-
eral occupancy.— By the common law, where a tenant pur
autre vie died during the life of the cestui que vie, the estate
did not go to his executors, because it was a freehold and
not a chattel interest ; it did not descend to his heir, be-
cause the estate was not one of inheritance ; and it did
not go to the reversioner, because the previous estate
had not yet expired. Consequently the first person who
entered on the land, after the death of the tenant,
might laMffully retain the possession thereof as long as
the cestui que vie lived, by right of occupancy. Such a
tenant was called a "general occupant."^ Where the
king had the reversion, however, the right of occupancy
was not allowed ; for if the king's title and a subject's
concurred, the king was always preferred against the
subject, and for that reason there could be no prior
occupant.^
Sec. 632. Same— Same— Same— Abolition by statute.— The
right of general occupancy was practically abolished
in England by the statutes of Charles 11.^ and of George
' See : Gray v. Mannock, 3 Edn. 339. Bridg. 484.
2 Mogg V. Mogg, 1 Mer. 654. ' 29 Char. II., c. 3, § 12, which pro-
* 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b. vided that any estate pur autre
* Chalhs' Real Prop. 386. vie shall be devisable by will,
' 2 BL Com. 258 ; and if no such devise thereof
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b ; be made, the same should be
Williams' Exrs. 570. chargeable by the heir, for it
* 2 Bl. Com. 259 ; shall come to him by reason of
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b. special occupancy, as assets by
See : Geary v. Bearcroft, O. descent, as in case of lands in
Chap. XVI. § 633.1 SPECIAL OCCUPANCY. 527
II. ; ^ and the provisions of these statutes of Charles II.
and George II. have been re-enacted in several of the
United States. In those states where no express pro-
vision is found on the subject, these estates seem to be
regarded as real estate of the deceased tenant, and go in
the course of distribution.^
Sec. 633. Same — Same— ta. Special occupancy. — At com-
mon law the right of general occupancy could be exer-
cised only where there were no persons designated in the
grant who could take as special occupants. There were
many cases at common law where persons became special
occupants of land under circumstances growing out of
the relation of such occupants to the estate, and for that
reason took it to the exclusion of any general occupant
or mere strangers. Thus where a grant was to a man
and his heirs, or the heirs of his body during the life
of another person, no general right of occupancy could
arise, for the reason that the heir or heirs of the
body might, and still may, on the death of the ancestor,
enter and hold the possession as special occupants, having
exclusive right by the term of the original contract to
occupy the lands during the residue of the estate granted.^
And where the tenant pur autre vie made a lease of the
estate at will, the tenant under such being in possession
at the death of his lessor held as a species of special occu-
pant, as against a general occupant, though he would be
required to yield possession to the special occupant who
was also the heir of the tenant.^
fee-simple, and in case there be no devise shall have been made
no special occupant thereof, it according to the said act, or so
shall go to the executors or ad- much thereof as shall not have
ministrators of the party that been so devised, shall go, to be
had the estate thereof by virtue applied, and distributed in the
of the grant, and shall be as- same manner as the personal
sets in their hands. estate of intestate."
' 14 Geo. II., c. 20, § 9, vrhich, after ^ gee : 2 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 36, 27 ;
reciting the statute of Charles Walker's Am. L. (9th ed.) 275.
II. above given, and that doubts ' Doe ex d. JefiEv. Robinson, 8 Bam.
had arisen where no devise had & C. 296; s.c. 15 Eng. C. L.
been made of such estate, to 150 ;
whom the surplus of such es- Atkinson v. Baker, 4 Durnf . & E.
tate should belong, enacted, (4 T. R.) 229, 231 ; s.c. 2 Rev.
' ' that such estate pur autre vie. Rep. 366, 368 ;
in case there be no special 2 Bl. Com. 259, 260.
occupant thereof, of which * 1 Co. Litt. (lOth ed.) 41b ;
528 WHO MAY BE SPECIAL OCCUPANTS. [BOOE Uf.
Sec. 634:. Same— Same — Sam.e — Who may be special occu-
pants.—It is thought that although the heir of an estate
pur autre vie takes as special occupant by the nomina-
tion of the grantor and not by inheritance, that the heir,
and not the executor or administrator, could be named as
special occupant in the grant ; ■' however, if the heir and
executor are both named in the grant, the heir has the
special occupancy.^ Where the heirs of the body are
named as special occupants in the body of the grant,
the naming of them affects the quantum of the estate,
which is less than the quantum of a similar estate limited
to the heirs general. Thus, if a tenant for his own life
makes a lease to the immediate reversioner and the heirs
of his body during the life of the tenant for life, this will
be no surrender.^ The possibility that there may be a
failure of the heirs of the reversioner's body, by his death
without issue during the lifetime of a tenant for life,
gives to the latter a reversion upon his own grant, so
that the last-mentioned grant is only the grant of an
under-lease, which is therefore incapable of merger in the
reversioner's estate.* Since the passage of the statute
of frauds, the question whether personal representatives
may be named as special occupants has no importance so
far as freehold lands are concerned, because if there is
no special occupant, such special representatives take the
estate as a freehold by force of the statute.^
Sec. 635. Same— 2. Incorporeal hereditaments.— At com-
mon law things which lie in grant, and of which, there-
fore, no possession could be taken, there could be no
Com. Dig., tit. "Estates by s.o. Carth. 376.
Grant," f. 1. Before the case of Ripley i;. Went-
1 Campbell v. Sandys, 1 Sch. & worth, 7 Ves. 425, an idea that
Lef. (_Ir.) 281, 389 ; personal representatives might
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b, Harg. n. be named as special occupants
^ ' seems to have appeared by way
Com. Dig., tit. "Estates by only of casual surmise (3 Atk.
Grant," f. 1. 466 ; 3 Ven. 719).
Compare : 1 Sug. Pow. (7th ed.) In this case Lord Eldon inclined
ii ■ ■'^°*®' toward the same opinion, but
Atkinson v. Baker, 4 Durnf . & E. as the question was not in-
,(4 T. E ) 339, 331 ; s.c. 2 Rev. volved in the discussion, his
1 f. T. ?■ ??*'' ^^^' opinion was obiter dictum.
! ?,f ^,v *; S°^7^^'^- Siiice the passage of the statute
Ohallis Real Prop. 289. of frauds, the question is purely
Oldham v. Pickering, 3 Salk. 464 ; one of historical criticism.
Chap. XVI. g§ 636, 637.] HOW LIFE ESTATE CREATED. 529
general occupancy ; ^ consequently an administrator
could not be a special occupant of a rent, advowson, or
the like,^ but of such things there might be at common
law, and still may be, special occupancy.^
Sec. 636. Termination of estate. — An estate pu7' autre
vie is terminated not by the death of the grantee, but by
that of the cestui que vie, which may be established in
the same manner as the death of a person to whom an
estate is granted for his own life.* In the case of Clark
V. Owens, ^ the lease was for the longest of three lives, and
provided that if the lessor after reasonable search and
inquiry could not find any of the lives named to continue
in existence, he might re-enter after a year's notice
thereof, unless the tenant should within that period pro-
duce evidence of the continuance of the life before a
judge of the Court of Common Pleas. In discussing the
question of what is evidence of the death of the cestui
que vie, the court held it to be a question of fact, whether,
under the circumstances, reasonable search and inquiry
had been made by the lessor ; and said that reputation
among the family and relatives of the person on whose
life the term depended was admissible to prove his death.
Section IV. — How Estates for Life Created.
Sec. 637. Conventional and legal estates.
Sec. 638. Estates for life by implication.
Sec. 639. Creation by deed.
Sec. 6iO. Same — Words of limitation.
Sec. 641. Same — What creates life estate.
Sec. 642. Created by devise.
Sec. 643. Same — Words which carry life estate.
Sec- 644. Same — Same — Raised by implication.
Sec. 645. Same — Enlarging estate to a fee.
Sec. 646. Same — Same — Devise with power of disposition.
Sec. 647. Same — Same — Words in preamble.
Section 63T. Conventional and legal estates.— Estates for
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b. » Challis' Real Prop. 290.
2 Salter's Case, Cro. Eliz. 901 ; s.c. ^ See : Ante, §§ 632, 633, 624.
Yelv. 9. ' 18 N. Y. 484.
34
530 ESTATE BY IBIPLICATION. [Book III.
life are either conventional or legal estates ; ^ that is, they
have been created either by the acts of the parties, as by
deed or devised by will ; or by operation of the law, as
the husband's right to curtesy, the wife's right to dower,
and estates-tail after possibility of issue is extinct.
Where an estate for life is created by an act of the par-
ties, it arises in one of the following ways :
1. By express limitation to a grantee during his life ;
2. By the assignment of an estate pur autre vie to
cestui que vie ; or
3. By implication of law.
Sec. 638. Estates for life by implication.— Estates for life
will arise by implication where a grant is made to a
grantee by name, either in words of limitation or accom-
panied by words intended to take efifect as words of lim-
itation, but not in law capable of so taking effect as to
Hmit any greater estate. Any conveyance otherwise
capable of taking effect, which nominates a grantee, but
neither limits nor purports to limit an estate, will, in
the absence of any further indication, by implication of
law, pass an estate for the life of the grantee ; ^ and
the same is true where the limitation is " for term of
life," without saying for whose life.^ In the latter case,
however, an estate for the life of the grantor will pass, for
he might rightfully grant such an estate, though he could
not rightfully grant for the life of the grantee.* But
the implication of law upon which an estate for life
arises is liable to be rebutted by the manifestation of a
contrary intention. Thus if the estate by implication
should arise in the terms of the deed, it may be cut down
by the habendum to an estate for years or at will, and
this is true even though the habendum itself be techni-
cally void as a limitation, and therefore not capable
of taking effect otherwise than as a manifestation of
intention.*
Sec. 639. Creation by deed.— A life estate, being a free-
> 3 Bl. Com. 120 ; ^ 1 Co. I^itt. (19th ed.) 43a.
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 25.' ■■ 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a, 183a.
° 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 43a ; 2 Id.' » See : Buckler's Case, 3 Co. 55.
182a, et seq.
Chap. XVI. § 640.] BY DEED— LIMITATION. 531
hold interest in land, cannot be created or conveyed by
parol, but must be by deed duly executed, or by devise.^
Such an estate may be created by express words of dis-
position for the life of the grantee or devisee, or for the
life of any other person, or for more lives than one.^ A
life estate may also be created by a general disposition,
without defining or limiting a specific estate, as where
land is limited without specifying the term of duration
and without words of limitation.^
Sec. 640. Same— Words of limitation.— At common law
no words of limitation were necessary to create an estate
for life ; because an estate granted was construed to be
for the life of the grantee, unless there was an express
limitation.^ In many of the states of the Union, how-
ever, statutes have been passed, under which a fee passes
without words of inheritance, and an intention to create
an estate for life must be clearly expressed. In these
states it is necessary to limit the estate for the life of the
grantor in express words. By the common law under
a grant of land to a man, his executors, administrators,
and assigns, without the use of the word "heirs," gave
to the grantee only a life estate in the premises.^ Thus
1 Stewart v. Clark, 54 Mass. (13 Session v. Donnelly, 36 N. J. L.
Met.) 79, 80 ; (7 Vr.) 432 ;
Garritt v. Clark, 5 Oreg. 464. Adams v. Ross, 30 N. J. L. (1 Vr.)
^ See : Hewlins v. Shippam, 5 Barn. 505 ; s.c. 83 Am. Deo. 237 ;
& C. 221 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. Jackson ex d. Ludlow v. Meyers,
437; 3 John. (N. Y.) 388; s.c. 3 Am.
3 Bl. Com. 120 ; Dec. 504 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b. Den d. Roberts v. Forsythe, 3
3 3 Bl. Com. 121 ; Dev. (N. C.) L. 26 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a ; Hileman v. Bouslaugh, 13 Pa. St.
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 25. 344 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 474.
* 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a ; It was held in the case of Bod-
3 Bl. Com. 121. dington v. Robinson, L. R. 10
' Clearwater v. Rose, 1 Blackf. Ex. 270 ; s.c. 14 Moak's Eng.
(Ind.) 137 ; Rep. 559, that the addition to
Morrall v. Sutton, 4 Beav. 478. the name of the grantee of the
See : Patterson v. Moore, 15 Ark. words "his executors, adminis-
233 ; trators, and assigns," in the
EdwardsviUe R. Co. v. Sawyer, premises of a deed, will, when
93 111. 377 ; the grantor has an estate for
Merritt v. Disney, 84 Md. 344 ; his own life, expressly pass the
Sedgwick v. Laflin, 93 Mass. (10 whole estate of the grantor to
Allen) 430 ; the grantee, so as to make the
Hogan's Heirs v. Welcker, 40 Mo. habendum, if purporting to
177 ; grant a less, or an impossible,
Reaume v. Chambers, 23 Mo. 30 ; estate, void for the inconsist-
ency.
532 WHAT CREATES— DEVISE. [BOOK HI.
a conveyance to a man ''and his generation, to endure as
long as the waters of the Delaware shall run," has been
held to pass a life estate only ; ^ so also a bargain and
sale of land to A, " to hold the same for A in trust for B
and C, their respective heirs and assigns forever, in fee-
simple," has been said to create only a life estate in A,
and that at his death the legal estate reverts to the heirs
of the grantor, and that B and 0 must resort to a court
of equity for an enforcement of the trust.^
Sec. 641. Same— What creates life estate.— A devise to a
man simply creates but a life estate ; ^ and the same is
true of a grant for an indefinite time, as one quamdiu
se bene gesserit,^ or to a man and his generation as long
as the water of the Delaware river shall flow ; ^ to a man
and his children ; ^ to a man and his executors, admin-
istrators, and assigns ; ^ to a man and his successor,^ or
successors and assigns ; ^ to a husband and wife during
coverture;^" or until a contingency happens. ^^ A con-
veyance to a man for the use of his wife and children
creates a life estate only in the wife.^^ A life estate
passes by an assignment under the insolvent debtor's
acts,^^ and by a quit-claim deed from one tenant in com-
mon to his co-tenant.^*
Sec. 642. Created by devise.— A devise of land without
' Foster v. Joice, 3 Wash. C. C. 498. « Adams v. Ross, 30 N. J. L. (1 Vr.)
- Jackson ex d. Ludlow v. Mevers, 505 ; s.c. 82 Am. Deo. 337.
3 John. (N. Y.) 388 ; s.c. 3 Am. ' Clearwater v. Rose, 1 Blaokf.
Deo. 504. (Ind.) 137 ;
' Thus in King v. Barnes, 30 Mass. Taylor v.- Chary, 39 Gratt. (Va.)
(13 Pick.) 24, a deed j"-anted 448.
one-half of certain property to « Wheeler v. Kirtland, 34 N. J. Eq.
each, his heirs and assigns, with (9 C. E. Gr.) 552.
a habendum to each, his heirs " Buffum v. Hutchinson, 83 Mass.
and assigns, and then provided (1 AUen) 58 ;
that, "and after my and my Miles v. Fisher, 10 Ohio 1; s.c.
wife's decease, each shall have 36 Am. Dec. 61 ;
the other half ; " and the court 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 6.
held that each took a life estate '» 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 42a.
in the last mentioned half, " Id.
which would not be enlarged '^ White v. Williamson, 3 Grant
by construction to a fee. by the (Pa.) 349.
fact that the first half was " Verdier v. Youngblood, 1 Rich.
granted in fee. (S. C.) Eq. 330 ; s.c. 24 Am. Dec.
* 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 56a. 417.
' Foster v. Joice, 3 Wash. C. C. " McKinney v. Stocks, 6 Heisk.
498. (Tenn.) 284.
Chap. XVI. § 643.]. WORDS CARRYING LIFE ESTATE.
533
words of perpetuity, where there is nothing in the will
from which a fee can be raised by implication/ vests only
a life estate in the devisee,^ for we have, already seen ^
that the general rule of law is that a devise of real estate,
without words of limitation superadded, passes simply
a life estate. No technical words are necessary.* Thus
the word "heirs" is not required, as in a deed,^ and if
used may be read in another sense as ' ' children, " ^ or
sons
"7
Sec. 643. Same— Words which carry life estate.— A devise
to a person and his heirs, and in the event of his dying
without heirs, then over, creates a life estate.* It has
been held that a devise to a person and his children, there
being a child or children living at the time of the devise,
creates a life estate in the devisee with remainder in fee
in the living children and such children as he raay subse-
quently have born unto him.^ A devise to a husband
and wife and the survivor, the estate being subject to be
' See : Ante, 8 638.
? Jackson ex d. Newkirk v. Embler,
14 John. (N. Y.) 198 ;
Jackson v. WeUs, 9 John. (N. Y.)
223 *
Fox V. Phelps, 20 Wend. (N. Y.)
437, 445 ;
Barheydt v. Barheydt, 20 Wend.
(N. Y.) 576, 580 ;
Burr V. Sim, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 252 ;
s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 48 ;
Witherspoon v. Dunlop, 1 McC.
(S. C.) 546 ;
Denn v. Gaines, Cowp. 657 ;
Doe V. Allen, 8 Durnf. & E. (8
T. R.) 497, 502, 508 ;
Frogmorton v. Wright, 3 Wills.
414.
' See : Ante. § 349.
'■•Fox V. Phelps, 20 Wend. (N. Y.)
437, 445.
= See : Ante, % 350.
« Bunnell v. Evans, 26 Ohio St.
409.
' Lyles V. Diggie's Lessee, 6 Har. &
J. (Md.) 364.
*> Wilson V. O'Connell, 147 Mass. 17 ;
Jones Exrs. v. Stiles, 19 N. J. Eq.
(4 C. E. Gr.) 324 ;
Harris v. Potts, 3 Yeates (Pa.)
141;
Hill V. Thomas, 11 S. C. 346.
See : Jones v. Barmbelt, 2 111.276 ;
Non-is V. Beyea, 13 N. Y. 273 ;
Hatfield v. Sneden, 43 Barb. (N.
Y.) 615.
Devise of an improvement, followed
by a devise over, carries a life
estate only.
Bowers v. Porter, 21 Mass. (4
Pick.) 198.
See : WUmarth v. Bridges, 113
Mass. 407.
Intention to create an estate for life.
— Where deducible from the
expressions in the will, the es-
tate cannot be enlarged by con-
struction, although it be bur-
dened with payments or duties.
Bowers v. Porter, 21 Mass. (4
Pick.) 198, 203 ;
Moor V. Denn, 2 Bos. & P. 247.
Devise over after a precedent life
estate does not necessarily carry
the fee ; thus it has been said
that the devise of a plantation
to a person subject to the life
estate of the devisee's mother
will secure the devisee a life
estate only.
Calhoun v. Cook, 9 Pa. St. 226.
" Hannah v. Osborn, 4 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 336 ;
Reeder v. Shearman, 6 Rich. (S.
C.) Eq. 88.
534 EAISED BY IMPLICATION. [BOOK III.
divided equally among their children, and in the default
of children, then over, carries a life estate ; ^ a devise to
a wife "forever and during her life" carries only a life
estate ; ^ a devise to a wife and children creates a life es-
tate in the wife with remainder to the children, rather
than a joint estate in all of them ; ^ a devise to a wife for
life, coupled with a power of sale, with remainder over
to children, creates in the wife only a life estate ; * a de-
vise to a designated person, with a provision that in case
he die before his wife, the estate shall return to the lega- .
tees of the grantor, but if he survives his wife, then the
estate shall be his in fee, creates but a life estate in the
devisee.^ A devise declaring "I lend "to a designated
devisee described premises, and in case the devisee shall
arrive at manhood and beget heirs lawfully, then to him
and his heirs forever, otherwise over, gives a life estate
only.^ A devise of the right to occupy, possess, or enjoy
lands for life gives a life estate.'' A devise giving the
right to occupy and enjoy lands for an indefinite length
of time, at the option of the devisee, confers a life estate.*
In those states where fee-tails have been converted into
estates for life in the first taken in tail by statute, a
devise of an estate in tail gives a life estate with remain-
der over.^
Sec. 644. Same— Same— Raised by implication.- A life es-
tate may be raised by implication without words of direct
' Self's Admr. •;;. Tune, 6 Munf. Areson v. Areson, 3 Den. (N. Y.)
(Va.)470. 458;
- Sheafe v. Gushing, 17 N. H. 508. Patrick v. Morehead, 85 N. C.
3 Koenig v. Kraft, 87 Ky. 95 ; s.c. 63 ; s.c. 39 Am. Rep. 684 ;
13 Am. St. Rep. 463 ; 7 S. W. Oyster v. Oyster, 100 Pa. St. 538 ;
Rep. 633 ; 9 Ky. L. Rep. 945. s.c. 45 Am. Rep. 388.
See : Foster v. Shreve, 6 Bush ' Den v. Crawford, 8 N. J. L. (3
(Ky.) 519 ; Halst.) 90.
Crockett v. Crockett, 3 Phila. « Dougherty v. Moriett's Lessee. 5
(Pa.) 553 ; Gill & J. (Md.) 459.
In re Hanis, L. R. 7 Ex. 344 ; ' See : Kearney v. Kearney, 17 N. J.
French v. French, 11 Sim. 356. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.) 59 ; Id. 504 ;
* Whitmore v. Russell, 80 Me. 397 ; Winsthofl v. Dracourt, 3 Watts
s.c. 6 Am. St. Rep. 300. (Pa.) 340.
See : Green v. Hewitt, C7 lU. 113 ; » See : Succession of Law, 31 La.
s.c. 37 Am. Rep. 103 ; An. 456 ;
Stuart V. Walker, 73 Me. 146 ; s.c. Piper's Estate, 3 W. N. C. 711,
39 Am. Rep. 311 ; « Balir v. Van Blarcum, 71 111. 390 ;
Copeland v. Barron, 73 Me. 306 ; Chiles v. Bartleson, 31 Mo. 344.
Warren v. Webb, 68 Me. 133 ;
Chap. XVI. g§ 645, 646.] ENLARGING LIFE ESTATE. 535
gift. Thus it has been held that a devise, "after my
death and the death of my wife I give B," etc., creates a
Ufe estate in the land in the wife in case she survives the
testator ; ^ and the same is true of a devise of land to be
divided equally among the children of a designated per-
son, he to enjoy the benefit while he lives.^
Sec. 645. Same — Enlarging estate to a fee.^— Where the
will contains some provision inconsistent with an estate
for life only, the estate granted will be enlarged to a
fee ; * but where the intention to create a life estate is
deducible from the expressions of the will, the estate can-
not be enlarged by construction,^ although it is burdened
with payments or duties ; ® and an express devise for life
will not be enlarged to a fee by a charge upon the prem-
ises.^ A devise of lands in words restraining the devisee
from encumbering or selling, in the absence of evidence
of a contrary intention in the face of the will, conveys
but a life estate ; and will not be raised by construction
to a fee.^ A direction that land devised be equally
divided among designated persons will not be enlarged
by construction to more than a life estate.^ In those
states where, by reason of statute or otherwise, it is held
that words of perpetuity are not necessary to carry a fee
in a devise, where a fee is given by implication, it will
not by construction be enlarged to a fee without such
words. ^^
Sec. 646. Same — Same— Devise with power of disposition.
— We have already discussed the effect of a devise with
' Baxrjv. Shelby, 4 Hayw. (Tenn.) And this is true even where there
339. is a provision for the descent
2 Haskins v. Tate, 25 Pa. St. 249. of the land to children.
^ For a fuU discussion of the enlarge- O'Byme v. Feeley, 61 Ga. 77.
ment of a devise, see : Ante, ' Edwards v. Bishop, 4 N. Y. 61.
§§ 368-385, 573. " To be equally divided" goes to the
' Wheaton v. Andress, 23 Wend. quality and not to the limita-
(N. Y.) 453. tion of the estate.
'■ See : Pickering v. Langdon, 23 Jackson ex d. Hunt v. Luquiere,
Me. 413 ; 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 231 ;
McLeUan v. Turner, 15 Me. 436. Jackson v. Ball, 10 John. (N. Y.)
« Bowers v. Porter, 21 Mass. (4 148 ; s.c. 6 Am. Dec. 821 ;
Pick.) 198; Van Alstyne v. Spraker, 13
Moor V. Denn, 3 Bos. & P. 347. Wend. (N. Y.) 578.
' Moore v. Dimond, 11 R. I. 131. Fuller v. Tates, 8 Paige Ch. (N.Y.)
8 Grim's Appeal, 1 Grant (Pa.) 309. 335, 331.
536 WORDS IN PREAMBLE. [Book III.
power of disposition,^ and its effect to raise the estate
granted to a fee ; but where a devise is in terms for life,
with power of disposition, the estate will not become a
fee in the hands of the devisee,^ and on failure to exer-
cise the power, reverts to the heirs of the donor on the
death of the devisee.^
Sec. 647. Same — Same — Words in preamble. — We have
already seen * that the words of the preamble may be re-
sorted to in order to ascertain the intention of a testator,
but the words of the preamble are never allowed to so con-
trol the words of a devise as to convert a plain life estate
into a fee-simple.^ Words in the preamble of a will,
showing an intention to dispose of the whole estate of
the testator, will not enlarge a life estate to a fee unless
there is some connection between the preamble and the
devising clause of the will ; ® and it is well settled that a
general intent to dispose of the whole of the property
cannot authorize a court to destroy or disregard an ex-
pressed intent to give a life estate only.^
' See : Ante, § 359. Vanderzee v. Vanderzee, 31 N.
•^ McLellan v. Turner, 15 Me. 436. Y. 331 ; s.c. 30 Barb. (N. Y.)
3 Benson v. Mitchell, 26 Ala. 360 ; 331.
Fairmon v. Beal, 14 111. 244 ; See : Butler v. Little, 3 Me. 239 ;
Denning v. Van Dusen, 47 Ind. Beall v. Holmes, 6 Har. & J.
243 ; (Md.) 210 ;
Frasur v. Hurey, 43 Ind. 310 ; Hogan v. Andrews, 23 Wend.
Collins V. Carlisle's Heirs, 7 B. (N. Y.) 452 ;
Mon. (Ky.) 13 ; Barheydt v. Barlieydt, 20 Wend.
Show V. Hussey, 41 Me. 495 ; (N. Y.) 576 ;
Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, 31 Me. Fox v. Phelps, 17 Wend. (N. Y.)
388; 393;
Benesch v. Clark, 49 Md. 497 ; Jackson ex d. Harris v. Harris,
Cummings v. Show, 108 Mass. 8 John. (N. Y.) 141 ;
159 ; Harvey v. Olmstead, 1 N. Y. 483;
Hale V. Marsh, 100 Mass. 468 ; s.c. 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 103 ;
Stevens v. Winslop, 18 Mass. (1 Rupp v. Eberly, 73 Pa. St. 141 ;
Pick.) 318 ; Mclntyre ^.Ramsey, 28 Pa.St.317;
Andrews v. Brumfield, 32 Miss. Cassell v. Coake, 8 Serg. & R.
107; (Pa.) 368; s.c. 11 Am. Dec.
Rail V. Dotson, 22 Miss. (14Smed. 610 ;
& M.) 176 ; Leppitt v. Hopkins, 1 Gall. C. C.
Troy ■;;. Troy, 1 Win. (N. C.) Eq. 455 ;
77 ; Lessee of Ferguson v. Zepp, 4
Pulbam V. Byrd, 3 Strobh. (S. C.) Wash. C. C. 645.
Eq. 134; « Beale v. Holmes, 6 Har. & J.
Henderson v. Vaulx, 10 Yerg. (Md.) 205 ;
(Tenn.) 30. Jackson ex d. Wells v. WeUs, 9
* See : Ante, § 373. John. (N. Y.) 232 ;
' Sheaf V. Gushing, 17 N. H. 508 ; Hall v. Goodwin, 2 Nott & McC.
Provoost V. Clayer, 62 N. Y. 545, (S. C.) 383.
549 ; ' Pickering v. Langdon, 32 Me. 413.
Chap. XVI. §§ 648, 649.] EMBLEMENTS— EIGHT TO. 537
Section V, — Emblements.
Sec. 648. Definition of emblements.
Sec. 649. Life tenant entitled to.
Sec. 650. Crop must be planted by the tenant.
Sec. 651. Where estate determined by tenant.
Sec. 653. Ingress, egress, and regress.
Section 648. Deflnition of emblements.— All annual pro-
ducts of the earth which do not grow spontaneously, but
depend upon the labor and industry of man in culti-
vating the soil, are known as emblements. The term
emblements includes all those products known asfructus
industriales,^ as contra-distinguished from such products
as are known as fructus naturales} The term emble-
ments includes the different cereals and vegetables, and
tubers, wheat, corn, beans, hay, flax, potatoes, and the like,
but does not include grasses and fruits,^ or trees,* or any-
thing that grows from the perennial root, except hops,^
which depend upon the labor and manurance of man
for their value.
Sec. 649. Life tenant entitled to.— Where a tenant for
life dies before the crop is harvested, his representatives
are entitled to the emblements not yet severed from the
land, which are the immediate fruits of his labor, as a
return for the expense of plowing and sowing the
.ground.^ The doctrine of emblements, which rests partly
upon an idea of compensation, but more generally upon
• Eeiff V. Reiff, 64 Pa. St. 137. be taken as emblements, be-
See : Ante, § 53. cause the improvements are
^ See : Ante, § 55. not distinguishable from what
' Evans v. Iglehart, 6 GiLl & J. (Md.) is a natural product, although
188 ; it may be increased by cultiva-
EeiflC V. Eeiff, 64 Pa. St. 137 ; tion.
Evans v. Iglehart, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) Eeiff v. Eeiff, 64 Pa. St. 137.
171,189; ^ Except nursery stock, which is
Putney v. Day, 6 N. H. 430 ; s.c. regarded as in the nature of
25 Am. Dec. 470 ; an emblement.
"Warren v. Leland, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) ^ See : Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John.
613 ; (N. y.) 108.
Eeiff V. Eeiff, 64 Pa. St, 134 ; « Poindexter v. Blackburn, 1 Ired.
Evans v. Eoberts, 5 Barn. & C. (N. C.) Eq. 286 ;
829 ; s.c. 11 Eng. C. L. 700 ; Perry v. ToUier, 1 Dev. & B. (N.
ScoveU V. Boxall, 1 Y. & J. 896. C.) Eq. 441 ;
A growing crop of grass, even if Hunt v. Watkins, 1 Humph.
grown from seed, and though (Tenn;) 498.
ready to be cut for hay, cannot
538
TENANT DETERMINING ESTATE.
Book III.
the policy of encouraging husbandry by assuring the
benefit of his labor to one who cultivates the soil/ owes
its existence entirely to the uncertainty of the termina-
tion of the estate ; ^ consequently, where the termination
of an estate is certain, there exists no title to emble-
ments.^
Sec. 650. Crop must be planted by tenant.— To entitle a
life tenant or his representatives to emblements, he must
have planted the crops himself. If the crops were
planted by another, no matter how much care or atten-
tion he may have bestowed upon them, he will not be
entitled thereto.* Thus if a person seizisd in fee of lands
already sown and planted in grain grants them to
another for life, remainder over to a third, and the first
grantee dies without severance, the person in remainder
will be entitled to the emblements, and not the personal
representative of the first grantee.^
Sec. 651. Where estate determined by tenant.— The gen-
eral rule of law is that when a tenant of land has an
uncertain interest, which is determined either by the act
of God or by the act of another, then he shall have the
emblements ; but it is otherwise where the tenancy is
determined by his own act.^ Thus if an estate is granted
1 Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. (N
Y.) 107.
= Wilmarth v. Cutting, 10 John. (N
Y.) 360, 361.
' Wilmarth v. Cutting, 10 John. (N,
Y.) 360, 361.
See : Barn v. Clark, 10 John. (N,
Y.) 434 ;
Kingsbury v. Collins, 4 Bing. 302
s.c. 13 Eng. C. L. 467 ;
Davies v. Connop, 1 Price 53 ;
1 Co. Litt, (19th ed.) 55a.
* Price V. Pickett, 31 Ala. 471 ;
Haslett V. Glenn, 7 Har. & J,
(Md.) 17 ;
Stewart v. Doughty, 9 John. (N
Y.) 108 ;
Gee V. Young, 1 Hayw. (N. C.)17
Thompson v. Thompson, 6 Munf ,
(Va.) 514 ;
Grantham ■;;. Hawley, 1 Hob. 133,
^Haslett V. Glenn, 7 Har. & J,
(Md.) 17 ;
Grantham v. Hawley, 1 Hob. 133.
In the case of Haslett v. Glenn,
supra, lands already sown and
planted in grain were conveyed
in trust for liusband and wife,
and the survivor of them. The
husband died before the crop
was gathered, and tlie court
held that the crops survived to
the wife, and did not go to the
husband's representative ; but
that if the husband had sown
the ground the crop would
have gone to his representative,
and not to his widow.
« EoweU V. Kline, 44 Ind. 390 ;
Chesley v. Welch, 37 Me. 106 ;
Chandler v. Thurston; 37 Mass.
(10 Pick.) 310 ;
Debow V. Titus, 10 N. J. L. (5
■ Halst.) 138 ;
Wilmarth v. Cutting, 10 John.
(N. Y.) 361 ;
Hawkins v. Skeggs, 10 Humph.
(Tenn.) 31 ;
Chap. XVI. § 652.] INGRESS, EGRESS, AND REGRESS. 539
to a husband and wife during coverture, and after the
husband has sown the lands to grain, they are divorced,
causa prcecontr actus, the husband will be entitled to the
emblements; for although the suit is the act of the par-
ties, yet the judgment dissolving the marriage is the act
of the law, and in presumption of law the judgment is
against inclination.^ But where a woman holds lands
durante viduitate, which is an estate for life, sows them
to grain, and afterwards marries, she will not be entitled
to emblements, for the reason that the estate was deter-
mined by her own act.^ Yet it seems that if a widow,
having an estate during her widowhood, leases the
premises, and after the lessee has planted it to crops
the widow marries, the tenant will be entitled to the
emblements.^
Sec. 652. Ingress, egress, and regress. — The right to
emblements does not give a right to the exclusive pos-
session of all the lands, but only the right of ingress,
egress, and regress so far as is needful for due attention
to and gathering the crops.* We have already seen that
one of the incidents of a life estate is the power of mak-
ing leases, or a conveyance of a portion or the whole of
a life estate,® and where such lease or conveyance has
been made, the lessee or grantee has the same rights and
privileges, during the continuance of the estate, as are
incident to the life tenant ; ^ consequently, where such a
lease or conveyance has been made, and the life tenant
McLean v. Bovee, 24 Wis. 295 ; Gland's Case, 5 Co. 116.
Bulwer v. Bulwer, 2 Barn. &Ald. " Beavans v. Briscoe, 4 Har. & J.
470 ; (Md.) 139.
Richard v. Liford, 10 Co. 151. Compare ; Debow v. Colfax, 10
' Gould V. Webster, 1 Tyl. (Vt.)409 ; N. J. L. (5 Halst.) 128 :
Gland's Case, 5 Co. 116 ; Bettinger v. Baker, 29 Pa. St. 70 ;
2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 248b, 314b. Bulwor v. Bulwer, 2 Barn. & Aid.
» Gland v. Hardwicke, Cro. Eliz. 470 ;
461 ; Davis v. Eyton, 7 Bing. 154 ; s.c.
Bulwer v. Bulwer, 2 Bam. & Aid. 20 Eng. C. L. 77 ;
470 ; Glnr.d's Case, 5 Co. 116.
Wickes V. Jordon, 2 Bulst. 213 ; " Humphries v. Humphries, 3 Ired.
Debow V. Colfax, 10 N. J. L. (5 (N. C.) Eq. 362 ;
Halst.) 128 ; Forsythe v. Price, 3 Watts (Pa.)
Hawkins v. Skeggs, 10 Humph. 282.
(Tenn.) 31 ; » See : Ante, §§ 686, 590, et seq.
Hunter v. Watkins, 1 Humph. « Miles v. Miles, 32 N. H. 147 ; s.c.
(Tenn.) 498 ; 64 Am. Dec. 362.
540 ESTOVERS— KINDS. [Book III.
dies du-'ing the term, his lessee or vendee will have the
right of ingress, egress, and regress for the purpose of
cultivating and harvesting the crops, ^ but such lessee or
grantee will not have a right to the exclusive occupation
of the premises for such purposes.^
Section VI.— Estovers.
Sec. 653. Definition of estovers.
Sec. 654. Kinds of estovers.
Sec. 655. Life tenant entitled to.
Sec. 656. Same — Where tenant a widow.
Sec. 657. What may be taten— Effect of exceeding right.
Sec. 658. Same — English and American doctrines.
Sec. 659. When to be taken.
Sec. 660. For what purposes taken.
Sec. 661. Where to be taken from.
Sec. 662. Where to be used.
Sec. 663. Common of estovers
Section 653. Definition of estovers.— The wood and timber
necessary to be used on the estate for the purpose of build-
ing, burning, plowing and fencing, and other agricultural
purposes, are called estovers.^ The word estovers is derived
from the French estoffer, to furnish or maintain mate-
rials. In the Saxon such supplies were termed botes.
Sec. 654. Kinds of estovers.- Estovers are divided into
the following general classes, to wit : (1) House-botes, or
timber sufficient for repairing the house ; (2) fire-botes, or
wood sufficient to be burnt in one's house ; (3) plow-botes
or car-botes, that is, timber sufficient for making and re-
pairing instruments of husbandry ; and (4) hay-botes or
hedge-botes, that is, timber sufficient for making and re-
pairing fences and hedges.*
> Stewart v. Doughty, 9 Johns. (N. (Md.) 139 ;
Y.) 107 ; Beavan v. Delahay, 1 H. Black.
Humphries v. Humphries, 3 Ired. 5 ;
(N. C.) L. 363 ; Griffith v. Puleston, 13 Mee. &
Forsythe v. Price, 8 Watts (Pa.) W. 357.
383 ; S.C. 34 Am. Dec. 465 ; ' Heyden's Case, 18 Co. 68 ;
Hawkins v. Skeggs, 10 Humph. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 73.
(Tenn.) 31, 35. ■• Anderson's L. Diet. 133 ;
* Beavans v. BiisODe, 4 Har. & J. 2 Bl. Com. 35.
Chap. XVI. § 656.] LIFE TENANT'S TITLE TO— WIDOW. 541
Sec. 655. Life tenant entitled to.— We have already
seen ^ that it is the duty of the life tenant to keep the
premises in repair during the continuance of his estate.^
By the common law, as a compensation for this duty,
every life tenant and his lessee or assignee ^ has, incident
to his estate, and without an express grant, the right to
take, in reasonable measure, estovers for himself and
family residing upon the land,* for fuel and repair,^ un-
less restrained from taking them by special covenant.^
The rule as to estovers is not as strictly enforced in this
country as in England, where the timber is more scarce
and valuable. As a rule, the right to take fire-bote will
embrace a right to take fuel, not only for the house of the
life tenant, but also for the use of a servant or farmer
who cultivates the land for the life tenant,'^ even though
such servant resides on an adjoining tract, ^ where it can
be done without injury to the inheritance. But it is said
in Sarles v. Sarles,^ that a life tenant of a farm of one
hundred and sixty-five acres is not entitled to fire-bote for
the dwelling-house of a farmer or laborer, in addition to
fire-bote for the principal dwelling-house or mansion, and
that a custom allowing it to be taken is unreasonable and
invalid.
Sec. 656. Same— Where tenant a widow.— Where the life
tenant is a widow, in order to entitle her to take firewood,
there must be a house upon the land when it is assigned
■ See : Ante, § 600. ' See : Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I.
"- Matter of Steele, 19 N. J. Eq. (4 273 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621 ;
C. E. Gr.) 120. Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Hill (S.
3 See : Cook v. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 C.) Eq. 377 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec.
Gray) 123 ; 73.
Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186; « 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 41b.
Smith V. Jewett, 40 N. H. 583 ; Where there was such a covenant
FuUer v. Wason, 7 N. H. 341. in the instrument creating the
White V. Cutler, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) estate, it did not make the cut-
248 ; ting of estovers waste, but only
Smith V. Jewett, 40 N. H. 530 ; rendered the tenant liable in
Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ; damages on the covenant.
s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; Dy. 198b, pi. 53.
Miles V. Miles, 33 N. H. 147 ; s.c. ' Smith v. Jewett, 40 N. H. 530.
64 Am. Dec. 362 ; See : Webster v. Webster, 33 N.
Fuller V. Wason, 7 N. H. 341 : H. 18 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705.
Folsom V. Chesley, 2 N. H. 432 ; * Gardiner v. Derring, 1 Paige Ch.
Elliot V. Smith, 3 N. H. 430 ; (N. Y.) 578.
Smith V Poyas, 3 Des. (S. C.) Eq. ' 3 Sandf . Ch. (N. Y.) 601.
65.
542 WHAT MAY BE TAKEN AS. [Book III.
to her as dower ; the tenant can use the wood only in such
house, and if she takes the wood herself, or permits any one
else to take it, to be used elsewhere, it will be accounted
waste. 1 In the case of Fuller v. Wason,^ Eichaedson,
C. J., in delivering the opinion of the court, said that every
tenant in dower has a right, incident to the estate, to take
firewood, if there be a house assigned to her on the land ;
to take timber for the repairing of fences and buildings
upon the land ; and to take timber to make plows, etc. ,
if there be tillage ; but that she has only a special property
in the wood, to use it for those purposes upon the land,
and cannot sell it ; that she cannot take timber from the
land to build a new house or new fences, where there
were none before. In White v. Cutler,^ after dower had
been assigned to a widow, in a dwelling-house and the
land connected therewith, consisting in part of woodland,
all of which was occupied by the husband as one farm, she
removed from the land and resided in another family at
board, where she was supplied with fuel. The house,
having become untenantable, was taken dov/n with the
consent of all parties. The court held that neither the
widow nor the lessee of the dower estate had a right to
cut the wood thereon for fuel, and that the reversioner
would have a right to take such wood if it should be
severed by them.*
Sec. 65T. Wliat may be taken— EflFeet of exceeding right.—
A tenant for life or his assign is entitled to take reasonable
estovers ; ^ that is, to cut trees and timber for fuel, fences,
and the repairing of buildings, such as may be necessary
for the temporary enjoyment of the estate ; ^ if more timber
is cut than is necessary for such enjoyment of his estate,
1 Phillips ■Z7. Allen, 89 Mass. (7 Allen) <> Cook v. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray)
115,117; 123; ^ ^'
Cook V. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) Miles v. Miles, 33 N. H. 147 ; s.o.
133 ; 64 Am. Dec. 362.
FuUer v. Wason, 7 N. H. 341 ; See : White v. Cutler, 34 Mass.
Elliot V. Smith, 3 N. H. 430. (17 Pick.) 253.
See : White v. Cutler, 34 Mass. ' See : Clemence v. Steere, 1 E. I.
(17 Pick.) 348. 273 ; s.c. P3 Am. Dec. 631 ;
7 N. H. 341. Johnson v. Johnson, 3 Hill
34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 348. (S. C.) Eq. 277 ; s.o. 39 Am. Dec.
Blaker v. Anscombe, 4 Bos. & P. 72 ;
35 ; s.c. 8 Eev. Eep. 746. Heyden's Case, 13 Co. 68.
Chap. XVI. § 658.] ENGLISH AND AMERICAN DOCTRINES. 543
it will be waste, and he will be liable therefor to the re-
mainderman or reversioner.^ The extent of a life tenant's
right in this matter does not in all cases depend on neces-
sities,"^ and the precise extent to which he may go in ex-
ercising his rights under the general rule is not yet well
settled." It is well settled, however, that for the purpose
of fuel, the life tenant is bound to take the dead, dry,
fallen, and perishing wood.* The tenant must cut only so
much of the standing timber as may be necessary for fuel,
or for making and repairing fences and buildings ; ^ and
he may not cut more for this purpose than is actually
needed at the time ; thus he may not cut two years' fuel
in one and the same year, but must take it year by year.^
Sec. 658. Same — English and American doctrines. — In
England the rule governing estovers is very strictly ap-
plied as to the amount of wood and timber to be taken,
the age and qualities of the trees to be cut ; and a ten-
' Johnson v. Johnson, 3 Hill (S.
C.) Eq. 277 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec.
73.
Assent of the reversioner,however, to
the cutting and sale estops him
from claiming a forfeiture on
their account, and if the estate
is by will charged with the com-
fortable support of the tenant,
and the wood cut and sold went
for the tenant's support, the fact
is to be considered in determiu-
ing the question of assent.
Clemenoe v. Steere, 1 R. I. -373;
s.c. 53 Am. Deo. 621.
' Robertson v. Headers, 73 Ind. 43.
3 Miles V. Miles, 33 N. H. 147 ; s.c.
64 Am. Deo. 362, 364.
The American doctrine on the subject
is more eiilarged than the Eng-
lish, and better accommodated
to the cLroumstanoes of a new
and growing country, where
timber is neither so scarce nor
so valuable.
MUes V. Miles, 33 N. H. 147 ; s.c.
64 Am. Deo. 363, 364 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 73, 76.
4 Jackson ex d. Church v. Brown-
son, 7 John. (N. Y.) 337, 356 ;
s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 258, 263 ;
Simmons v. Norton, 7 Bing. 640 ;
s.c. 30 Eng. C. L. 286.
Waste question for jnry. — To what
extent wood may be cut before
the tenant is guilty of waste is
a matter that must be left to
the sound discretion of the jury
under the directions of the
court. It seems that a single
tree out down without justifi-
able cause is waste (Jackson
ex d. Church v. Brownson, 7
Joha. (N. Y.) 227 ; s.c. 5 Am.
Dec. 258) as effectually as if a
thousand were cut down ; and
the reason is this, that such
trees belong to the owner of the
inheritance, and the tenant has
only a qualified property in
them for shade and shelter, etc.
Jackson ex d. Church v. Brown-
son, 7 John. (N. Y.) 227, 236 :
s.c. 5.Am. Dec. 258, 263.
See : McGregor v. Brown, 10 N.
Y. 114.
Whiter. Cutler, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.)
248;
Van Deusen v. Young, 29 N. Y.
9, 30;
Jackson ex d. Church v. Brown-
son, 7 John. (N. Y.) 227, 236 ;
s.c. 5 Am. Deo. 258, 263 ;
Gorges v. Stanfield, 2 Cro. Eliz.
593;
Dunn V. Bryan, 7 Ir. Reports Eq.
143.
' White V. Cutler, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.)
248;
Fuller V. Wason, 7 N. H. 341.
544 WHEN TAKEN— PURPOSES, [Book III.
ant's rights are very limited indeed, unless he holds with-
out impeachment for waste. Indeed it has been held that
the felling of oak-trees along the avenue of a park, or the
cutting of trees not of proper growth, is waste, forfeiting
the estate.^ In America regard must be had to the circum-
stances of a new and unsettled country.^ Timber in this
country being neither so scarce nor so valuable, the rule is
not so strictly applied as in England. Many things may
be done by a tenant for life here that if done in England
would be accounted waste. ^ This is because of the re-
quirements of the country, and of the necessity, in many
instances, of clearing the land for agricultural purposes.*
Sec. 659. When to be taken.— A tenant for life, in taking
estovers for fuel or fencing or repairs, must exercise
ordinary care and discretion to cut the timber at season-
able times, ^ so as not to injure or impair the estate.
Sec. 660. For what purposes taken.— The general rule
regulating estovers allows them to be taken for those
purposes necessary to the complete temporary enjoyment
of the estate ; that is, the wood and timber necessary for
the purpose of burning, building, fencing, and repairing.
This right to estovers will include also the right
to cut timber to be used in working mines already
opened on the estate.® ^ut a life tenant has no right to
cut down timber for any other purpose, or to sell it ;
because when the life tenant cuts wood or timber for
' See : Paokington's Case, 3 Atk. (11 Met.) 304 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec.
216 ; 207, 210 ;
Simmons v. Norton, 7 Bing. 640 ; Morehouse v. Cotheal, 33 N. J. L.
s.c. 20 Eng. C. L. 286 ; (3 Zab.) 521 ;
Gorges v. Stanfield, 3 Ore. Eliz. Jackson ex d. Church v. Brown-
^^3 ; son, 7 John. (N. Y.) 327 ; s.c. 5
Abraham v. Buff, Freem. Chan. Am. Dec. 258 ;
54 ; Winship v. Pitts, 3 Paige Ch. (N.
Vane v. Barnard, 3 Vem. 788 ; Y.) 359.
Tamworth v. Ferrers, 6 Ves. 419 ; « Harde v. Harde, 36 Barb. (N. Y )
Aston V. Aston, 1 Ves. Sr. 264. 409 ;
^ Findlay i;. Smith,6Munf. (Va.)134; Gardner v. Den-ing, 1 Paige Ch.
s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 733. (N. Y.) 573.
' Crockett v. Crockett, 3 Ohio St. « Neel v. Neel, 19 Pa. St. 333.
180, 184 ; See : Den v. Kinney, 5 N. J. L.
WiUiard v. Williard, 56 Pa. St. (3 South.) 553 ;
^ 139 ; Crockett v. Crockett, 3 Ohio St.
Lymi's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c. 180 ;
d c '^^ ^"^- P®°- "^^^^ Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.)
See : Pynchon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. 134 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 733
Chap. XVI. § 660.] PURPOSES FOR WHICH TAKEN.
545
purposes disconnected with the premises, he is no longer
using his life estate in the lands, but is converting to
his own use the permanent growth of the earth. ^ Thus
a life tenant cannot cut and sell wood or timber to raise
money, wherewith to pay for repairs, however necessary
or indispensable, 2 although the amount sold be less than
he would have a right to consume for the purpose ;^
' MUes V. Miles, 33 N. H. 167 ; s.c.
64 Am. Dec. 363.
See : Davis v. Easley, 13 111. 193 ;
Richardson v. York, 14 Me. 316,
330;
Hubbard v. Shaw, 94 Mass. (13
Allen) 130 ;
Phillips V. Alien, 89 Mass (7 Allen)
115;
Cook V. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray)
133 •
White V. Cutler, 34 Mass. (17
Pick.) 384 ;
Padelford v. Padelford, 34 Mass.
(7 Pick.) 153 ;
Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ;
s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ;
Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H.
594:
Fuller V. Wason, 7 N. H. 341 ;
EUiot V. Smith, 3 N. H. 430 ;
Sarles v. Sarles, 7 Sandf. Ch. (N.
Y.) 601.
' Dennett v. Dennett, 43 N. H. 500.
See : Webster v. Webster, 33 N.
H. 18 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ;
Miles V. Miles, 83 N. H. 147 ; s.c.
64 Am. Dec. 363, 364 ;
Elliot V. Smith, 3 N. H. 430, 433.
3 Fuller V. Wason, 7 N. H. 341.
Compare : Dodd v. Watson, 4
Jones (N. C.) Eq. 48; s.c. 73
Am. Dec. 577.
Doctrine of Dodd v. Watson. — The
Supreme Court of North Caro-
lina say, in the case of Dodd v.
Watson, 4 Jones (N. C.) Eq.
48 ; s.c. 73 Am. Dec. 577, 578,
that a tenant for Ufe does not
exceed his rights by cutting
and using timber to repair
buildings on the land, and by
selling a very moderate amount
thereof, all the timber taken
being of the value of but a few
hundred dollars, and an abun-
dance being left for the full en-
joyment of a privilege to take
the timber for the use of a saw-
mill, owned by the tenant for
life and another.
35
Doctrine ofLoomisv. Wilbur. — Jus-
tice Story held in the case of
Loomis V. Wilbur, 5 Mas. C. C.
13, that it is not waste in a ten-
ant for life to cut down timber
trees for the purpose of making
necessary repans on the estate,
and to sell them and purchase
boards with the proceeds, for
such repairs, provided this be
proved to be the most economi-
cal mode of making the repairs.
The court say : " If the cutting
down of the timber was with-
out any intention of repairs,
but for sale generally, the act
itself would doubtless be waste;
and if so, it would not be
purged or its character changed
by a subsequent application of
the proceeds to repairs. But if
the cutting down and sale were
originally for the purpose of
repairs, and the sale was an
economical mode of making
the repairs, and the most for
the benefit of all concerned,
and the proceeds were bona
fide applied for that purpose, in
pursuance of the original in-
tent, it does not appear to me
to be possible that such a cut-
ting down and sale can be
waste. It would be repugnant
to the principles of common-
sense that the tenant should be
obliged to make the repairs in
the way most expensive and
injurious to the inheritance."
The facts in this case were as fol-
lows : The life tenant was very
poor ; the premises needed re-
pairing badly ; he cut ten trees
and sold them and bought the
necessary boards wherewith to
make the needed repairs ; it
was shown to the court that by
this means the repairs were
most advantageously and eco-
nomically made. The ruling
has been justified on the ground
546
WHERE TAKEN— WHERE USED.
[Book IH.
neither can he sell wood or timber to purchase fuel,'
or pay for cutting what he needs for house use.^
Neither can a tenant cut wood for the piirpose of burn-
ing for sale brick made from clay dug on the land.^
Sec. 661. Where to be taken from.— A life tenant en-
titled to estovers has a right to take them where they can
most conveniently be obtained without injury to the
estate ; he is not bound to resort for timber and fuel,
necessarily and properly used on the farm, to the
outlying lands.*
Sec. 662. Where to be used.— The estovers taken by a
life tenant must be used on the estate where they are ob-
tained,^ they cannot be used on any other estate, although
both estates were acquired by the same title ;^ but a life
that it was a " hard " case, and
can be excused on no other.
' See : White v. Cutler, 34 Mass. (17
Pick.) 248 ;
Padelford v. Padelford, 24 Mass.
(7 Pick.) 152 ;
Miles V. Miles, 32 N. H. 147 '; s.c.
64 Am. Dec. 362 ;
Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H.
594;
Doe V. Wilson, 11 East 56.
« See : Phillips v. Allen, 89 Mass. (7
AUen) 115 ;
Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H.
594.
' Livingston v. Reynolds, 2 HiE (N.
Y.) 157 ; B.C. 26 Wend. (N. Y.)
115.
^ In the case of Webster v. Web-
ster, 33 N. H. 18 ; s.c. 66 Am.
Dec. 705, the evidence showed
that the defendants cut about
ten cords of wood and drew
it to tlie house on the prem-
ises for fuel. There were
about one thousand cords of
wood growing on the land.
The quantity cut does not ap-
pear to be unreasonable for a
year's supply. As to the quality
and value of the trees cut, the
evidence is somewhat contra-
dictory. The inference we
draw from the whole is, that
about five small oak-trees were
cut and split into fuel that
might have answered for cer-
tain descriptions of timber ; but
the quantity would have been
small, and the salable value
trifling, and it would have been
bad economy to attempt to
select these few sticks and dis-
pose of them as timber. There
were other trees on the farm,
scrub-oaks, birch, and white
maple, that might have been
taken for fuel ; but they were
more difficult to get, and some
of the witnesses sai'd the wood
for the fuel could not have
been cut with less injury to the
farm in any other way. The
tenant was entitled to take out
of the thousand cords on the
farm good fuel, and such as
was conveniently situated.
^ Phillips V. Allen, 89 Mass. (4
Allen) 115, 117 ;
Cook V. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray)
123 ;
White V. Cutler, 34 Mass. (17
Pick.) 248 ;
Fuller V. Wason, 7 N. H. 341 ;
Elliot V. Smith, 2 N. H. 430 ;
Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N.
Y.) 601 ;
Gardiner v. Derring, 1 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 573.
Compare: Dalton v. Dalton, 7
Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 197 ;
Loomis V. Wilbur, 5 Mas. C. C.
13.
« Cook V. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray)
123.
Chap. XVI. § 663.] COMMON OF ESTOVERS. 547
tenant is not bound to notice a division of the reversion
in the estate among the heirs. Thus it was held in
Owen V. Hyde,^ that a widow occupying a dower is not
bound to notice any division which may have been made
of the reversionary interest after the termination of her
life estate ; that she took the estate as it was assigned to
her with the rights and liabilities which attach to it as a
whole ; and that although she may have destroyed all
the timber which was on apart of one of the lots included
in her dower, yet if the dower estate was not injured,
but benefited thereby, she would not be guilty of waste,
for that is the great criterion by which to determine
whether waste has been committed, as that only which
does a lasting damage to the inheritance, or depreciates
its value as a whole, is waste. And it has also been held
that where two parcels of land are obtained from the
same estate, the tenant of the life estate may use wood
on one part which was cut from the other. ^
Sec. 663. Commonofestovers.— Where several tenants,
for life or for a term of years, have a right to take
necessary wood and timber for fuel, fences, and other
agricultural purposes, from the same estate, it becomes
a common of estovers.^ Common of estovers cannot be
apportioned. Where a farm entitled to estovers is di-
vided by the act of the party among several tenants,
neither of them can take estovers ; they belong to the
whole farm as an entirety, and not to parts of it ; and
as the owner of no one portion of the farm entitled to
common can enjoy the right, it is necessarily extin-
guished, and can be revived only by a new grant ; * and
where common of estovers by operation of law, as by
^ 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 334 ; s.c. 37 Am. Owen v. Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Teim.)
Dec. 467. 334 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 467.
'' Phillips V. Allen, 89 Mass. (7 ' Livingston v. Ketcham, 1 Barb.
Alifen) 117 ; (N. Y.) 592 ;
Cook V. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) Van Renssellaer v. Radcliflf, 10
123 ; Wend. (N. Y.) 639 ; s.c. 25 Am.
Padelford v. Padelford, 34 Mass. Dec. 583.
(7 Pick.) 158 ; * Van Renssellaer v. Radcliflf, JO
Webster v. Webster, 83 N. H. 18, Wend. (N.Y.) 639 ;
36 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; Bruerton's Case, 6 Co. 1 ;
Dalton V. Dalton, 7 Ired. (N. C.) Tyrringham's Case, 4 Co. 38 ;
Eq. 197 ; 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 164b.
548
DIVISION OF ESTOVERS— WASTE.
[Book III.
descent, devolves upon several, they cannot enjoy the
right in severalty, but may unite in a conveyance and vest
the right in one individual.^
Section VII.— Waste.
Sec. 664. Definition.
Sec. 665. What constitutes waste.
Sec. 666. Same — Exceptions to the rule.
Sec. 667. Kinds of waste.
Sec. 668. Same — Voluntary waste.
Sec. 669. Same — Permissive waste.
Sec. 670. Liability of life tenant for waste — Common-law doctrine.
Sec. 671. Same — American doctrine.
Sec. 673. Same — ^Acts of strangers.
Sec. 673. Same — Tenants in dower and curtesy.
Sec. 674. Same — Same — Permissive waste.
Sec. 675. Kinds of lands subject to waste.
Sec. 676. Acts constituting waste — General rule.
Sec. 677. Same — 1. Felling timber— General rule.
Sec. 678. Same — Same — Amount to be taken.
Sec. 679. Same — Same — Particular kinds of trees.
Sec. 680. Same — Same — Local custom as to timber trees.
Sec. 681. Same — Same — Timber improperly cut — Property in.
Sec. 683. Same — 3. Opening mines.
Sec. 683. Same — 3. In respect to buildings — Pulling down houses.
Sec. 684. Same — Same — Dilapidations.
Sec. 685. Same — Same — Alterations.
Sec. 686. Same — Same — Erection of new buildings.
Sec. 687. Same — 4. Changing course of husbandry.
Sec. 688. Same — Same — Permitting land to become foul.
Sec. 689. Sajne — 5. Destruction of heirlooms.
Sec. 690. Partial power to commit waste.
Sec. 691. Waste by ecclesiastics.
Sec. 693. Destruction by fire.
Sec. 693. Without impeachment of waste.
' Van RensseUaer v. Eadclifl, 10
Wend. (N. Y.) 639.
According to the English rule,
where such inheritances are
divided, it appears by the books
that the elders shall have them,
and the others a contribution ;
but if no other -property de-
scended from which contribu-
tion could be had, then the par-
ceners should have alternate
enjoyment, or, in case of pis-
cary, one shall have the first
fish and another the second ;
and so of a toll-fish, where the
hereditament was the toU of a
miU. If, however, that doc-
trine were applicable here, it
would only relate to descents,
not alienation by deed ; and
even as to descents, it has been
held that one of several heirs,
to whom a right of estovers
descended, could not aUen his
share so as to authorize the
assignee to enter and cut wood.
Leyman v. Abeel, 16 John. 30.
Chap. XVI. §§ 664, 665.] WHAT CONSTITUTES WASTE. 549
Sec. 694. Remedies for waste — 1. Writ of estrepement and writ of
waste.
Sec. 695. Same — 3. Injunction.
Sec. 696. Same — Same — Character of the remedy.
Sec. 697. Same — Same — ^When granted.
Sec. 698. Same — Same — Same — Threat to commit waste.
Sec. 699. Same^Same — Same — Permissive waste.
Sec. 700. Same — Same — Same — Privity of title.
Sec. 701. Same — Same — In favor of whom granted.
Sec. 703. Same — Same — Against whom granted.
Sec. 703. Same — Same — Bill for account.
Sec. 704. Same— 3. Forfeiture of estate.
Section 664. Definition.— Waste, as applied to a life es-
tate, consists in an unlawful act or omission of duty which
results in a permanent injury to the estate, or which
tends to the destruction of the estate or the depreciation
in value of the inheritance.^ It may consist either in
diminishing the value of the estate, increasing its burden,^
or changing and destroying the evidences of title to the
inheritance,^ such as spoiling or destroying houses, gar-
dens, parks, warrens, dove-cots, trees, or other corporeal
hereditaments, to the disherison of him that has the re-
mainder or reversion.*
Sec. 665. What constitutes waste.— Waste in this coun-
try is not to he determined by the rules in the English
' Wilds V. Layton, 1 Del. Ch. 336 ; destruction of the inheritance
s.c. 13 Am. Dec. 91 ; or the impairing of its value is
DuvaU V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. waste.
(Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350 ; Smith v. Sharpe, 1 Busbee (N. C.)
Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ; L. 91 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 574.
s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; ' Doe d. Grubb v. Burlington, 5
Smith V. Sharpe, 1 Busbee (N. C.) Barn. & Ad. 507, 517 ; s.c. 37
L. 91 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 574. Eng. C. L. 317, 331 ;
The term " waste " embraces im- Huntley v. Russell, 13 Q. B. 573,
proper usage. 588 ; s.c. 66 Eng. C. L. 570, 588.
59 Am. Dec. 70, note. ' See : Profflt v. Henderson, 39 Mo.
Waste is the abuse or destructive 337 ;
use of property by him who has McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y.
not an absolute, unqualified 117 ;
title. Doe d. Grubb v. Burlington, 5
DuvaU V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. Barn. & Ad. 507 ; s.c. 37 Eng.
(Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350. C. L. 217 ;
Waste is defined to be spoil or de- Jones v. Chappell, L. R. 30 Eq.
struction in houses, gardens, 539 ; s.c. 15 Moak's Eng. Rep.
trees, or other corporeal heredi- 475 ;
taments, to the disherison of Huntley v. Russell, 13 Q. B. 573 ;
him that has the remainder or s.c. 66 Eng. C. L. 570.
reversion in fee-simple ; what- * 3 Bl. Com. 381 ;
ever is done which tends to the 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53a.
550 KINDS OF WASTE. Book III.
law in all respects, because of the difference of the situa-
tion in the two countries. Thus the cutting of timber
for the purpose of clearing is waste in England, but not
necessarily in this country.^ What is to be deemed
waste in this country must, in a considerable degree, be
left to a jury upon the evidence.^ But in equity the court
must find the facts, whether waste has been committed or
threatened. The general principle governing the ques-
tion is that the tenant shall not be permitted to do any
act of permanent injury to the inheritance, except to
take his reasonable estovers.^
Sec. 666. Same— Exceptions to the rule.— There are some
exceptions to this general rule. Thus damage resulting
to houses, wood, or soil, from the act of God,* as by light-
ning or tempest ; or from public enemies, as an invaded
army ; or from the reversioner himself, is not waste.
Sec. 667. Kinds of waste.— Waste may be divided into
three classes : first, voluntary waste, as by act of com-
mission ; second, involuntary waste, by an act of omis-
sion ; and third', eventual waste, as an act done by
an admitted particular tenant after the institution of a
suit involving the title, or a partition suit.^
668. Same— Voluntary waste.— Voluntary waste consists
in a commission of some destructive act ;® such as
(1) felling timber trees, '^ (2) pulling down houses,^ (3)
opening mines or pits, ^ (4) changing course of husbandry, i<*
(5) destroying heirlooms," and the like.
Sec. 669. Same— Permissive waste.— Permissive waste is
' See : Post, § 677, et seq. Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ;
See : Padelford v. Padelford, 24 s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ;
Mass. (7 Pick.) 153 ; Chase v. Haaelton, 7 N. H. 171.
Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ; « See : Post, § 670.
s.o. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ; ' Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
Ward V. Sheppard, 2 Hayw. (N. (Md.)569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 850.
C.) 283 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 625 ; « See : Ante, § 667.
rindlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.) ' See : Post, 8 677, et seq.
134 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 733 ; » See : Post, S, 683.
Doe d. Grubb v. Burlington, 5 ' See : Post, § 683.
Barn. & Ad. 507 ; s.c. 27 Eng. w See : Post,''% 687.
, ^ C. L. 317. » Baxter v. Taylor, 1 Nev. & M. 13.
' Pynchon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. (11 See : Post, S 689.
Met.) 304; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 307;
Chap. XVI. § 670.] LIABILITY FOR WASTE.
551
that injury to an estate which results from the mere
neglect or omission to do what will prevent injury ;
such as to suffer houses or other improvements to go to
decay for Avant of repairs. It may be incurred in respect
to the soil as well as to the buildings, trees, and fences,
or other improvements on the premises.^ But if a house
be ruinous at the time when the tenant for life comes
into possession, he is not liable for waste in suffering it
to fall down ; for in such a case he is not bound by law
to repair it.
Sec. 670. Liability of life tenant for waste— Common-law
doctrine.— At common law the tenant for life was not
liable for waste ; liability was first placed upon him by
the statute of Marlebridge,- which gave the right to
owners of the inheritance to recover damages for the
waste committed or suffered, and by the statute of
Gloucester,^ which forfeited the estate and gave the
reversioner or remainderman a right to recover treble the
damages. It may be said to be a general principle of law
that a tenant for life, without some special agreement to
the contrary, is responsible to the reversioner for all in-
juries amounting to waste done to the premises during
his term,* by whomsoever the injuries may have been
committed, with the exception of the acts of God, and
public enemies, and the acts of the reversioner himself.
The tenant is like a common carrier, and the law in this
' As to injunction against permis-
sive waste, see : Post, § 699.
».')3Hen.in.,c.23.
■" 6Edvv. L, c. 5.
'' Negligence or wantonnesa on the
part of a tenant for life oc-
casioning any permanent waste
to the subsistence of the estate,
whether the waste be voluntary
or permissive, he becomes liable
in the suit by the persons en-
titled to the immediate estate of
inheritance, to answer in dam-
ages as well as to have his
future operation stayed.
2 Bl. Com. 281 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53a, 53b ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 76.
Assignee of estate pur autre vie.—
For the purpose of creating an
estate pur autre vie by assign-
ment, the estate of tenant in
tail after possibility of issue ex-
tinct does not differ from an
estate for life (3 Prest. Conv.
171, 172). and the assignee is
punishable for waste.
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 28a;
2 Inst. 302.
Permissive waste — Destruction by
fire. — Under the head of per-
missive waste, the tenant is
answerable if the house or
other building on the premises
be destroyed by fire through
his carelessness or negligence,
and must rebuild, in a con-
venient time, at his own ex-
pense.
See : Post, § 692.
552
LIABILITY— AMERICAN DOCTEINE. [Book IH.
instance is founded on the same great principles of public
policy. The landlord cannot protect the property against
strangers ; the tenant is on the spot, and presumed to be
able to protect it himself. ^
Sec. 671. Same— American doctrine.— The American doc-
trine on the subject of waste is somewhat varied from
that of the English law, and is more enlarged and better
adapted to the circumstances of a new and growing
country, the major portion of which had to be reclaimed
and subjected to cultivation. ^ In this country, as a gen^
feral rule, unless the estate is expressly made unimpeach-
I able for waste, a life tenant is responsible for all waste
done to the premises, not caused by the act of Grod, or the
public enemy, or the acts of the remainderman or re-
versioner himself ; ^ but such a tenant is not chargeable
' White V. Wagner, 4 Har. & J.
(Md.) 373 ; s.o. 7 Am. Dec. 674.
= Parkins v. Coxe, 3 Haj'w. (N. C.)
339;
Hastings v. Crunckleton, 8 Yeates
(Pa.) 361 ;
Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.)
134 ; s.c. 8 Am. Deo. 733 ;
Crouch V. Puryear. 1 Rand. (Va.)
258 ; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 528 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 77.
In Massachusetts, however, the in-
clination has been to favor the
strict English rule ; and that
■was one of the reasons assigned
for holding the widow not dow-
able of wild lands in an uncul-
tivated state ; because the land
did not admit of the enjoy-
ment of dower without com-
mitting waste and thus forfeit-
ing the estate.
Conner v. Shepherd, 15 Mass. 164.
See : White v. Cutler, 84 Mass.
(17 Pick.) 248, 250 ;
"Webb V. Townsend, 18 Mass.
(1 Pick.) 21, 22; s.c. 11 Am. Dec.
i32
= Miller 'i7. Shields, 55 Ind. 71 ;
White V. Wagner, 4 Har. & J.
(Md.) 378 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 674 ;
Clark V. Holden, 73 Mass. (7 Gray)
8 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 450 ;
Sackett v. Sackett, 26 Mass. (8
Pick.) 309, 314 ;
Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H.
18 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ;
Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H.594;
Chase v. Hazelton, 1 N. H. 171 ;
Neel V. Neel, 19 Pa. St. 823,
324;
Smith V. Daniel, 2 McC. (S. C.)
Eq. 143 ;
Dejarnatte v. AUen, 5 Gratt. (Va. ^
499.
Waste tmder reservation. — Tenant
for life has no right to commit
waste under reservation of ' ' all
the right, title, and interest in
and unto the above-named land
and premises for and during
mv natural life."
Webster v. Webster, 83 N. H. 18 ;
s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705.
Tenants in common liability to co-
tenant for waste.
See : Nelson's Heirs v. Clay, 7 J. J.
Marsh. (Ky.) 138; s.c. 23 Am.
Dec. 387 ;
Smith V. Sharpe, Busbee(N. C.)L.
91 ; s.c. 57 Am. Dec. 574 ;
Hancock v. Day. 1 McM. (S. C.)
Eq. 69 ; s.o. 36 Am. Deo. 293;
Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Hill (S. C.)
Eq. 277 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 72.
Alienee of life tenant is liable to
the remainderman or rever-
sioner for waste.
Dejarnatte u. Allen, 5 Gratt. (Va.)
499.
igectment cannot "be maintained
by a remainderman or rever-
sioner to recover the premises
wasted ; such recovery can be
attained only by an action of
waste.
Chap. XVI. § 672.] LIABILITY— ACTS OF STRANGERS. 553
with waste committed to the injury of the remainderman,
unless the evidence affirmatively shows such facts as will
sustain the charge ; and the presumption is in favor of the
tenant for life until the contrary appears.-^
The acts which may be done in this country without
being guilty of waste are much less restricted than they
are in England. ^ Thus in North Carolina it has been
held not to be waste to clear tillable lands for the nec-
essary support of the tenant's family, though the timber
be destroyed in clearing,^ and in Virginia it is said that
the law of waste is so varied from that in England that
a tenant in dower, in working coal mines already opened^
may penetrate into new seams, and sink new shafts, with-
out being chargeable with waste.*
Sec. 672. Same— Acts of strangers.- A tenant for life is
not responsible for waste occasioned by the act of God,
or the public enemy, or of the law ; ° but he is liable not
only for his own acts, but also for those of strangers who
injure the estate ; "^ and to enable him to protect the
estate the law gives him an action for trespass against
the wrong-doer." Consequently where waste is com-
mitted by the life tenant himself, or by a stranger, he is
liable to the reversioner or remainderman.^
See : Robinson v. Robinson, 2 B. East 489 ;
Mon. (Ky.) 284 ; Jackson v. Pesked, 1 Maule & S.
Patrick v. Sherwood, 4 Blatchf. 234.
C. C. 112. * See : White v. Wagner, 4 Har. &
' Lynn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c. J. (Md.) 373 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec.
73 Am. Dec. 721. 674 ;
' See : Ward v. Sheppard, 2 Hayw. Fay v. Brewer, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.)
(N. C.) 383 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 203 ;
635. Beers v. Beers, 21 Mich. 464 ;
3 Parkins v. Coxe, 3 Hayw. (N. C.) Wood v. Griffin, 46 N. H. 230,
839. 337 ;
* Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.) Austin v. Hudson R. R. Co., 25
134 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 783 ; N. Y. 384, 341 ;
Crouch V. Puryear, 1 Rand. (Va.) Cook iJ.Champlain Transportation
358 ; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 528. Co., 1 Den. (N. Y.) 91 ;
» See : Ante, § 670. Pollard v. Shaafier, 1 U. S. (1 Dal.)
« Fay V. Brewer, 30 Mass. (3 Pick.) 310 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 104 ;
303, 305. Toleman v. Portbury, L. R. 5 Q.
' Fav V. Brewer, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) B. 288, 396 ; s.c. 39 L. J. Q. B.
303, 205 ; 136 ; 33 L. T. 38 ;
Baxters. Taylor, 1 Nev. & M. 18. Huntley v. Russell, 13 Q. B. 573,
See : Randall v. Cleaveland, 2 591 ; s.c. 66 Eng. C. L. 570.
Conn. 329 ; 589 ;
Jesser v. Gififord, 4 Burr. 31, 41 ; Greene v. Cole, 3 Saund. 644 ;
Queen's CoUege v. Hallett, 14 AttersoU v. Stevens, 1 Taunt.
554 LAITDS SUBJECT TO WASTE. [Book III.
Sec. 6Y3. Same— Tenants in dower and curtesy.— Tenants
in dower and curtesy, under the American doctrine, are
entitled to cut timber and clear lands ; they are only
restricted from clearing lands for cultivation when there
is already sufficient cleared for that purpose ; ^ and it has
even been held that such tenants may use timber for
making staves and shingles, where that was the ordinary
use and the only use to be made of such lands. ^ It is
said in the case of Owen v. Hyde,^ that the dowager is
not guilty of waste in cutting timber on one of the lots
included in the dower estate, not necessary for her sup-
port, but for purposes of profit, if the whole dower estate
does not receive lasting injury thereby, and sufficient
timber remains for the permanent use of the estate,
although part of the timber is used for fencing on
another- lot of the dower estate assigned to a different
heir.
Sec. 6T4. Same— Same— Permissive waste.— It is thought
that a tenant in curtesy or in dower is answerable for
waste committed by a stranger the same as other tenants
for life,* and take their remedy over against him.^
Sec. 675. Kinds of lands subject to waste.— Voluntary
waste may be committed upon cultivated fields, orchards,
gardens, meadows, and the like, by using them contrary
to the course of husbandry ;° or by tilling the land in an;
improper and negligent manner so as to exhaust the soil."
Waste is also committed upon wild or woodlands, under
the English law, by converting them into cultivated
lands, as well as by allowing tillable lands to be over-
run by brush.^
183, 198 ; B.C. 9 Eev. Eep. 731, ' See : Livingston v. Reynolds 3
744. Hill (N. Y.) 157 ;
' Loomis V. Wilbur, 5 Mas. C. C. 13. Keepers, etc., Harrow School v.
° Ballentine v. Poyner, 3 Hayw. Alderton, 3 Bos. & P. 86 : s.c
(N. C.) 110. 5 Eev. Rep. 546 ;
= 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 384 ; s.c. 37 Am. Doherty v. AUman, L. R. 3 App.
Dec. 467. Cas. 709, 735, 733 ; s.c. 39 Moak's
* See : Ante, § 671. Eng. Rep. 461 ;
^ Cook V. Champlain Transporta- Jervis v. Berridge, L. R. 8 Ch
tion Co., 1 Den. (N. Y.) 91 ; 351; s.c. 5 Moak's Eng. Rep.581;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 54a ; Townsend v. Stangroom, 6 Ves.
3 Inst. 145, 303. 338 ; s.c. 5 Rev. Rep. 313.
= See : Post, § 687. » 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53b.
Chap. XVI. § 676.] ACTS CONSTITUTING WASTE.
555
Sec. 6Y6. Acts constituting waste— General rule.— By the
laws of England it is considered waste to cut timber,^ or
to convert woodland into meadow or pasture or arable
land. In this country these rules have been modified to
some extent in reference to wild and uncleared lands
leased or held for agricultural purposes.^ Whether a par-
ticular act constitutes waste in this country is a question
of fact to be determined by a jury under the directions
of the court. It would seem that if the act does damage
to the reversion, and is not one of the ordinary uses to
which the land is properly put, it constitutes waste. In
the settlement of the question of waste the usages and
customs of the community in which the estate is situated
are always to be taken into consideration, because an act
which is waste in one part of the country may be a legit-
imate use of the land in another.^ In England the cut-
ting of timber is prima facie waste,* but in this country
if trees or timber are cut for the purpose of preparing
wild lands for cultivation,^ it is not waste,® unless the clear-
' Only waste to cut timber trees. — The
rule is thus stated : "It is not
waste to cut down trees which
are not timber, either by law
or by custom, or from the situ-
ation in which they are placed,
unless some special prejudice
arises thereby to the inherit-
ance. Nor is the proper and
regular thinning of a wood for
the purpose of improving the
rest of the trees waste, provided
it is done in a reasonable and
husbandmanlike manner."
Kerr on Injunctions, p. 240.
' McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 114 ;
Jackson v. Brownson, 7 John.
(N. y.) 337; B.C. 5 Am. Dec.
358;
Kidd V. Dennison, 6 Barb. (N.
Y.) 9.
3 Drown v. Smith, 53 Me. 141, 143 ;
Adams v. Brereton, 3 Har. & J.
(Md.) 124 ;
Pynchon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. (11
Met.) 304; s.c. 45 Am. Dec.
307;
Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18,
35 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ;
Morehouse v. Cotheal, 32 N. J.
L. (3 Zab.) 521 ;
Jackson v. Brownson, 7 Johns.
(N. Y.) 337 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec.
358;
Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf . Ch. (N.
Y.) 601 ;
Jackson v. Tibbits, 3 Wend. (N.
Y.) 341 ;
Davis V. Gilliam, 5 Ired. (N. C.)
Eq. 308, 311 ;
Ci-ockett V. Crockett, 2 Ohio St.
18U
Lynn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c.
37 Am. Dec. 721 ;
Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 293.
" See : Post, § 677.
' Lynn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c.
73 Am. Dec. 731.
Thus it is said in Owen v. Hyde,
6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 334; s.c. 37
Am. Dec. 467, that the clearing
of timber land for the purpose
of cultivation, on part of the
dower estate, where the land
already cleared is old and
worn out, and enough timber
is left for permanent use, is not
waste in this country, though
it might be otherwise In Eng-
land.
* Ward V. Sheppard, 3 Hayw. (N.
C.) 383 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 625 ;
Owen V. Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.)
334 ; s.c. 37 Am. Dec. 467.
556 -A-CTS CONSTITUTING WASTE. [Book III.
ing of land by the tenant is bad husbandry, and
without pretense that it is for estovers.-^ A life tenant
is not allowed to use wood to burn brick made from clay
dug on the land where the bricks are made for sale ; ^ nor
to cut and sell wood, for the reason that he has a right to
cut wood only for fuel and repairs.^ In this country
it is not waste in a tenant in curtesy or other tenant for
life to change pasture land into woodland by suffering
timber to grow thereon,^ as it is in England. In Eng-
land all alterations by the tenant become waste, ^ as by
converting two chambers into one, or pulling down a
house and rebuilding it in a different fashion, even
though the property is thereby made more valuable ; ® but
according to the American rule actual danaages to the
inheritance must be shown in order to establish waste.''
The following acts have been held to constitute waste:
Cutting hop-poles,^ cutting and selling wood for other
purposes than fuel and repairs,^ tearing boards from the
buildings and destroying fences ; i" but the following acts
are held not to be waste unless clearly shown to be
prejudicial to the inheritance ; such as changing ^^ nature
of property, ^2 erecting new houses, or opening a way on
' Chase v. Hazelton, 7 N. H. 171. « City of London v. Greyme, Cro.
' Livingston v. Reynolds, 3 Hill Jac. 183 ;
(N. Y.) 157 ; s.c. 36 Wend. (N. Graves' Case, H. 4 Jac. O. B.;
Y.) 115. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.), p. 53, note 3 ;
3 Ward V. Sheppard, 3 Hay w. (N. 3 Eol. Abr. 815, pi. 17, 18.
C.) 383 ; s.c. 3 Am. Dec. 625 ; 'See: Post, § 685.
Clemence v. Steere, 1 E.'I. 372; » Unless that is the ordinary method
s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 631. of managing tlie farm.
« See : Clark v. Holden, 73 Mass. Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373 ;
(7 Gray) 8, 10 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 631.
„ 450 ; 9 Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 372 ;
Pynohon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. (11 s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 631 ;
Met.) 304 ; s.c. 45 Am.Dec. 207. Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H.
Kestoriiig land to pasture land. —But 594; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 73.
it will be vt^aste for a tenant in As for the purpose of paying cost
life to cut timber trees on wood- of cutting firewood needed for
land, not for use on the estate, the house,
but done with the intention of Phillips v. Allen, 89 Mass. (7
restoring the land to the condi- . Allen) 115 ;
tion of pasture land, in which Padelford v. Padelford, 34 Mass
it was when the estate for life (7 Pick.) 153 ;
commenced, and although it Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H.
would be good husbandry on 594 ; s.c. 39 Am. Deo. 73.
the part of the owner in fee to '« Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373 ;
so restore it. s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621.
Clarke. Holden, 73 Mass. (7 Gray) " Pynchon v. Steams, 53 Mass. (11
, o ^- n ' P-?- n^A^^- ^^°' ^^°- Met.) 304 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 307.
'■bee: Post, § 685. « As converting arable land into
Chap. XVI. g§ 677, 678.] FELLING TIMBER.
557
the premises/ removing crib erected by life tenant but
not annexed to the freehold,^ or raising surface of land
by depositing earth thereon.^
Sec. 677. Same— l. Felling timber — General rule.— The
principal method of committing waste is by felling timber
trees, except they are cut for estovers, because trees are
not a part of the annual product of the land and belong
to the owner of the inheritance. The tenant for life has
only a qualified property in the trees on the estate, as
far as they afford him shade and shelter, and the right
to take the mast and fruit.* Consequently, by the old
rule a life tenant is held to a strict account for waste in
this matter, and confined to cut trees and timber for the
purpose of firewood and repairs ; ^ if he takes more of
the wood on the estate than is necessary to the enjoyment
of his estate, to the injury of the remainder in fee, he is
liable for waste. ^
Sec. 678. Same— Same- Amount to be taken.— A tenant
woodland, meadow into past-
ure, or the like, but it is held
otherwise in England, because
such alterations change the
course of husbandry.
Pynchon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. (11
Met.) 304; s.c. 45 Am. Deo. 207 ;
Jackson v. Brownson, 7 John. (N.
Y.) 327 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 258 ;
Clemence v. Steere. 1 E. I. 273 ;
s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 258.
' Pynchon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. (11
Met.) 304 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 307.
- aemence v. Steere, 1 B. I. 272 ;
s.c. 53 Am. Deo. 621.
' Pynchon v. Stearns, 53 Mass. (11
Met.) 304 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. 307.
* 1 Inst. 53a.
5 Phillips V. Allen, 89 Mass. (7 Allen)
115;
Cook V. Cook, 77 Mass. (11 Gray)
123 *
Clark v. Holden, 73 Mass. (7 Gray)
8 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 450 :
White V. Cuter, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.)
248;
Sargent v. Towne, 10 Mass. 303,
307;
Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18
s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ;
Johnson v. Johnson, 18 N. H. 594
s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 73 ;
Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373
s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 631.
Firewood for servants. — A tenant
for life may not only cut fire-
wood for his own house but
also for that of his servant who
cultivates the land, provided it
can be done without injury to
the inheritance (Gardiner v.
Derring.l Paige Ch.(N. Y.) 573),
unless indeed there be a scanty
supply of timber.
Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf . Ch. (N.
Y.)601.
Firewood and fancing timber — Cut-
ting elsewhere. — But a tenant
with the privilege of cutting
fii-ewood or fencing timber
cannot obtain his firewood or
fencing timber elsewhere, and
then cut as much timber from
the devised premises.
Van Deusen v. - Young, 29 N. Y.
10 ;
Clarke v. Cummings, 5 Barb. (N.
Y.) 340 ;
Attorney-General v. Stawell, 3
Anstr. 593, 601 ;
Gower v. Eyre, Ceo. Cooper's Chy.
Rep. 156.
Compare : Sarles v. Sarles, 3
Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 601.
« Johnson v. Johnson, 3 Hill (S. C.)
Eq. 377 ; s.c. 29 Am. Dec. 72.
558
TIMBER— AMOUNT TO BE TAKEN.
[Book III.
for life of farmijig lands is entitled to cut down and use
so much of the standing timber on the farm as may be
necessary for fuel, and for making and repairing fences
and buildings. In the case of wild and uncultivated
lands, in this country, he is entitled to cut down so much
of the timber as may be proper for the purpose of culti-
vation, or for other purposes required in the reasonable
cultivation or repair of the premises ; ^ provided, how-
ever, that he does not materially lessen the value of the
inheritance.^ To what extent wood may be' cut down
in the case of wild lands without exposing the party to
liability for waste is a question to be determined by a
jury under the directions of the court. ^
The general rule in this country is that a tenant for life
is liable to account for waste where he has cut down more
of the wood on the estate than is necessary to the enjoy-
ment of his estate, to the injury of the remainder in fee.*
' Lynn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c.
• V3 Am. Deo. 721.
' Van Deusen v. Young, 29 N. Y.
10;
Jackson v. Brownson, 7 John.
(N. Y.) 237 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec.
258;
Ward V. Sheppard, 2 Hayw. (N.
C.) 283 ; s.c. 2 Am. Dec. 625 ;
Owen V. Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.)
334 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 467 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 76.
In Tennessee, the law concerning
waste is construed liberally in
favor of the widow. She may
cut down timber for necessary
uses, provided the estate be not
injured, and enough be left for
permanent use.
Owen V. Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.)
334 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 467.
Clearing tunber land for purposes
of cultivation, on part of the
dower estate, where the land
already cleared is old and worn
out, and enough timber is left
for permanent use, is not waste
in this country, though it might
be otherwise in England.
Owen IK Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.)
334 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 467.
' Hickman v. Irvine, 3 Dana (Kv.)
133 ;
Jackson v. Brownson, 7 John. (N.
Y.) 237 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec. 358.
Thus it has been said that a tenant
for life does not exceed his
rights by cutting and using
timber to repair buildings on
the land, and by selling a very
moderate amount thereof, all
the timber taken being wortli
but a few hundred dollars, and
an abundance being left for the
full enjoyment of a privilege
to take the timber for the use
of a saw-mill, owned by the
tenant for life and another.
Dodd V. Watson, 4 Jones (N. C.)
Eq. 48 ; s.c. 72 Am. Dec. 577.
But it is thought that this case
cannot be safely followed as a
precedent, because it contra-
venes the general rule as to the
extent and nature of the use to
be made of the timber on the
premises.
See : Ante, % 677.
Permanently injuring: inheritance. —
It would be waste to cut down
all the timber, so as perma-
nently to injure the inheritance.
Jackson v. Brownson, 7 John.
(N. Y.) 237 ; s.c. 5 Am. Dec.
358.
Cleiring land by the tenant, which is
bad husbandry, and without pre-
tense that it is for estovers, is
waste.
Chase v. Hazelton, 7 N. H. 171.
" Johnson v. Johnson, 2 Hill (S. C.)
Eq. 377 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 72
Chap. XVI. § 680.] KINDS OF TREES— LOCAL CUSTOM. 559
Thus it has' been held by the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts that cutting timber trees on woodland by
the tenant for life not for the use of the estate, but with
the intention of restoring the land to the condition
of pasture land in which it was when the estate for life
commenced, is waste, although it would be good hus-
bandry in the owner in fee to make such alterations.^
Sec. 679. Same— Same— Particular kinds of trees. — Whe-
ther cutting any particular kinds of trees for fuel is waste
depends upon the situation and circumstances, and,, per-
haps, in some instances, on the custom of the district of
the country in which the land lies. Thus where oak-
trees are abundant and are in common use for fuel, it is
not waste to cut them for that purpose.^ In this country
no act of a tenant for life amounts to waste unless it is
or may be prejudicial to the inheritance.^ By the general
law of England, oak, ash, and elm trees are timber, pro-
vided they are of the age of twenty years and upwards ;
provided also that they are not so old as not to have a
reasonable quantity of usable wood in them, sufficient,
according to some writers, to make a good post.*
Sec. 680. Same— Same — Local custom as to tim.taer trees. —
The question of what timber is depends first on the
general law, that is, the law of the country, and con-
sequently on the special custom of the locality.^ It has
been said that the custom of the country may vary in two
ways : first of all, you may have trees called timber by the
custom of the country — beech in some countries, horn-
Englishrnle— Doctrine of Pacldngton's Abraham v. Budd, 3 Freem. 54 ;
Case.- It was held in Packing- Aston v. Aston, 1 Ves. 264 ;
ton's Case, 3 Atk. 316, that the Famworth v. Ferrers, 6 Ves. 419 ;
felling of three oaks growing Vane v. Barnard, 3 Vern. 738.
in the avenues of a park was ' Clark v. Holden, 73 Mass. (7 Gray)
waste, and the defendant was 8 ; s.c. 66 Am. Deo. 450.
restrained from the further '^ Padelford v. Padelford, 24 Mass.
cutting of trees in the avenues (7 Pick.) 153.
or drive-ways, and also from ^ Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18 ;
cutting trees not of proper s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705.
growth. The same doctrine is * Honywood v. Honywood, L. R. 18
laid down in the following Eq. Cas. 303 ; s.c. 9Moak'sEng.
cases • Rep. 819.
Simmons v. Norton, 7 Bing. 640 ; ' Honywood v. Honywood, L. R. 18
Gorges -y. Stanfleld, 3 Cro. Eliz. Eq. Cas.306 ; s.c. OMoak'sEng.
592 ; Rep. 819.
560 TIMBER IMPROPERLY CUT. [Book III.
bean in others, and even white-thorn and black-thorn,
and many other trees are considered timber in pecuHar
locahties — in addition to the ordinary timber trees. ^ Then
again, in certain locahties, arising probably from the
nature of the soil, the trees of even twenty yeai's old are.
not necessarily timber, but may go to twenty-four years,
or even to a later period if necessary ; and in other places
the test of when a tree becomes timber is not its age but
its girth. ^
Sec. 681. Sams— Same— Timber im.properly out — Property
in. — Where timber is severed from the land, by improperly
cutting by the tenant for life, or is blown down, it be-
longs to the owner of the first estate of inheritance.^
Where timber is cut by a stranger, it belongs to the
reversionei" and not to the tenant ; and if carried away,
the reversioner has a constructive possession, sufficient
to maintain trespass de bonis asportatis against the
stranger.* If the timber is cut by the tenant unneces-
sarily, he acquires no title thereto, and cannot convey
any to a purchaser.^ In a case where the court orders
timber to be cut for any reason, the proper course is for
the proceeds to be invested, and the income given to the
successive owners of the estate, until there is an absolute,
estate of inheritance, the owner of which is entitled to
' Honywood v. Honywood, L. E. 18 cut them himself, and to all
Eq. Cas. 306 ; s.c. 9 Moak's Eng. fair and proper thinnings, and
Rep. 819. to all coppices cut periodically
Honywood v. Honywood, L. R. 18 in the nature of crops.
Eq. Cas. 308 ; s.c. 9 Moak's Eng. * Bulkley v. Dolbeare, 7 Conn. 333.
Rep. 819. 6 Moores v. Wait, 3 Wend. (N. Y.)
' Bulkley v. Dolbeare, 7 Conn. 233 ; 104.
Phillips-y.Allen,89 Mass. (7 Allen) Proceeds of trees not timber— Eng-
™1^? ! „ ,, lish rule. —In England, however,
Clark V. Holden, 73 Mass. (7 Gray) a life tenant is entitled at law to
8 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 450 ; the proceeds of trees which are
Moores v. Wait, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) not timber cut by him, whe-
104 ; ther rightfully or wrongfully,
Honywood v. Honywood, L. R. though liable, where wrong-
18 Eq Cas. 306 ; s.c. 9 Moak's fully cut, to an action of waste.
Eng. Rep. 819. See : Bateman v. Hotchkin, 31
In Bateman v. Hotchkin, 31 Beav. Beav. 486;
488, a tenant for life, impeach- Pidgeley ■;;. Rawling, 3 Coll. 375 ;
able for waste, was held entitled Honywood v. Honywood L R
to have the benefit of the sale 18 Eq. Cas. 306 ; s.c. 9 Moak's
ot all such trees felled by the Eng. Rep. 819.
wind as he would be entitled to
Chap. XVI. § 682.] OPENING MINES.
rei
the principal ; and the same rule applies to cases of
equitable waste. ^
Sec. 682. Same— 2. Opening mines. — We have already
seen that a tenant for life cannot dig for gravel, lime,
coal, brick, earth, stone, and the like ; ^ unless, indeed, for
the purpose of manuring the land. He cannot open new
mines, but he may work mines already opened.^ Whether
a tenant for life can work old abandoned mines or pits
which have neither been worked nor prepared for work
by the preceding owner of the fee, or which he has not
worked, but has made preparation for working, there is
some question.* It is thought, however, that in the case
of minerals, the tenant for life may follow the vein already
opened up, and, for the purpose of working it more
advantageously, may even open new shafts and pits, and
make other improvements.^ In working mines already
' Honywood v. Honywood, L. E. 18
Eq. Cas. 306 : s.c. 9 Moak'sEng.
Eep. 819.
' Ante, § 583, et seq.
See : Chase v. Hazelton, 7 N. H.
171;
Parkins v. Coxe, 3 Hayw. (N. C.)
339;
Kidd V. Dennison, 6 Barb. (N. Y.)
9;
Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 272 ;
B.C. 53 Am. Dec. 621.
2 See : Ante, §§ 583-585 ;
Lenfers v. Henke, 73 111. 405; s.c.
24 Am. Rep. 263 ;
Hendrix v. McBeth, 61 Ind. 473 ;
B.C. 28 Am. Rep. 680 ;
Billings V. Taylor, 27 Mass. (10
Pick.)460 ; s.c. 20 Am. Dec. 533;
Reed v. Reed, 16 N. J. Eq. (1 C.
E. Gr.) 248 ;
Rockwell V. Morgan, 13 N. J. Eq.
(2 Beas.) 384, 389 ;
Coates V. Cheever, 1 Cow. (N. Y.)
460;
Kier v. Peterson, 41 Pa. St. 357,
361;
Lynn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c.
72 Am. Dec. 721 ;
Irwin V. Covode, 34 Pa. St. 162 ;
Neel V. Neel, 19 Pa. St. 323, 324 ;
Findlay «.8mith,6 Munf .(Va.) 134;
s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 733 ;
Crouch V. Puryear, 1 Rand. (Va.)
253-258 ; s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 528 ;
36
Hinley v. Russell, 13 Q. B., 573,
591 ; s.c. 66 Eng. C. L. 570, 589;
Knight V. Mosely, Amb. 176 ;
Moyle V. Mayle, Owen 66 :
Stoughton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 410.
■Working coal mine. — It is said in
the case of Crouch v. Puryear,
1 Rand. (Va.) 258 ; s.c. 10 Am.
Dec. 528, that it is not waste for
a tenant in dower of coal lands
to take coal to any extent from
a mine already opened, or to
sink new shafts into the same
veins, or to penetrate through a
seam already opened and to dig
into one lying under it.
" Viner v. Vaughan, 2 Beav. 466 ;
s.c. 4 Jur. 332.
See : Ante. g§ 583-585.
* See : Billings v. Taylor, 37 Mass.
(10 Pick.) 460 ; s.c. 20 Am. Dec.
533;
Coates V. Cheever, 1 Cow. (N. Y.)
460;
Kier v. Peterson, 41 Pa. St. 357,
361;
Lvnn's Appeal, 31 Pa. St. 44 ; s.c.
73 Am. Deo. 721 ;
Irwin V. Covode, 24 Pa. St. 162 ;
Findlay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.)
134 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 783 ;
Crouch V. Puryear, 1 Rand. (Va.)
253 : s.c. 10 Am. Dec. 528 ;
Clavering v.Clavering, 2 Pr.Wms.
388.
562 PULLING DOWN BUILDINGS. [Book III.
opened up, a tenant for life is entitled to cut timber from
the premises for mining operations.-^
Sec. 683. Same— 3. In respect to buildings — Pulling down
houses.— At common law a life tenant may be guilty of
waste to houses or other buildings by pulling them
down,^ or suffering them to be uncovered, whereby the
timbers become rotten, and the structure otherwise in-
jured ; but the bare suffering of buildings to become un-
covered without the rotting of the timber is not waste. ^
At common law waste will also be committed by pulling
down a house or other building, and rebuilding it in a
different fashion or place, even though the value of the
estate be enhanced thereby.* If the strict doctrine of
waste is to be applied, the pulling down of a barn and
building another eVen on the same farm, and on a more
convenient site, at the distance of a mile and a half,
might be considered waste, as destroying the evidence
of identity.^ If, however, a house be uncovered when
the tenant comes into possession, it is not waste for him
to suffer it to fall down ; but it would be waste for him
to pull it down, unless he rebuilt it.^ It has been said
that if a lessee for life razes a building and erects a
new one which is not so large as the former, it is
waste ; but where an old house falls down and the
tenant builds a new one, it need not be so large as the
old one. Whilo a life tenant is not ordinarily allowed
to tear down a building, yet if it has grown so ruinous
as to be dangerous to life or limb, or to stock, he may
do so with impunity.^
Sec. 684. Same— Same— Dilapidafions.— A tenant for life
is under obligations to keep the tenant's house or other
' Neelv. Neel, 19 Pa. St., 333 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621.
Finrllay v. Smith, 6 Munf. (Va.) '^ Knoll's Case, P. 9 Jac. B. C;
134 ; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 733. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53a, note 3.
2 Destruction of untenantable house.- * Graves' Case, 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.)
Destruction by life tenant of 53, note 3 ;
house not tenantable is waste, City of London v. Greyme, Cro.
unless it be with the reversion- Jac. 183 ;
er's consent ; and the life tenant 3 Rol. Abr. 815, pi. 17, 18.
is liable even if the hbuse be ' Huntley v. Russell, 13 Q. B. 573,
torn down without his permis- 588 ; s.c. 66 Eng. C. L. 570, 588.
sion after his leaving the pre- " 1 Inst. 53a.
mises. ' Clemence v. Steere, 1 E. I. 273 •,
Clemence v. Steere, 1 E. I. 372 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621.
Chap. XVI. § 684.] DILAPIDATIONS— WHEN LIABLE.
563
buildings in repair, and the premises in as good condition
as when he entered in possession of the estate, ordinary-
wear and tear excepted,^ and inevitable accident only
excepted.^ To the end that the tenant for life may keep
the premises in repair, as we have already seen,^ he may
cut and use the timber found upon the estate,* and is
obliged to repair, even though there be no timber on the
land.^ If the tenant for life fails to make requisite re-
pairs he is liable for waste where he permits buildings to
run to decay and become dilapidated,^ because a tenant
for life sans waste is obliged to repair, unless the charge
therefor be excessive.'^
Where there has been an extraordinary decay or de-
struction of the buildings and large sums of money will
be required to rebuild or repair ; and where the buildings
on the lands are in a state of decay at the time the tenant
came in possession, he will not be called upon to repair.^
' See : Doe ex d. Thomson v. Amey,
13 Ad. & E. 476 ; s.o. 14 Eng.
ri T 239 •
Wise V. Metcalf, 10 Bam. & C.
299 ; s.c. 31 Eng. C. L. 132 ;
Torriano v. Young, 6 Car. &, P.
8 ; s.c. 35 Eng. C. L. 295 ;
Ausworth V. Johnson, 5 Car. & P.
239 ; s.c. 24 Eng. C. L. 545 ;
BwUock V. Dommitt, 6 T. R. 650 ;
s.o. 8 Rev. Rep. 300.
Eepairing house out of rents and pro-
fits.— In the case of Cook v.
Cholmondeley, 4 Jur. N. S. 837;
s.c. 37 L. J. 826, where a tes-
tator gave land to a tenant for
life, with remainder over, and
directed his trustees out of the
rents and profits to keep the
building in good repair, the
court held that these buildings
which were in bad repair at his
death must be put in good re-
pair out of the rents and profits.
2 Destruction of house hy mob.— Thus
it has been held that a tenant
is liable in an action on the case
in the nature of waste, where
a house is destroyed by a mob,
when the tenant had. reason to
beheve that such mob would
attack the house on account of
his using the same for the pur-
pose of distributing a certain
newspaper.
See : White i\ Wagner, 4 Har.
& J. (Md.) 873 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec.
674.
3 See : Ante, §§ 655, 677, et seq.
* WaUs V. Hmds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray)
356 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64 ;
Miles V. Miles, 33 N. H. 147 ; s.c.
64 Am. Dec. 863 ;
Wilson V. Edmonds, 34 N. H. (4
Post.) 517 ;
Kearney v. Kearney, 17 N. J. Eq.
(3 C. E. Gr.) 504 ;
Harder v Harder, 36 Barb. (N.
y.) 409 ;
Langv. Fitzsimmons, 1 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 530 ;
Harvey v. Harvey, 41 Vt. 373 ;
Darcy v. Askwith, Hob. 334 ;
Griffith's Case, Moore 69 ;
Sticklehome v. Hatohman, Owen
48;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53a.
= 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53b, 54b.
" Parteriche v. Powlet, 3 Atk. 383.
See : Langley v. Furlong, 1 Dick.
815.
■' Parteriche v. Powlet, 3 Atk. 383.
See : Ante, §§ 600, 601.
8 Fay V. Brewer, 30 Mass. (3 Pick.)
308;
Wilson V. Edmonds, 34 N. H. (4
Post.) 517 ;
Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373 ;
s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 631.
564 ALTERATIONS WASTE WHEN. [Book III.
Thus it has been said that if a life tenant receives a house
in such a state as not to be repairable, or so dilapidated
that the expense of repairing would be beyond the value
of the house, he is not bound to repair and may leave it
to its natural destruction. But if the house is such that
repair would make it tenantable, he is bound to make the
repairs.^
Sec. 685. Same — Same — Alterations. — According to the
old rule, all alterations in a house or other buildings
become waste when there cannot be a complete restora-
tion at the end of the term ; ^ such as the removal of
wainscots, the opening of windows or doors, or chang-
ing the building from a dwelling to a store-room, or
moving the location of the building ; ^ but, according
to the modem and more liberal rule, actual damages
must be shown in order to maintain an action.^ If the
tenant changes the nature of the house by altering it
injuriously, as by changing it into a warehouse with
machinery for raising he'avy packages, it will be waste ; ''
but if the alteration is not injurious either to the build-
ing or to the title of inheritance, it will not be waste.®
Thus any slight or immaterial change, such as the cut-
' ClemeBce v. Steere, 1 R. I. 273 ; City of London v. Greyme, Cro.
S.C. 53 Am. Dec. G21. Jac. 183.
» Graves' Case, 1 Co. Litt. (lOtlied.), ■* Webster v. Webster, 33 N. H. 18,
p. 53, note 3 ; 25 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 705 ;
City of London v. Greyme, Cro. Jackson v. Andrew, 18 Jolin. (N.
Jac. 182 ; Y.) 431 ;
3 Rol. Abr. 815, pi. 17, 18. McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. 114 ;
' Austin V. Stevens, 24 Me. 520 ; Jackson v. Tibbits, 3 Wend. (N.
Walls V. Hinds, 70 Mass. (4 Gray) Y.) 141 ;
256 ; s.c. 64 Am. Dec. 64 ; Young v. Spencer, 10 Barn. & C.
Maunsell v. Hart, 11 Jr. Reports 145 ; s.c. 27 Eng. C. L. 70 ;
Eq. 478 ; Doe ex d. Grubb v. Burlington, 5
Agate V. Lowenbein, 57 N. Y. Barn. & Ad. 507 ; s.c. 37 Eng.
604; C.L. 217; ^
Douglass V. Wiggins, 1 John. Ch. Phillips v. Smith, 14 Mees. & W
(N. Y.) 435 ; 595.
McManus v. Cooke, L. R. 35 Ch. ' Hasty v. Wheeler, 13 Me. (3 Fairf .)
Div. 681, 695 ; s.c. 56 L. J. Ch. 434, 439 ;
^ ^^^ ' ^ , „ Douglass V. Wiggins, 1 John. Ch.
Greene v. Cole, 3 Saund. 252 ; (N. Y.) 435 ;
Huntley v. Russell, 13 Q. B. 588 ; Doe ex d. Daltonv. Jones, 4 Barn
s.o. 66 Eng. C. L. 573 ; & Ad. 126 ; s.c. 24 Eng. C. L.
Jackson v. Cator, 5 Ves. 688 ; s.c. 64 ;
5 Rev. Rep. 144 ; Bonnett v. Sadler, 14 Ves. 536 ;
Graves' Case, 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.), s.c. 9 Rev. Rep. 341.
p. 53, note 3. s Young v. Spencer, 10 Barn. & C.
145 ; s.c. 27 Eng. C. L. 70.
Chap. XVI. § 687.] CHANGING COURSE OF HUSBANDEY. 565
ting of a door, or the opening of two rooms into one,
will be permissible, in all cases where it will be possible
for the premises to be restored to their original condition
at the end of the term.
Sec. 686. Same— Same— Erection of new buildings.— It is
thought that the erection of new buildings, or the open-
ing of new ways, on the premises by the life tenant will
not be accounted waste, ^ even though cellars are dug
under the houses, and drains are made on either side of
the way.^ Particularly is this true if the building is
an agricultural fixture which the tenant may remove
according to the law of fixtures, as hereinbefore set out.*
Ordinarily it is not an act of waste to erect such a build-
ing, and the tenant may remove it at the expiration of
the estate, if he can do so without materially injuring
the inheritance.'*
Sec. 687. Same — 4. Changing course of husbandry. — By the
common law it was waste to convert one kind of land
into another ; such as plowing up meadow or pasture
lands, and sowing them to grain, and allowing agricult-
ural lands to run to pasture lands, because it not only
changes the course of husbandry, but also the evidence
of the estate under the English law ; and for this the
tenant was answerable to the remainderman.^ But in
the improved state of agriculture, the old doctrine of
waste respecting a change of the course of husbandry is
no longer applied in England,^ and never was applicable
to the new and unsettled condition of this country.^
' Beers v. St. John, 16 Conn. 322, Dozier v. Gregory, 1 Jones (N. C.)
329 ; L- 100 :
Winship v. Pitts, 3 Paige Ch. (N. MoCullough v. Irvine, 13 Pa. St.
Y.) 259 ; 438 ;
Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Clemence v. Steere, 1 E. I. 273 ;
Y.) 601 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621.
Jackson v. Tibbett, 3 Wend. (N. Compare : Conkliu v. Foster, 57
Y.) 341 ; 111. 104.
Jones V. Chappelle, L. E. 30 Eq. ^ Darcy v. Askwith, Hob. 234 ;
539 ; s.c. 15 Moak's Eng. Eep. 2B1. Com. 282;
475. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53a.
« Pynclion v. Stearns, 52 Mass. (11 * Principals Harrow School v. AJ-
Met.) 804 : s.c. 45 Am. Deo. 207 derton, 2 Bos. & P. 86 ; s.c. 5
' See : Ante, bk. I., c. IV. Eev. Eep. 546.
« Austin V. Stevens, 24 Me. 530 ; ' See : Jackson ex d. VanEensellaer
Washburn v. Sproat, 16 Mass. v. Andrew, 18 John. (N. Y.)
499 ; 431 ;
566 FOULING LANDS— REMOVING MANURE. [BOOK IIL
Whether it will be waste in this country to convert
meadow or pasture land into plow lands, or woodland
into farm land, and the like, is a question of fa'ct.^ The
general rule in this country is that no such change will
be waste unless it results in a permanent injury to the
inheritance. In each case it is a question of fact whether
a particular act is waste, and is largely governed by the
usages and customs of the community.^
Seo. 688. Same — Same — ^Permitting laud to become foul. —
A tenant for life is obliged to use the land in the manner
required by the rules of good husbandry. Permitting
pasture to become overrun with brush, while waste on
the part of the tenant for life in England, will not be so
in this country unless there be such neglect in cutting
the brush as a man of ordinary prudence would not
permit.^ Biit the renaoval of manures or grasses and
the decaying of turf, which the rules of good husbandry
require to be left upon the land to enrich it, will be
waste in this country as well as in England.* The
reason for this is that, in the absence of any particular
agreement dispensing with that engagement, the tenant
for life is bound to cultivate the estate in a husbandlike
manner, and to consume the produce on it for its enrich-
ment and preparation for future crops. ^ The manure
Kidd V. Dennison, 6Baxb. (N. Y.) 334 ; s.c. 27 Am. Dec. 467 ;
9. Keeler v. Eastman, 11 Vt. 398.
" See : Crockett v. Crcxjkett, 3 Ohio * See : Clark v. Holden, 73 Mass. (7
St. 180 ; Gray) 8 ; s.c. 66 Am. Dec. 450 ;
Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 273 ; Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N.
s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621. Y.) 601 ;
2 See : Proffltt v. Henderson, 39 Mo. Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373 ;
335, 337 ; s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621.
Webster v. Webster, 38 N. H. 18, " Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (31 Pick.)
35 ; s.c. 66 Am. Deo. 705 ; 367, 371 ; s.c. 33 Am. Dec. 269;
McGregor v. Brown, 10 N. Y. Plummer v. Plummer, 80 N. H.
114, 118 ; (10 Post.) 558 ;
Sarles v. Sarles, 8 Sandf. Ch. (N. Middlebrook r. Corwin, 15 Wend.
Y.) 601 ; (N. Y.) 169 ;
Crockett v. Crockett, 3 Ohio St. Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N.
180 ; Y.) 601 ;
Jones V. Whitehead, 1 Pars. (Pa.) Lewis v. Jones, 17 Pa. St. 363 ;
304 ; s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 550 ;
Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 373 ; Harris v. Mins, 30 W. R. 999.
s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 631 ; * Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend.
Owen V. Hyde, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) (N. Y.) 169, 171.
Chap. XVI. §§ 689-692.] POWER TO COMMIT— FIRE. 557
made upon premises held for agricultural purposes be-
longs to the premises and not to the tenant. ■"
Sec. 689. Same— 5. Destruction of heirlooms.— In England,
where some chattels are considered in law as part of the
inheritance, and called heirlooms, the destruction of such
chattels is waste. Thus if a tenant for life of a dove-
house, vivary, or warren, kills so many of the doves,
deer, fish, or game that there is not sufficient left for the
stores, it is waste. ^
Sec. 690. Partial powers to comm.it waste. — There are
some cases in which estates for life were granted, with
partial powers to commit waste. In such cases the ten-
ant will not be liable to impeachment for such waste,
but a Court of Chancery will interpose to restrain the
tenants from exceeding such powers.
Sec. 691. Waste by ecclosiastics.—Ecclesiastical persons,
such as bishops, rectors, parsons, vicars, and the like,
being considered in most respects as tenants for life of
the lands which they hold jure ecclesia, are prohibited
from committing any kind of waste, and if they cut
down trees for any other purpose than reparations they
are punishable in ecclesiastical courts as well as by writ
of prohibition.^
Sec. 692. Destruction by fire.- Under the head of per-
missive waste, the tenant for life is answerable if the
houses or other buildings on the premises are destroyed
by fire from the negligence or carelessness of himself or
his servants ; and he must rebuild within a convenient
time at his own expense.* The life tenant is not liable,
however, if the fire is the result of an accident, and he
and his servants are free from fault.®
' Middlebrook v. Corwin, 15 Wend. Gray v. Holdship, 17 Serg. Sc R.
rN Y.) 169 ; (Pa.) 413 ; s.c. 17 Am. Dec. 690.
Lewis V. Jones, 17 Pa. St. 263 ; ^ 1 inst. 53a ; 3 Id. 304.
s.c. 55 Am. Dec. 550. See : Baxter v. Taylor, 1 Nev. &
See : Daniels v. Pond, 38 Mass. (31 M. 13.
Pick.) 367 : s.c. 33 Am. Dec. ^ See : Pos*, § 695, eif seg.
269 • * See : 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 81.
Kittre'dge v. Woods, 3 N. H. 503 ; « MauU v. Wilson, 3 Har. (Del.)443;
s o 14 Am. Dec. 393 ; Barnard v. Poor, 38 Mass. (31
Bishop V. Bishop, 11 N. Y.133,137; Pick.) 378 ;
568
WITHOUT IMPEACHMENT.
[Book III.
Sec. 69-3. WitliGut impeaehment 'of waste.— At common
law a tenant for life, without impeachment of waste, had
much the same character as a tenant in fee, except as to
duration of the estate. He might cut down trees and
open mines, and take the product for his own benefit.^
It was formerly the practice in England, where estates
for life were expressly limited, to insert a clause that the
tenant for life should have the lands "without impeach-
ment of waste," which words were originally held to
exempt the tenant for life from the penalty of the stat-
utes of Marlebridge ; ^ hut it is laid down by Lord Coke,
that the words "without charge or impeachment of
waste " enabled the tenant for life to cut down timber
and convert it to his own use. This will be otherwise,
however, where the words are "without impeachment
of any action of waste," for in that case the discharge
extends to the action only and not to the property or the
timber.^ In equity a more limited construction is given
to the clause "without impeachment of waste," which
allows to the tenant for life those powers only which a
prudent tenant in fee would exercise. He can pull down
or dilapidate houses, destroy pleasure-grounds, prostrate
respecting the tenant's responsi-
bility for accidental fires, as
coming under the head of this
species of waste. I am not
aware that the statute of Anne
has, except in one instance,
been formally adopted in any
of the states. It was intimated,
upon the argument in the case
of White V. Wagner, 4 Har. &
J. (Md.)373, 381-385; s.c. 7 Am.
Deo. 674, that the question had
not been decided ; and conflict-
ing suggestions were made by
counsel. Perhaps the univer-
sal silence in our courts upon
the subject of any such respon-
sibility of the tenant for acci-
dental fires is presumptive evi-
dence that the doctrine of per-
missive waste has never been
inti-oduced, and carried to that
extent,in the common-law juris-
prudence of the United States."
' Bowles' Case, 1 Co. 79a. 83b ;
2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 220a.
•2 See : Ante, § 670.
' 1 Inst. 23a.
Lansing v. Stone, 37 Barb. (N. Y.)
15 ; s.c. 14 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 199 ;
Althorf V. Wolfe, 32 N. Y. 355,
366;
Clark V. Foot, 8 John. (N. Y.)
431;
Spaulding v. Chicago & N. W.
E. Co., 30 Wis. 110 ; s.o. 11
Am. Rep. 550 ;
FiUiter v. Phippard, 11 Q. B. 347 ;
s.c. 63 Eng. C. L. 346.
The statute of 6 Anne, c. 31, made
tenants for life free from the
consequence of accidental fires
by declaring that no suit
should be brought against any
person in whose house or cham-
ber any fire should accidentally
begin ; prior to this statute
tenants were liable, under the
statute of Gloucester.
See : Ante, § 670.
Same — In tMs country. — As for per-
missive waste. Kent says (4
Kent Com. ,13th ed. ,83) : ' ' there
does not appear to have been
any question raised, and judi-
cially decided in this country,
Chap. XVI. § 694.] EEMEDIES FOR WASTE. 509
trees planted for ornament or shelter/ but may not com-
mit malicious waste so as to destroy the estate, which is
called equitable waste ; for in that case the Court of
Chancery will not only stop him by injunction, but will
also order him to repair, if possible, the damages he has
already done.
Sec. 694. Hemedies for waste — 1. Writof estrepementand
writ of waste.— At common law the remedies against
waste were: (1) A prohibition commanding the sheriff to
prevent its being done, technically called the writ of
estrepement,^ and (2) a writ of waste after the injury
had been done to recover the place wasted and treble
damages under the statute.^ The writ of estrepement
and writ of waste were at one time common in some
of the states of the Union, as in Delaware,* Mary-
land,^ and Pennsylvania, where the ancient writ of
estrepement to prevent the commission of waste was in
use on the revision of the civil code of Pennsylvania in
1835.^ Here and in England, alike, these writs have
fallen into disuse, and are now seldom or never brought,
having given way for the more easy and expeditious
remedy, an action on the case, in the nature of waste at
common law ; by which the plaintiff obtained satisfaction
for the injury to the inheritance by the recovery of
' Packington v. Packington, 3 Atk. has fallen into disuse ; although
215 ; in a variety of other cases the
Eolt V. Lord Somerville, 2 Eq. Court of Chancery exercises its
Cas. Abr., tit. "Waste," pi. 8 ; conservative power to protect
Vane v. Lord Barnard, 3 Vern. the subject of litigation from
739 ; s.c. 1 Salk. 161. waste, injury, or loss, pending
' Anderson's L. Diet. 417. a suit. Id.
The writ of estrepement lay at com- ^ Ante, §670.
mon law in aid of an action to See : Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's
recover real property or to pre- Ch. (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Deo.
vent an injury being done 350.
thereto ; it was corrective as * Greenly v. Hall, 3 Har. (Del.) 9.
well as preventive, for if the " Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
prohibition was violated the (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 850,
plaintiff might recover dam- 356 ;
ages Adams v. Brereton, 3 Har. & J.
Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. (Md.) 124 ;
(Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Deo. 2 Harr. Ent. 189, 800.
35()_ « In Virginia the action of waste at
To prevent waste, pending a suit law is never brought. The
to determine a title, the only remedy is exclusively in chan-
remedy in England seems to be eery. 1 Robinson Pr. 560.
the writ of estrepement, which
570
REMEDIES— INJUNCTION.
[Book III.
damages alone. ^ In some of the states resort is had to
injunction from chancery, which performs the ofifice of a
writ of estrepement.^
Sec. 695. Same— 2. Injunction.- At common law there
was no prohibition against waste, against a life tenant
deriving his interest from an act of the party. The
remedy was by writ of estrepement and writ of waste.^
These writs are essentially obsolete, and the modern
rule in this country, as well as in England, is to
resort to the prompt and efficacious remedy by an
injunction bill, to stop the commission of waste,
when the injury would be irreparable ; or by a
special action on the case in the nature of waste, to
recover damages.* The Supreme Court of Maryland say,
' Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
(Md.) 569; s.o. 18 Am. Dec.
350;
McLaughlin v. Long, 5 Har. & J.
(Md.) 113 ;
"White V. Wagner, 4 Har. & J.
(Md.) 373 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec. 674;
Greene v. Cole, 3 Saund. 253,
note 7 ;
3 Bl. Com. 327.
^ See ; Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's
Ch. (Md.) 560, 569 ; s.c. 18 Am.
Dec. 350 ;
1 Robinson Pr. 560.
Permissive waste — The remedy by
an action on the case in the nature
of waste has been held (Gibson
V. WeUs, 4 Bos. & P. 390 : s.c.
8 Rev. Rep. 801 ; Heme v. Bem-
bow, 4 Taunt. 764 ; Powys v.
Blagrave, 4 DeG. M. & G.
448) not to lie for permissive
vraste. If this last doctrine be
well founded (and it may very
reasonably be doubted), then
recourse must be had, in certain
cases, — as where the premises
are negligently suffered to be
dilapidated, — to the old and sure
remedy of a writ of waste, and
which, so far as it is founded
either upon the common law
or upon the statute of Glou-
cester (6 Edw. I. , c. 5), has been
generally received as law in
this country, and is applicable
to all kinds of tenants for life
and years. 4 Kent Com. (13th
ed.) 79. It has been said that
waste would not lie at common
law against the lessee for life
or years ; for the lessor might
have restrained him by cove-
nant or condition. Shrews-
bury's Case, 5 Co. 13 ; 3 Inst.
399. But Mr. Reeves insists
that the common law provided
a remedy against waste by all
tenants for life and for years,
and that the statute of Glou-
cester only made the remedy
more specific and certain.
Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.)
11, 73, 184.
3 See : Ante, § 604.
''Dickinson v. Mayor, etc., 48 Md.
583; s.c. 30 Am. Rep. 492.
Cutting of line trees will be re-
strained by injunction if of suf-
ficient importance.
Relyea v. Reaver, 34 Barb. (N. Y.)
547 ; s.c. affirmed sub nom.
Dubois V. Beaver, 35 N. Y. 133.
In Maryland, the Court of Equity
will not grant an injunction to
restrain a party from cutting
trees, where it appears that
they are of no particular value,
and with adequate compensa-
tion for their destruction by an
action at law. Powell v. Rol-
lins, 63 Md. 239. But it is
thought that this case will not
be followed elsewhere. The
difficulty of the court in ade-
quately compensating the
owner for the value of trees
cut in the settled portion of our
Chap. XVI. § 696.] CHAEACTER OF REMEDY. 5^1
in the case of Duvall v. Waters/ that the whole subject
of waste seems to have passed almost together from the
cognizance of the courts of common law to that of the
Court of Chancery, and the shifting of this matter so
entirely from the one jurisdiction to the other may be
attributed to the nature of the injury requiring redress ;
to the different constitutions of the tribunals ; and to
their peculiar modes of proceeding. Waste is a wrong
which cannot always be duly estimated and remunerated
in damages ; it is an injury which requires to be met, in
its onset or earliest approaches, by a strong and decisive
preventive remedy, acting with a promptness almost
amounting to surprise, and yet affording to the party
restrained a speedy hearing. No adequate remedy of
this kind, it is evident, can be obtained from a court of
common law, open only at short intervals during the
year, acting from term to term, and limited to a given
set of technical forms of proceeding. Hence it is that the
remedy has been so constantly, in modern times, sought
in the Court of Chancery, which is always open, con-
stantly accessible, and is capable of moving with an
energy and dispatch called for by the emergency, and
suited to the peculiar nature of the case.
Sec. 696. Same— Same— Character of the remedy.— The
modern remedy in chancery, by injunction, is broader
than the old remedy at law. Equity will interpose in
many cases, and stay waste, where there is no remedy at
law. If there was an intermediate estate for life, be-
tween the lessee for life or the remainderman or rever-
sioner in fee, the action of waste would not lie at law ;
for it lay on behalf of him who had the next immediate
estate of inheritance.^ The remedy by injunction is
generally limited to those cases in which the title is clear
and undisputed ; ^ privity of estate or of contract not ap-
pearing between the parties, or the complaint not showing
country is apparent. Am. Dec. 350.
See : Stanford v. Hurlstone, L. R. '1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 53b, 54a.
9 Ch. App. 116 ; s.c. 8 Moak's ^ See : Storm v. Mann, 4 John. Ch.
Eng. Rep. 775. (N.Y.)21.
> 1 Bland's Ch. (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Pillsworth v. Hopton, 6 Ves. 51.
572 WHEN GRANTED. [Book m.
a clear legal or equitable title, the question will not in-
tervene.^
EC. 697. Same— Same— WTien granted.- In general, an
injunction may be obtained in this country, as in Eng-
land, to stay waste in all cases where an action would lie
at common law,^ whether there be any privity of title or
not.^ And an injunction may be granted where no ac-
count of damages could be claimed, or where the waste
done is so insignificant that there could be no recovery of
damages at law.* An injunction will also be granted in
special cases, as where the party committing the waste is
insolvent,^ or where some of the heirs have filed their
bUl in court against the rest, to obtain a partition accord-
ing to the act to direct descent, and one of the heirs, who
is in possession, is committing waste ; and upon a rep-
resentation of the fact by the trustee to make sale of
lands, for the purpose of effecting a partition, he wUl be
restrained by injunction.^ An injunction will be granted
against a life tenant, also, where the tenant affects the
inheritance in an unreasonable and an unconscientious
manner, even though the lease be granted without im-
peachment of waste." Thus it has been held that an
injunction will lie to restrain a tenant tilling a farm con-
trary to the established rotation of crops on it, and con-
trary to the usage of that part of the country.® Injunc-
' See : Boulo v. New Orleans, M. & 5 Rev. Rep. 546 ;
T. R. Co., 55 Ala. 480, 488 ; Umveraities of Oxford v. Richard-
Falls Village W. P. Co.'y. Tibbetts, son, 6 Ves. 706.
31 Conn. 16.5 ; ' Smallman v. Onions, 3 Bro. C. C.
Roath V. Driscoll, 20 Conn. 533 ; 631.
s.c. 52 Am. Dec. 352 ; « DuTall v. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
Echelkamp v. Schrader, 45 Mo. Old.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350;
505; Clarke v. Clarke, MS., January'
Irwin V. Dixion, 50 U. S. (9 How.) 24, 1882.
10,28; bk. 13L. ed. 25, 33. 'See: Kane v. Vanderburgh, 1
' DuvaU V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. John. Ch. (N. Y.) 11 ;
(Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Deo. 350. Perrot v. PeiTot, 3 Atk. 94 ;
Ordinary use and cultivation will Tracy v. Hereford, 2 Bro. C. C.
not be inliibited by injunction. 138 :
Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. Vane v. Barnard, 2 Vern. 738 ;
(JId.) 568 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350. Aston v. Aston, 1 Ves. Sr. 264 ;
See : Ante, § 687. Briggs v. Earl of Oxford, 16 Jur.
5 See : Post, § 700. 53.
« Duvall V. Waters. 1 Bland's Ch. s "Wilds v. Layton, 11 Del. Ch. 226 ;
(Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350; s.c. 12 Am. Dec. 91.
Keepers, etc., Harrow School v. Injudicious husbandry, or tilling the
Alderton, 2 Bos. & P. 86 ; s.c. land in an unhusbandmanlike
Chap. XVI. §§ 698-700.] PERMISSIVE WASTE. 573
tion is a remedy to prevent an imminent loss where there
is no other adequate redress ; consequently it is only
under special circumstances will the court grant an in-
junction where waste has been committed by a tenant to
prevent his removing timber which had been cut. Ordi-
narily, it will only interfere to prevent or stay future
waste ; ^ but a bill for account for past waste may be
allowed in a proper case to prevent multiplicity of suits. ^
Sec. 698. Same — Same— Same— Threat to com.mit waste. —
A mere threat on the part of the tenant for life to commit
waste will furnish a sufficient foundation for an injunc-
tion being granted before any waste has actually been
done.^
Sec. 699. Same— Same— Same— Permissive waste.— A court
of equity will not interfere in case of permissive waste
by the tenant for life at the instance of the remainder-
man or reversioner, either by injunction,* or give satis-
faction against an equitable tenant for life.^
Sec. 100. Same— Same— Privity of title.— In England an
injunction to stay waste will be granted where there is a
subsisting privity of title or contract admitted by the
answer, or an uncontroverted legal or equitable title in
the plaintiff; but not where the bill states that the
defendant relies upon an alleged adverse title in himself,
or where the plaintiff's title is positively denied by the
manner, or bad farming merely, Hannay i'. MoEntire, 11 Ves. 54.
however, has been held not to ■■ Warren u. Rudall, lJohn.& H. 1 ;
constitute an injury to the in- s.c. 39 L. J. Ch. 543.
heritance for which an action Compare : CaldwaU v. Baylis, 2
for waste would lie, in a case Meriv. 408.
containing exactly the same * See : Powys v. Blagrave, 4 DeG.
facts as in the principal case, so M. & G. 448 ; s.c. 24 L. J. Ch.
far as the nature of the injury 143;
to the soil complained of is con- Exp. Godfrey, Warren v. Rudall,
cemed. 1 John. & H. 1 ; s.c. 29 L. J. Ch.
See:Richardst;. Torbert, SHoust. ^S^^! , „ ,. „„ . ,._
(Del ) 172. Caldwall v. Baylis, 2 Meriv. 408.
' Watson V. Hunter, 5 John. Ch. ' Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
(N Y.) 169 ; s.c. 9 Am. Dec. 295. (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350;
'- See- Post % 703. Hvighlett v. Harris, 1 Del. Ch.
' See: Duvall ■y.Waters,lBland's Ch. 349 ; s.c. 13 Am. Dec. 104.
(Md)569; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350; "Waste, who may have action for.^
Gibson v. Smith, 3 Atk. 183 ; At the time the waste is com-
Coffin V. Coffin, Jac. 70 ; mitted, the party must have the
574 PRIVITY OF TITLE. [Book III.
It appears to be even yet a fixed rule of the Court of
Chancery of England that the granting of an injunction
to stay waste must depend either upon the fact of there
being a privity of title or contract acknowledged by the
answer ; or an unquestionable legal or equitable title in
the plaintiff, as where a purchaser files a bill for a spe-
cific performance of his contract, suggesting that the de-
fendant was proceeding to cut timber, etc., an injunction
may be granted, if the contract be stated and admitted.
For if the bill states and admits that the defendant as-
serts and relies upon what he alleges to be a valid adverse
title in himself, the plaintiff thereby states himself out
of court ; or if the defendant in his answer positively de-
nies the plaintiff's title, the injunction will be refused,
or, having been granted, will, on the coming in of such
an answer, be dissolved.-^ In this country the prevailing
rule is that privity of title or contract is unnecessary to
support an injunction against waste ; and that it will be
granted whenever an action of waste would lie at com-
mon law, whether there is privity of title or not, and in
other cases where such an action could not be brought ; ^
but a legal title in the plaintiff is necessary to support an
action of waste.*
title to the land, to sustain his Buvall v. "Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
action for the injury. (Md.) 569; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350 ;
Hughlettt). Harris, 1 Del. Ch. 349; = Duvall v. "Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
s.c. 12 Am. Dec. 104. (Md.) 569; s. c. 18 Am. Dec. 350 ;
This writ is treated as a rem- Woodson v. Good, 6 "Watts & S.
edy against waste, but where (Pa.) 169 ;
there is no privity of title be- Wyant v. Deiffendafer, 3 Grant
tween the parties in the action , (Pa.) 334.
to which it is auxiliary, the in- In Peimsylvaiiia, it is held that a
jury which it seeks to prevent cestui que trust after attaining
Ls, in chancery acceptation, full age, can maintain an action
trespass rather than waste. for waste against the trustee,
Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. without first obtaining a con-
(Md.)569; S.C. 18Am. Dec. 350. veyance of the legal title.
' DuvaU V. "Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. Wyant v. Deiffendafer, 3 Grant
(Md.) 569; s.c. 18 Am. Deo. 350 ; (Pa.) 834. And in Woodson «.
Stoi-m V. Mann, 4 John. Ch. (N. Y.) Good, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 169, an
21 ; equitable tenant for life was
Norway v. Eowe, 19 Ves. 147 ; considered liable in an action
Smith V. Collyer, 8 Ves. 89 ; of waste at the suit of a holder
PiUsworth V. Hopton, 6 Ves. 51. of the legal title in trust.
Denial of tie plaintiff's title, how- ^ Whitney v. Morrow, 34 Wis. 644 •
ever, in the answer does not GiUett v. Treganza' 13 Wis! 473 ;'
warrant the dissolution of an Loudon v. Warfield, 5 J. J. Marsh.
injunction against waste pend- (Ky.) 196.
ing the suit.
Chap. XVI. § 702.] FOE WHOM GRANTED.
B7l
Sec. TOl. Same— Same— in favor of whom granted. — An
injunction against a life tenant to stay waste will be
granted in favor of a remainderman^ or reversioner, ^
where there is an intervening estate for life ; ^ in favor
of any one entitled to a contingent or executory estate
of inheritance ; * in favor of trustees to preserve a con-
tingent remainder before the contingent remainderman
has come in esse ; ^ and it may be granted in favor of a
child en ventre sa mere.^
Sec. T02. ^ame— Same— Against whom granted. — An in-
junction to stay waste may be granted against a tenant
for hfe holding the estate under either a deed or devise,
and may also be granted, on proper conditions shown, as
between tenants in common'' or joint tenants and co-
parceners against malicious destruction, or when the
' Eemamderman has right to stay
waste on premises in which
he is interested. Miles v.
MHes, 32 N. H. 147 ; s.c. 64
Am. Dec. 362. But a remain-
derman cajinot maintain action
for waste after taking lease
from the tenant of the preced-
ing estate for years, for his full
term, for part of the land, as
to the part of the land so leased,
whether the waste was com-
mitted before or after the lease,
for the estates to that extent
are thereby merged; so, though
the lease reserves to the lessor
the right to erect buildings on
the leased premises, and pi'o-
vides for the payment of rent,
if there is no reservation of a
right of re-entry for non-pay-
ment.
Pynchon v. Steams, 52 Mass. (11
Met.) 304 ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec.
207.
2 Action of waste ty reversioner against
hfe tenant is provided for by
statute in Rhode Island, and the
liability of the hfe tenant there-
in, though very stringent, is to
be fairly and reasonably en-
forced.
Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 372 ;
s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621.
2 Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
(Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350,
357;
Farrant v. Lovel, 3 Atk. 723 ;
Bewick v. Whitfield, 3 Pr. Wms.
268, note.
" Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
(Md.)569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350,
357;
Hayward v. StilUngfleet, 1 Atk.
433;
Bewick v. Whitfield, 3 Pr. Wms.
268. note.
5 Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
(Md.) 569 ;£.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350,
357 •
Garth' V. Cotton, 3 Atk. 754.
» DuvaU V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
(Md.)569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Deo. 350,
357;
Robinson v. Litton, 3 Atk. 211.
■> Tenants in common are liable to co-
tenant for waste.
See : Nelson's Heirs v. Clay's
Heirs, 7 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 138;
s.c. 23 Am. Dec. 387 ;
Smith V. Sharpe, 1 Busbee(N. C.)
L. 91 ; s.c. 57 Am. Deo. 574 ;
Hancock v. Day, 1 McM. (S. C.)
Eq. 69; s.c. 36 Am. Dec. 293 ;
Johnson v. Johnson, 3 Hill (S.C.)
Eq. 377 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec. 73.
Such as to prevent one tenant in
common, in possession, from
cutting down timber growing
on the land, and not wanted
for the necessary use of the
farm.
Hawley v. ('lowes, 3 Johns.
Ch. (N. Y.) 123.
67G AGAINST WHOM GRANTED. [Book III.
tenant committing the waste is insolvent or is occupying
tenant with the plaintiff ; ^ and it has been said that an
injunction will lie to restrain a tenant by elegit from till-
ing a farm contrary to the established rotation of crops
on it, and contrary to the usage of that part of the
country ; ^ but not to prevent waste in case of tenants
in common, or coparceners, or joint tenants, for the
reason that they have a right to enjoy the estate as they
please.^ An injunction will also be granted against a
tenant for life without impeachment for waste ; * against
a mortgagee of a life tenant in possession.^" An injunc-
tion may also be obtained in respect to equitable waste
against a tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct.^
It appears that the English Court of Chancery had
steadily confined itself in granting relief against waste
to those cases only where there was some subsisting priv-
ity of title or contract between the parties until about
the year 1785, since which time it has gone one step
further, and granted injunctions against strangers to
stay trespass in strong cases of destruction or irreparable
mischief ; or where the irreparable mischief might be
completely effected before any trial could be had as to
the controverted right. But at that point it seems to
have come to a stand ; not, however, without expressing
a regret that its jurisdiction had not extended so far as
to protect real estate from waste and injury pending a
controversy about the title. There is no reason to doubt
that the powers of the courts in this country in granting
injunctions have always been considered as in all re-
' Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. ^ See : Hihn v. Peck, 18 Gala. 640 ;
(Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350- Hole v. Thomas, 7 Ves. 589 ; s.c.
Smallman v. Onions, 3 Bro. C. C. C Rev. Rep. 195.
631; " Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
Twort V. Twort, 16 Ves. 138 ; (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec.
Hole V. Thomas, 7 Ves. 589 ; s.c. 350 ;
6 Rev. Rep. 195. Bernard's Case, Free. Ch. 454.
EquitiUe waste. — As betvreen ten- » See : Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's
ants in common, however, an Ch. (Md.)o69; s.c. 18 Am. Dec.
injunction will not be granted 350 ;
against pure equitable waste. Farrant v. Lovel, 8 Atk. 723 ;
Hole V. Thomas, 7 Ves. 589 ; s.c. Humphreys v. Harrison, 1 Jac.
6 Rev. Rep. 195. & W. 581.
° Wilds V. Layton, 1 Del. Ch. 32G ; " Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
s.c. 13 Am. Dec. 91. (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec.
Compare : Richards v. Torbert, 350 ;
3 Houst. (Del.) 173. Abraham v. Bubb, 3 Freem. 53.
Chap. XVI. §§ 70g, 704.] BILL FOR ACCOUNTING. 57';-
spects co-extensive with those of the Chancery Court of
England.^
Sec. T03. Same— Same— Bill for accounting. — Full relief
in equity is given to prevent the multiplicity of suits,
where an injunction has issued to restrain a wrong; con-
sequently when a bill for an injunction to stay further
waste is granted, and waste has already been committed,
the court, to prevent double suits, will decree an account
and satisfaction for what is past, and not oblige the plaint-
iff to bring an action at law, as well as a bill in equity ; ^
but such decrees for the part are only given as an
incident to the injunction to obtain which the plaintiff
was under a necessity of going into chancery ; conse-
quently it may be regarded as a general rule, to which
there are few exceptions, that when no injunction is or
can be asked for or granted, a bill to have an account of
past waste, and nothing more, cannot be sustained, the
proper remedy being at law.^
Sec. Y04. Same— 3. Forfeiture of estate. — By the early
English law, estates for life were liable to forfeiture by
waste as well as by alienation.^ The provision in the
' Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. restrain waste upon land cov-
(Md.)569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. 350. ered by the lien of liis judg-
As to the extent of the powers of inent, and pending the injunc-
the English Court of Chancery, tion, purchases the land at the
see : sheriff's sale, cannot recover
Jones V. Jones, 3 Meriv. 173; for the waste committed prior
Norway v. Eowe, 19 Ves. 147 ; to his purchase.
Crookford v. Alexander, 15 Ves. Hughlett v. Harris, 1 Del. Ch.
138 ; s.c. 10 Rev. Rep. 44 ; 349 ; s.c. 13 Am. Deo. 104.
Courthope V. Mapplesden, lOVes. ' Duvall -y. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch.
290 ; (Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec.
Smith ». Collyer, 8 Ves. 89 ; 350 ;
Hanson v. Gardiner, 7 Ves. 305 ; Jesus College v. Bloom, 3 Atk.
Mitchell r. Dors, 6 Ves. 147 ; 262.
Pillsworth V. Hopton, 6 Ves. 51. Damages— How ascertained.— Dam-
' Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland's Ch. ages must be assessed in action
(Md.) 569 ; s.c. 18 Am. Dec. of waste for the place wasted
350 ; over and above the value of the
Hughiett V. Harris, 1 Del. Ch. place.
349 ; s.c. 13 Am. Dec. 104. Clemence v. Steere, 1 R. I. 273 ;
But this principle is limited to s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621.
cases where a right to relief ex- * 2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 251a ;
ists for injury already done, in- 3 Bl. Com. 374 ;
dependently of the injunction to Glanv.,lib. 9, c. 1.
prevent future injury. Ac- See : Ante, ^ 590, et seq.
cordmgly a judgment-creditor Waste forfeits part of premises
who sues out an injunction to wasted, but by the destruction
37
578 FORFEITURE OF ESTATE. [Book III.
statute of Gloucester/ giving, by way of penalty, the
forfeiture of the place wasted and treble damages, may
be considered as imported by our ancestors, with the
whole body of the common and statute law then exist-
ing, and applicable to our local circumstances ; in some
of the 'states the provisions as to forfeiture of the prem-
ises wasted, and treble damages, have been incorpo-
rated into the body of the law by special statutory enact-
ments. Kent says^ that, "so far as the provisions of
the statute are received as law in this country, the re-
covery in an action for waste, for waste done or per-
mitted, is the place wasted, and treble damages," but
that ' ' the writ of waste has gone out of -use, and a spe-
cial action on the case, in the nature of waste, is substi-
tuted ; and this latter action, which has superseded the
common-law remedy, relieves the tenant from the penal
consequences of waste under the statute of Gloucester.
The plaintiff, in this action upon the case, recovers no
more than the actual damages which the premises have
sustained. " ^
of a dwelling-house the whole ' See : Paxker v. Chambliss, 12 Ga.
premises are forfeited. • 235 ;
Clemenoe v. Steere, 1 R. I. 272 ; Williams v. Lanier, 1 Busbee
s.c. 53 Am. Dec. 621. (N. C.) L. 30 ;
' 6 Edw. I., c. 5. Linton v. Wilson, 1 Kerr (N. B.)
See : Ante, § 670. 239, 240.
2 4 Kent Com. (18th ed.) 81.
CHAPTER XVII.
ESTATE BY CURTESY.
Section I. Origin and requisites.
Section II. Nature, incidents, and duties.
Section III. Barring curtesy.
Section IV. Curtesy under statute.
Section V. Wlio may be tenants by curtesy.
Section VI. What property subject to curtesy.
Section VII. What property not subject to curtesy.
Section I. — Origin and Requisites.
Estate by curtesy — Introduction.
Definition of estate by curtesy.
Origin of estate by curtesy — Littleton's view.
Same — Early origin of the estate.
Same — Adopted from northern nations.
Curtesy in England.
Same — Curtesy in gavelkind lands.
Curtesy in the United States.
Same — Under married women's acts.
Bands of curtesy.
Same — 1. Curtesy initiate.
Same — 3. Curtesy consummate.
Same— 3. Equitable curtesy.
Common-law reqtdsites of curtesy.
Same — 1. Lawful marriage.
Same — Same — Lex loci governs.
Same — Same — Celebration of ceremony.
Same — Same — ^Void and voidable marriages.
Same — 2. Seisin of wife.
Same — Same — What is sufficient seisin.
Same — Same — Seisin in fact or in deed.
Same — Same — Same — Exceptions to the rule.
Same — Same — Seisin in law.
Same — Same — Same — Reasons for relaxing rule.
Same — Same — Same — Extent to which rule relaxed.
Same — Same — Seisin by descent cast.
Same — Same — Seisin at time of death.
Same — Same- — Possession by coparcener.
Sec. 733. Same — Same — Possession by co-tenant.
579
Sec.
705.
Sec.
706.
Sec.
707.
Sec.
708.
Sec.
709.
Sec.
710.
Sec.
711.
Sec.
713.
Sec.
718.
Sec.
714.
Sec.
715.
Sec.
716.
Sec.
717.
Sec.
718.
Sec.
719.
Sec.
720.
Sec.
721.
Sec!
723.
Sec.
723.
Sec.
734.
Sec.
735.
Sec.
736.
Sec.
737.
Sec.
728.
Sec.
739.
Sec.
730.
Sec.
731.
Sec.
733.
580
CHARACTER OF ESTATE. [Book IIL
Same — Same — Possession by wife's tenant.
Same— Same— Same— Lease for life before marriage.
Same— Same— Same— Receiving rents and profits.
Same— Same— Possession by Imsband— Kentucky doctrine.
Same— Same— Same— Possession by husband's grantee.
Same — Same — Seisin by guardian.
Same— Same — Equitable title and seisin.
Same — Same— Same — Exception to the rule.
Same — Same — Actual entry.
Same — Same — Same — ^Wild, waste, and uncultivated lands.
Same — Same — Time of seisin.
Same — Same — Adverse possession.
Same — Same — Remainder and reversion.
Same — 3. Issue of marriage.
Same — Same — Change of rule by statute.
Same — Same — a. Bom alive.
Same — Same — Same — Degree of development and vitahty.
Same — Same — Same — Death of issue.
Same — Same — b. In lifetime of wife.
Same — Same — c. Be capable of inheriting.
Same — Same — Same — Seisin by wife.
Same — Same — Same— Estate devised to wife and heirs.
Same — Same — Same — Gives second husband curtesy.
Same — Same — Same — Wife's attainder.
Same — Same — d. Essentials need not coincide in point of time.
Same — 4. Death of wife.
Same — Same — Civil death and bigamy of wife.
Section TO.^. Estatebycurtesy—Introduetion.— The second
estate for life, known to the common law, is that which a
husband acquired in his wife's lands by having issue by
her born alive and capable of inheriting, for before issue
born the husband had only an estate during the joint
lives of himself and his wife.^ This interest in the wife's
lands is called an "estate by the curtesy of England," or
more commonly an " estate by curtesy." This estate, as
we shall see hereafter when we come to consider its
nature,^ partakes more of the character of an estate
by descent than of one by purchase,^ as it accrues
to the husband by operation of law upon the death of
the wife.*
Sec. 706. Deflmtion of estate by curtesy .—An estate by
' 1 Inst. 351a. Pembertonv. Hicks, 1 Bmn.(Pa.)
' See : Post, section II. , this chapter. 1 .
» Watson V. Watson, 18 Conn. 75, ■• 1 Inst. 18b, 106 ;
77, 83 ; 4 Kent Com. (18th ed.) 373.
Sec.
734.
Sec.
735.
Sec.
736.
Sec.
787.
Sec.
738.
Sec.
739.
Sec.
740.
Sec
741.
Sec.
743.
Sec
743.
Sec
744.
Sec
745.
Sec
746.
Sec.
747.
Sec.
748.
Sec
749.
Sec
750.
Sec
751.
Sec
753.
Sec
753.
Sec
754.
Sec.
755.
Sec
756.
Sec
757.
Sec
758.
Sec
759.
Sec
, 760.
Chap. XVII. § 707.] ORIGIN— LITTLETON'S VIEW. 581
curtesy, or tenancy by curtesy of England, is an estate
thrown upon the tenant by operation of law,^ and consists
in the interest to which a husband is entitled, upon the
death of his wife, in the land and tenements of which she
was seized in possession at the time of their marriage, or
became possessed of during coverture,^ in fee-simple or in
fee-tail, where issue was born ^ alive * during such covert-
ure,^ which might have been capable of inheriting the
estate,® even though such issue dies before the death of
the wife.'' Tenancy by the curtesy has been said to have
no moral foundation, and for that reason is properly
called ' ' tenancy by the curtesy of England ; " that is,
an estate by the favor of the law of England.^ Lord
Littleton says : ' ' The husband is called tenant by the curt-
esy of England, because this is used in no other realm.,
but England only. " ^ This, however, is a mistake, as we
shall see further on.^"
Sec. tot. Originof estate by the ourtesy— Lord Littleton's
view.— That the interest of a husband in his deceased wife's
lands, known as an estate by the curtesy, was established
in the English law at a very early period, is admitted by
all ; " but there has been much diversity of opinion among
writers as to whether this estate was originally an Eng-
lish institution, or an importation. Lord Littleton says
that the husband "is called tenant by the curtesy of
England, because this is used in no other realm, but in
England only," ^ and Sir William Blackstone, following
Lord Littleton, attributes the introduction of this estate
to Henry I.^^ The estates of tenants by the curtesy and
' See : Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. Buokworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. &
75, 83 ; P. 653, note.
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 18b, 29a ; ' Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 238,
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 373 ; 235 ;
Litt ^35 Litt., §§ 29a, 35.
« 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. « Banks v. Sutton, 2 Pr. Wms. 703 ;
' See • Post S, 747 1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 158.
4 See ': Post, § 749.' ' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a.
' A bastard legitimized by subsequent '» See : Post, §§ 708, 709.
marriage wiU, in some states, " See : 3 Bl. Com. 126, 137 ;
cast upon tlie husband and 1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 139,
father an estate by the curt- 140 ;
See : Post, § 758. " Litt., § 35.
« See : Post, § 753 ; " 3 Bl. Com. 136.
2 Bl. Com. 136 ; In treating of some early statutes,
582 EAELY ORIGIN OF ESTATE. [Book III.
tenants by dower ^ seem to have originated at the same
time, and to have borne some relation to each other in
their origin, for the claim of the wife in one case, and of
the husband in the other, were founded on equal consid-
erations in law and in policy. Thus it is laid down by
Littleton that a seisin in fee, in fee-tail general, or as
heir in special tail, was the proper estate in the wife to
make her husband tenant by the curtesy, and in the
husband to give a title of dower. ^
Sec. 708. Same— Early origin of the estate.— It is now set-
tled beyond controversy that the estate by curtesy is not
a species of property peculiar in the English law. It had
its origin prior to the invasion of Britain by Caesar.
This estate existed with some modifications, it is true, in
the ancient Almain laws, and was known in ancient Ger-
many, Ireland, Normandy,^ and Scotland.* Erskine says^
that in Scotland "the right of curtesy or curiality has
been received by our most ancient customs." It is now
conceded by all that the estate is not of feudal origin ; ^
indeed, it is laid down expressly in the Book of Feuds,
that the husband did not succeed to the feud of the
in his " History of the English of Scotland and Ireland, though
Lav7," Reeves mentions among it seems to be conceded that it
others the statutum pro tenen- takes its name from curtis, a
tibusper legem Anglice, which court, rather than from any
he says bears evident marks of peculiar regard to husbands in
an earlier period than the reign the English law.
of Edward II. 2 Bl. Com. 126 ;
S Reeves' Hist. Eng. L.(2d ed.)315. Wright, Ten. 193, 193.
' See : Post, bk. III., c. XVIII. Mr. Barrington says the word is
'3 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (3d ed.) clearly derived from the French
834. word courtesie, and it is called
'.InKormandy.— It is said by Cou- curtesy of England, to distin-
stomier, c. 119, that the estate guish it from a very similar
lasted in Normandy only dur- right by the Norman law.
ing the widowerhood of the Stat. 440.
husband. » Institutes 380.
' 1 Co. Litt, (19th ed.) 30a ; « By that law, though, as soon as a
Hale, Hist. Com. L. 180 ; son was born the father was
Hen. III., m. 3 ; admitted, in respect to the es-
Mir., c. 1, § 3 ; tate, as one of the pares curice,
Wright, Ten. 193. and did homage* for the same
English writers on.— Wooddeson in alone, while prior to that hus-
his lectures, and Christian in band and wife did the homage
his notes to Blaokstone, con- together,
siderit of English origin, and 2 Bl. Com. 126, 127;
thence transferred into the laws Wright, Ten. 193.
* As to homage, see : Ante, § 210.
Chap. XVII. § 709.] ADOPTED FROM NORTH.
583
wife, without a special investiture.^ Sir Martin Wright '
adopts the opinion of Craig/ who declares that curtesy
was originally granted out of respect to the former mar-
riage, and to save the husband from falling into poverty
and coming to want. He deduces curtesy from one of
the rescripts of the Emperor Constantine.*
Sec . 709 . Same— Adopted from northern nations.— Modern
research has demonstrated that the law which gives to the
husband who has issue born alive during coverttire a life
estate in the lands of his deceased wife, prevailed among
all the northern nations. When the customs of the
Normans were reduced to writing, this law was inserted
among them.^ It is said by Horne,^ that this custom was
established in England by King Henry I., and this is
thought by some to be highly probable, because we find a
full account of it in a treatise by Glanville,' written in
the reign of King Henry 11.^
■ See : Craig, Jus. Feud., lib. 2.
' Wright, Ten. 194.
' Wright says, toe. cit. , that " tenan-
cies by the curtesy, or per legem
terra, thougli so called, as if
they were peculiar to England,
were known not only in Scot-
land, but in Ireland, and in
Normandy also ; and the like
law or custom is to be found
among the ancient Ahnain
laws ; and yet it doth not seem
to have been feudal, nor doth
its original anywhere satisfac-
torily appear. Some English
writers ascribe it to Henry I. ;
but Nathaniel Bacon calls it a
law of counter tenure to that
of dower, and yet supposes it
as ancient as from the time of
the Saxons, and that it was
rather restored by Henry I.
than introduced by him. But
as there are no notices of this
curtesy among the laws of the
Saxons, or among those we
have of Henry I., I shall pro-
pose Mr. Craig's conjecture as
the most rational I have met
with, who is so far from think-
ing it feudal that he is of opin-
ion that the original of it is
ex jure civili non incommode
deduci pot&t ; ex Constantiai
enim Rescripti (says he') sanc-
tum est, ut haereditatis mater-
nse Pater usuf ructum filii pro-
prietatem."
* Craig, Jus. Feud., lib. 2 ;
Dig. 23, § 40 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 28 ;
Wright, Ten. 194.
5 As given in the Latm translation
of the Grand Coustomier, this
law was as follows : Consue-
tude enim in Normannia, ex
antiquitate approbata, quod si
quis uxorem hkbuerit ex qua
haeredem aliquem procreaver-
it, quem natum vivum fuisse
constiterit, give vivat, sive de-
cesserit, totum feodum quod
maritus possidebat, ex parte
uxoris suae tempore quo deces-
serit, ipsi marito, quamdiu ab
aliis cessabit nuptiis remanebit.
Grand Coustomier, c. 121.
See : Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.)
153.
«Mir., o. 1,§3.
■'Glanv.,lib. 7, c. 18.
8 See : Bract. 437b ;
Jura et Consuetudines, Norman,
fol. 31 ;
Lindebrog, L. L. Alleman, tit.
93;
1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 153.
584 IN GAVELKIND LANDS. [Book III.
Sec. 710. curtesy in England. -Whatever may have
been the origin of the estate by curtesy, it has been a
well-known estate in England, with well-defined incidents
and qualities, from the reign of King Henry I., if indeed
it does not antedate that period.^ Of late, however, this
estate has been of infrequent occurrence in England,
owing to the prevalence of marriage settlements.^
Sec. Til. Same— Curtesy in gavelkind lands.— By special
custom of Kent, in gavelkind lands, a husband who
survives his wife is entitled to dower in her lands whether
he has issue or not ; but by this custom, curtesy extends
only to a moiety ^ of the wife's lands, and in conformity
to the custom of Normandy, the estate is forfeited by and
ceases on the second marriage of the husband.*
Sec. 713. Curtesy in fhe United States.— The right of the
husband to an estate by curtesy was brought over by our
forefathers as a part of our inheritance from the English
law, and was adopted into and became a part of the fun-
damental laws of all those states of the Union whose
laws are founded upon and are the outgrowth of the
common law, although a different rule prevails in those
states whose laws are founded upon the civil law, in
whole or in part, and community of property obtains.
In those states which maybe designated as "the com-
mon-law states," and in which the law relating to and
governing estates by curtesy was adopted, the estate has
been materially modified by statute in many, but abol-
ished in but few. The right of the husband as tenant
by the curtesy is expressly given by statute, substantially
in the language of Littleton, in many of the states ; in
others it has been incidentally recognized as an existing
legal estate, either in statutes or judicial decisions. The
common-law estate of tenancy by the curtesy may be
' See : Ante, §§ 708, 709. 2 Rob. Gav., c. 1.
' Williams' Real Prop. 187. " Free bench-lands."— In his treat-
3 Special custom may assign a differ- ise on Gavelkind, Mr. Robinson
ent proportion, or the whole to says that this was formerly
the husband. called the man's free bench,
« Bac. Abr . , tit. " Gavelkind " (A) ; and cites a record of 31 Edward
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a, note 1 ; I., in which this custom is rec-
1 Inst. 30a, note 1 ; ognized.
Chap. XVII. § 712.] IN THE UNITED STATES.
585
said to prevail generally in this country, though greatly
modified by statute in many of the states, and in some
of them a statutory estate has been substituted for it.
Estate by the curtesy still exists in its common-law
form, either by express statute or other recognition, in the
following states : Delaware, ^ Kentucky,^ Maine,^ Mary-
land,* Massachusetts,^ Nebraska,'' New Hampshire,^ New
Jersey,^ New York,^ North Carolina,!" Ohio," Oregon, i^
' Del. Rev. St. 1874, pp. 515, 533.
' Ky. Gen. Stats. 1873, c. 53, art. 4,
§14.
Compare : Carr v. Givens, 9 Bush
(Ky.) 679 ; s.c. 15 Am. Rep.
747.
^ Limitei to a lifs estate in one-third
of the wife's realty, in case she
die solvent. Me. Rev. St. 1883,
c. 103, § 15.
Wife intestite. — Where the wife
dies intestate and childless, and
the estate is solvent, the hus-
band receives one-half for his
life. Me. Rev. St. 1883, c. 103,
§15.
" Md. Rev. Code, 1878, art. 45, § 2.
' Same as at common law, but restricted
where the wife dies intestate
and without issue. Mass. Pub.
Stat. 1881, c. 134, § 1. By sec-
tion 3 of this act, under such
circumstances the husband
takes the wife's realty in fee to
the amount of $5,000, and cur-
tesy in the residue, if any ;
botli estates being subject to
the wife's debts.
Where there is no issue of the mar-
riage, the husband takes one-
hafl the land for life, whether
the wife provides otherwise by
her will or not. Mass. Stat.
1883, o. 235, § 3.
6 Neb. St. 1873, c. 17, §§ 39, 40.
' N. H. Gen. L. 1878, c. 303, § 14.
« N. J. Rev. Stats. 1877, pp. 298, 330.
' The estate is liable to iDe defeated by
the wife's separate conveyance
in her lifetime. 4 N. Y. Stat.
at L. 513.
See : Thurber v. Townshend, 33
N. Y. 517;
Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 182,
186.
Descent does not affect. 4 N. Y.
Rev. St. (8th ed.) 2466, § 20 ;
1 Rev. Stats. Codes & L. 860, §
20.
See : Clark v. Clark, 24 Barb.
(N. Y.) 581 ;
Leach v. Leach, 21 Hun (N. Y.)
381;
Mack V. Roch, 13 Daly (N. Y )
103 ; s.c. 24 Week. Dig. 35 ;
Hurd V. Cass, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 366.
Compare : Billings v. Baker, 15
How. (N. Y.) Pr. 525.
It is said by the court in the case
of Mack V. Roch, 13 Daly (N.
Y.) 103, 104, that the acts for
the more effectual protection
of married women, passed in
New York, do not affect the
common-law rights of the hus-
band as tenant by the curtesy.
Wliile these acts have excluded
him from any control of his
wife's separate estate during
her life, they have left to him
the right of curtesy in so much
of her real property as remains
at her death undisposed of and
unbequeathed.
Citing : Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N.
Y. 280 ;
Burke v. Valentine, 52 Barb. (N.
Y.) 413 ; affirmed by Court of
Appeals, 6 Alb. L. J. 167 ;
Barnes v.lJnderwood,47N.Y.351 ;
Leach v. Leach, 21 Hun (N. Y.)
381;
Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.)
21;
Beamish v. Hoyt, 2 Robt. (N. Y.)
307.
'» N. C. Code 1883, § 1838.
" Given though there was no issue
born alive. Ohio Rev. Stats.
1880, § 4176.
lands of former husband. — But in
this state there is no curtesy in
lands received by the wife from
a former husband, except by
devise, where there is issue to
take it.
'^ Given though no issue born alive.
Oreg. Gen. L. 1872, p. 588.
>86
IN THE UNITED STATES.
[Book III.
Pennsylvania/ Rhode Island,^ Tennessee/ Vermont,*
West Virginia/ and Wisconsin.^ The estate is recog-
nized by the courts as an existing estate in the following
states, to wit : Connecticut, Missouri,'^ and Virginia. The
estate never existed, or has been expressly abolished by
the statutes, in the following states, namely : Alabama,^
Arizona,^ Arkansas, i" California," Dakota, ^^ Florida, ^^
Georgia, i^Illinois,^^ Indiana, ^^ Iowa,i^Kansas,^^Louisiana,^^
' Brightly's Prud. Dig., p. 1007.
See : Pryor v. Wood, 31 Pa. St.
142, 147.
' R. I. Pub. Stat. 1882, c. 166, §§ 20,
35; Id.,c. 182, §2.
Issue by former husband. — It is
otherwise in this state, liow-
ever, where the wife has issue
by a former husband who
would take the estate.
' Tenn. Stat. 1871, § 2486f.
See : McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3
Humph. (Tenn.) 267 ; s.c. 39
Am. Deo. 165.
«Vt. Eev. L. 1880, §2229.
' W. Va. Rev. Stat., c. 70, § 15.
* In lands of which the wife died
seized, and whioli were not dis-
posed of by wiU. Wis. Rev.
Stat. 1878, §§ 2180, 2277.
' Alexander ■;;. Warranoe, 17 Mo.
228.
See : Reaume v. Chambers, 23
Mo. 36.
' Abolished by unrestricted power of a
married woman to convey inter
vivos and dispose by will of all
her realty. Ala. Code 1876, §
2718.
See : Tong v. Marvin, 14 Mich. 60,
73.
Where the wif3 dies Intsstate the
husband is entitled to the use
of her realty for life. Ala. Code
1876, § 2714.
' Eeoeives in fae one-half of the property
held in community by his wife
and himself. Ariz. Comp. L.
1877, §S 1976, 1977.
"> The unrestricted power of a married
woman to convey inter vivos
and dispose by will of all her
realty in effect abolishes curt-
esy. Ark. Dig. 1874.
See : Tong v. Marvin, 14 Mich.
60, 73.
" There is community of property in
which a common stock is made
of all acquisitions by either
husband or wife during mar-
riage. Stat. 1850, c. 147, §
10.
Wood, Gala. Dig. 488, § 10.
12 Dak. Rev. Code 1887, p. 247.
" Fla. Dig. 1881, p. 471, § 12; Id. 757,
§16.
The husband takes the child s share,
and the whole if there are no
children.
" The wif3 has the power of disposi-
tion by will of all her separate
earnings. Ga. Code 1873, §
240.
The husband takes a child's share of
the wife's real estate, and the
whole where there are no chil-
dren. Id., §1761.
15 The husband is endowed of a life estate
similar to dower at common
law. 111. Rev. Stat. 1883, o. 41,
§1.
See : Henson v. Moore, 104 111.
403.
Compare : Armstrong v. Wilson,
60 111. 236.
IS The husband takes as heir fee in one-
third of the wife's realty. Ind.
Rev. Stat. 1881, § 2483. Where
the property exceeds $10,000,
the husband has but one-fourth,
and if more than |30.000, but
one-fifth. Ind. Rev. Stat. 1881,
§ 2483.
11 The husbELnd takes a fee in one-third
of the wife's realty in lieu of
curtesy. Iowa Rev. Code 1880,
§3440.
'* The husband takes in lieu of curtesy
a fee in one-half of the wife's
estate, subject to her debts and
sale on execution. Kan. Comp.
L. 1879, §§ 2109, 2118.
If there are no children, the hus-
band takes the whole estate.
Id., § 2121.
" Community of property prevails, as
in California and Texas.
Ohap. XVII. § 713.] MARRIED WOMEN'S ACTS.
.587
Michigan/ Minnesota,^ Mississippi,^ Montana/ Nevada/
South Carohna/ Texas," and Wyoming.^
Sec. Y13. Same— Under married wom.eii's acts.— The cases
in some of the states, particularly Michigan ° and Mis-
sissippi,^" hold that statutes securing to married women
their property free from the control of their husbands,
with power to dispose of it by will or by deed, by implica-
tion abolish the estate by curtesy ; but the better opinion
is thought to be that the Legislature must express an
intention to abolish the common-law estate before this is
accomplished.^^ The prevailing opinion, as well as the
weight of authority, is that separate property acts suspend,
during coverture, all the rights of the husband, or of his
creditors, in statutory property, ^^ but do not destroy
■ The tmrestricted power of a married
woman to convey inter vivos and
dispose by will of all her realty
is held to abolish estate by
curtesy. Comp. L. 1871 , § 4300.
See : Tong v. Marvin, 14 Mich.
60, 73.
« Minn. L. 1875, c. 40, § 5.
" Miss. Rev. Code 1880, § 1170.
Compare : Malone v. McLaurin,
40 Miss. 161, 169.
■* Curtesy is abolished by the unre-
stricted power of a married
woman to convey inter vivos
and dispose by will of all her
real property. Mont. Rev.
Stat. 1879, p. 272.
' The hnshand received the whole of the
commnnity property held by him-
self and his wife. Nev. Comp.
L. 1873, §§ 157, 160.
5 The hushand tikes in fee-simple the
same share in the wife's • estate
which she would, on surviving,
take in his, namely, one-third ;
and in certain cases one moiety,
and in other cases two-thirds.
1 Brev. Dig. 432-424.
In case of Withers v. Jenkins, 14
S. C. 597, it is said that the
statute of 1791 only abolished
curtesy in fees-simple, and that
it still exists in that state in
fees conditional. The court
held that the statute impliedly
abolishes curtesy ; but it is
thought that the statute merely
puts the husband to his elec-
tion ; he cannot take both the
curtesy and the statutory pro-
vision.
■■ There is commnnity of property, as
in California and Louisiana,
with special provisions in case
of intestacy. Tex. Rev. Stat.
1879, § 1653.
If there are children, the survivor
takes one-half, and in some
cases the whole estate. Portis
V. Parker, 22 Tex. 699.
8 Wy. Comp. L. 1873, § 157.
« Ransom v. Ransom, 30 Mich. 328 ;
Tong V. Marvin, 14 Mich. 60, 70,
73.
" Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, 790,
Tlie question is considered at
length in Billings v. Baker, 28
Barb. (N. Y.) 343, and the dis-
cussion pronounced able and
exhaustive, but the conclusion
doubted in the Matter of Winne,
2 Lans. (N. Y.)31 ; and the case
is criticised and distinguished
by tlie Court of Chancery of
New Jersey, in Poi-ch v. Fries,
18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. E. Gr.) 204.
" Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.)
21, 34 ;
Houston V. Brown, 7 Jones (N. C.)
L. 161 ;
Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W. Va.
455, 469.
'2 Martin v. Robson, 65 111. 130,133 ;
s.c. 16 Am. Rep. 578 ;
Beach v. Miller, 51 El. 206, 209 ;
s.c. 3 Am. Rep. 390 ;
Cole V. Van Riper, 44 111. 58, 66 ;
588
KINDS OF CURTESY.
[Book III.
curtesy, or prevent its vesting on the death of the wife,
without disposing of her statutory estate,^ unless tenancy
by the curtesj' is destroyed by expressed words of the
statute, or necessary implication, or by a lawful disposi-
tion of the property by the wife.^ Where the purpose
and the effect of a married woman's act is to secure the
wire the control of her separate property during coverture,
it has the effect to suspend the husband's common-law
rights in the property during that period, and curtesy in
the lands of the wife does not vest in the husband until
after the wife's death, ^ but upon her death estate by
curtesy becomes consummate, and vests in the husband
in all respects as at common law.*
Sec. Y14. Kinds of curtesy.— Tenancy by the curtesy
may be said to be of two kinds or classes, to wit : (1) legal
Rice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 844, 350;
Sohindel v. Schindel, 13 Md. 108,
313;
Logan V. McGill, 8 Md. 461, 470 ;
Anderson v. Tydine-s. 8 Md. 427,
443;
Brown v. Clark, 44 Mich. 809, 311;
Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (8 C.
E. Gr.) 204, 208 ;
Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 380 ;
Matter of Winne, 3 Lans. (N. Y.)
21, 36, 34 ;
Hurd V. Cass, 9 Barb. (N. Y.)366,
368;
Jones V. Carter, 73 N. C. 148, 149
Houston V. Brown, 7 Jones (N
C.) 161, 162 ;
Coleman v. Satterfield, 3 Head
(Tenn.) 359, 264 ;
Bottoms V. Corley, 5 Heisk
(Tenn.) 1, 6, 9.
' Cole V. Van Riper, 44 111. 58, 66 ;
Rice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 350 ;
Anderson v. Tydings, 8 Md. 427,
443 ;
Pratt V. Smith, 31 N. J. L. (2 Vr.)
244, 246 ;
Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C.
E. Gr.) 204, 309 ;
Johnson v. Cummins, 16 N. J.
Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 97 ; s.c. 84
Am. Deo. 143 ;
Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280,
287;
Burke v. Valentine, 53 Barb. (N.
Y.) 413 ; s.c. 5 Abb. Pr. N. S.
(N. Y.) 164 ;
Hurd V. Cass, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 366,
368, 370 ;
Leach v. Leach, 31 Hun (N. Y.)
881, 383 ;
Zimmerman v. Schoenfeldt, 3
Hun (N. Y.) 692, 695 ;
Matter of Winne, 3 Lans. (N. Y.)
21, 36, 34 ;
Houston V. Brown, 7 Jones (N. C.)
161, 162 ;
Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710 ;
s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 660 ;
Breeding v. Davis, 77 Va. 639 ;
s.c. 46 Am. Rep. 740 ;
Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W. Va.
455, 464, 467 ;
Kingsley v. Smith, 14 Wis. 360,
366.
See : Martin v. Robson, 65 111.
132 ; s.c. 16 Am. Rep. 578 ;
Hill V. Chambers, 30 Mich. 427.
^ Bozarth v. Largent, 128 111. 95 ;
s.c. 31 N. E. Rep. 218 ;
Noble V. McFarland, 51 111. 236 ;
Freeman v. Hartman, 45 111. 57 ;
Cole V. Van Riper, 44 111. 58 ;
Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 380.
» Bozarth v. Largent, 138 111. 95 ;
s.c. 31 N. E. Rep. 218 ;
Lucas V. Lucas, 103 111. 121 ;
Beech v. Miller, 51 111. 206.
■•Bozarth v. Largent, 138 111. 95:
s.c. 31 N. B. Rep. 318 :
Gay V. Gay, 133 111. 331 ; s.c. 13
N. E. Rep. 813 ;
Castner v. Walrod, 83 111. 171 ;
Noble V. McFarland, 51 111. 336 ;
Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 111. 319.
Chap. XVII. § 715.] KINDS OF CURTESY— INITIATE. 589
curtesy, or the interest of a husband in the lands of his
deceased wife, usually designated by that name ; and
(2) equitable curtesy, a right allowed to the husband by a
Court of Chancery, which is analogous to legal curtesy.
Legal curtesy consists of two stages, known as {a) curtesy
initiate and (6) curtesy consummate.
Sec. 715. Same— l. Curtesy initiate.— The first stage of legal
curtesy, known as curtesy initiate, begins either upon the
birth of issue, born alive, ^ in the lifetime of the mother,^
and capable of inheriting the estate,^ or of seisin in the
wife, whichever first takes place,* and this estate being
once vested by the birth of issue is not suffered to deter-
mine by the subsequent death or the coming of age of
the child.^ This stage has sometimes been referred to
the time of the marriage, but this is erroneous, because
there is no curtesy in any degree until after the birth of
issue or the possession of property by the wife.^ The
error is thought to arise from confusing the estate by
curtesy with the common-law right a husband acquires
in his wife's lands, by virtue of the marriage. Marriage
is the foundation of the whole, but it does not constitute it
at the common law.'^ The husband indeed becomes seized
of a freehold by the marriage, but it is his wife's free-
hold, not his, insomuch that both must do homage for it ;
in contemplation of law her person is his person, and her
' See : Post, § 749. Greenl.) 400 ;
'' See ■ Post, 8i 752. Comer v. Chamberlain, 88 Mass.
3 1 Co. Litt. flOth ed.) 30a, 40 ; (6 Alien) 166 ;
2 Bl. Com. 126 ; Jackson ex d. v. Johnson, 5 Cow.
Post, § 753. (N- Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec.
See :' Chambers v. Handley, 3 J. 433 ;
J Marsh. (Ky.) 98 ; Guion v. Anderson, 8 Humph.
Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776 ; (Tenn.) 298, 307 ;
Wilson V. Arentz. 70 N. C. 670 ; 2 Bl. Com. 126.
Foster v Marshall, 22 N. H. (2 Lancaster County Bank v. Stauf-
Fost.) 491 ; fer, 10 Pa. St. 398.
Marabie v. Jordan, 5 Humpli. ' In Monroe v. Van Meter, 100 111.
(Tenn.) 417. 367, a marriage had taken
In Delaware the right of a tenant place before, and issue had been
by the curtesy initiate is prac- born after, the passage of an
tically abolished by statute. act abolishing curtesy, and the
Moore v. Darby, 18 Atl. Rep. 768. court held t)iat the husband
" Gibbins v. Eyden, L. R. 7 Eq. 371, had, prior to the passage of the
376. act, acquired no such estate as
» Watson V. Watson, 10 Conn. 75, would be protected from de-
i 83 ; struotion on the ground of its
With'am v. Perkin, 2 Me. (2 being a vested right.
590 CURTESY INITIATE. [Book III.
seisin his seisin. But after the birth of issue the liusband
has a separate estate.-^ The husband's estate by curtesy
becomes initiate upon the birth of a child, or the acquisi-
tion of property after the date of the marriage, and
becomes consummate on the death of the wife.^ The
tenant by curtesy initiate has an estate for hfe in his
deceased wife's estate of inheritance, in his own right.^
The estate the husband thus acquires is an estate of free-
hold in the husband in the lands of the wife held by her
in her own right ; yet he is not seized solely, during cov-
erture, and after issue born he is tenant by the curtesy,
and is jointly seized with his wife ;* the estate of the hus-
band in the land, being a vested estate, is bound by a
judgment recovered against him before the death of the
wife, to the extent of the value of the estate.®
In some states it is held that by reason of husband's
curtesy initiate a married woman during coverture has no
right of action to recover possession of her fee-simple lands
from a stranger, that right being in her husband ; and
after her death her heirs have no right of action, by
reason of the husband's curtesy consummate, prior to his
death ; and hence the statute of limitations does not
commence to run against the heirs of a nlarried woman
until after the death of her husband.^
' Lancaster County Bank v. Stauf- hause, 63 Mo. 81.
fer, 10 Pa. St. 398. See : Heath v. White, 5 Conn.
' See : Post, § 716. 388 ;
' Foster v. Marshall, 33 N. H. (3 Foster v. Marshall, 33 N. H. (3
Fost.)491. Fost.)491;
* See : Junction Railroad v. Harris, Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John-
9 Ind. 184 ; son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15
Butterfield v. Beall, 3 Ind. 303 ; Am. Dec. 433.
Wass V. Buckman, 38 Me. 356 ; Disseisin of husband.— In New
Melyin v. Prop'rs, 33 Mass. (16 Hampshire the seizure and pos-
Pick.) 161 ; session of the tenant by the
Jackson ex d. u. Johnson, 5 Cow. curtesy initiate is so completelr
(N Y.) 74; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. his own that if he is disseized
„}°°.' during coverture neither his
Weismger v. Murphy, 3 Head wife nor her heirs are affected
(Tenn.) 674 ; by the possession under such
,^^ '"; „-^:^^^^^°^' ^ Humph. disseisin, so long as the husband
(ienn.) 398, 330 ; is alive ; and they having
McCorry v Kmg's Heirs, 3 twenty years after their death
I ->^ fi"™Pf;X. "'^•^ ^^'^- i"! which to regain their estate.
Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) Foster v. Marshall, 33 N. H. (3
. ^ 515. Post.) 491.
Dyer v. Wittier, 89 Mo. 81 ; s.c. In other states it has been held
58 Am. Rep. 85 ; 4 West. Rep. that such disseisin and posses-
_t)73, overruling Valle v. Oben- sion will run against both hus-
Chap. XVII. § 716.] CURTESY CONSUMMATE.
591
Sec. 716. Same— 2. Curtesy consummate.— Upon the death
of the wife the curtesy initiate hecomes consummate by-
operation of law,^ and without any act or proceeding on
the part of the husband ^ it devolves upon him, as the
estate of the ancestor does upon the heir ; and no dis-
claimer on the part of the husband, short of an actual
release, will prevent the estate from vesting in him
instantly upon the death of his wife.^ It is not until the
death of the wife that the husband becomes tenant by
the curtesy in the proper sense of the term. During
the life of the wife he is only ' ' tenant by the curtesy
initiate," and as such is respected in law for some pur-
poses; but he is not tenant by curtesy consummate, so as
band and wife, in absence of a
saving clause in the statute in
favor of the femes covert, which
gives a certain time in which
to bring an action after disa-
bility is removed; and the same
rule applies to her heirs in those
cases where the husband sur-
vives the wife.
See : Coe v. Wolcottville Mfg.
Co., 35 Conn. 175;
Watson V. Watson, 10 Conn. 75,
88;
Melius V. Snowman, 21 Me. 201 ;
Bruce v. Wood, 43 Mass. (1 Met.)
542;
Melvin v. Prop'rs of Locks and
Canals, 33 Mass. (16 Pick.) 161 ;
Weisinger v. Murphy, 2 Head
(Tenn.) 764 ;
Guion V. Anderson, 8 Humph.
(Tenn.) 298 ;
McCorry v. Bang's Heirs, 3
Humph. (Tenn.) 267.
Conveyance l)y hnsband. — By the
statute of 32 Henry VIII., o. 8,
which is a part of the common
law of many of the states of
the Union, where the husband
alone conveys his wife's land,
it does not work a discontinu-
ance of her estate, and at his
decease the wife, or her heirs,
may enter upon and take pos-
session of the land the same as
if no such conveyance had been
made.
See : Miller v. Shackleford, 4
Dana (Ky.) 264, 277 ;
Bruce v. Wood, 43 Mass. (1 Met.)
542, 544 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 133.
The wife must join in the deed :
that is, it must appear that both
husband and wife were parties
to the efficient and operative
parts of the instrument of con-
veyance ; it is not sufficient
that her name waa annexed, as
expressing her assent to the
act of her husband, and with-
out words showing her formal
participation in the granting
part of the deed.
Bruce v. Wood, 42 Mass. (1 Met.)
542, 543.
See : AUendorff ■;;. Gaugengigl,
146 Mass. 543 ;
Chapman v. Miller, 128 Mass. 269:
Price v.Chace, 108 Mass. 254,358;
Wales V. Coffin, 95 Mass. (13
Allen) 213, 216 ;
Jewett V. Davis, 93 Mass. (10
Allen) 68, 71 :
Wight V. Shaw, 59 Mass. (5 Cush.)
56, 66 ;
Raymond v. Holden, 56 Mass.
(2 Cush.) 264, 271 ;
Lufkin V. Curtis, 13 Mass. 223 ;
Lithgow V. Kavenagh, 9 Mass.
161 ;
Powell V. Monson & Brimfleld
Manfg. Co., 3 Mas. C. C. 347.
> See : Post, % 759.
^ Watson V. Watson, 10 Conn. 75,
83;
Witham v. Perkins, 3 Me. (3
Greenl.) 400 ;
Young V. Davis, 7 H. & N. 766 ;
3 Bl. Com. 128 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a.
3 Watson V. Watson, 13 Conn. 77,
83;
Witham v. Perkins, 2 Me. 400.
592 EQUITABLE CUETESY. [Book III.
to give him a separate and independent estate of free-
hold until after the deabh of his wife.^
Sec. Yl7. Same— 3. Equitable curtesy.— In England the
Court of Chancery allowed to the husband a right, analo-
gous to curtesy, which may be styled equitable curtesy,
in respect to equitable estates having the same nature and
quantum as legal estates which confer the right.^ The
phrase "equitable estate" was understood in the Eng-
lish cases to include an equity of redemption,^ and trust
money held upon trust for investment in land. In the case
of Sweetapple v. Bindon,* the court expressed a doubt
whether curtesy should be allowed where the trust
arose under marriage articles, but this doubt is disposed
of in Cunningham v. Moody. ^
Sec. Y18. Common-law requisites of curtesy.— At common
law to entitle the husband to be tenant by the curtesy of
the wife's lands of inheritance after her death the fol-
lowing circumstances are necessary, to wit : (1) Lawful
marriage ; ^ (2) seisin by the wife during coverture of an
estate of inheritance to which issue of the marriage may
possibly succeed as heir to the wife ; '^ (3) birth of issue
alive in the lifetime of the wife ; ^ (4) the death of the wif e,^
' Jones V. Davies, 7 H. & N. 766 ; ^ Casborne v. Scarfe, 1 Atk. 603.
'2 Bl. Com. 128. " 2 Vern. 536.
See : Oldham v. Henderson, 5 * 1 Ves. Sr. 174.
Dana (Ky.) 254 ; ■! See : Post, % 719.
Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 2 Paige ' MoDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 465,
Ch. (N. Y.) 35 ; s.o. 21 Am. 483 ;
Dec. 66; Litt., §§ 35, 52.
Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (IST. Y.) See : Post, § 747.
21, reversing s.c. 1 Lans. (N. Y.) « Comer v. Cliamberlain, 88 Mass.
508. (6 Allen) 166, 169.
In lands disposed of ty will. — An See : Post, ^ 749.
estate by tbe curtesy consum- ' Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965,
mate exists in the husband in 967 ;
the wife's lands unaUened by MoDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 465,
her during her lifetime, though 483 ;
devised by her will. Such Wheeler v. Hotchkiss, 10 Coim.
estate is subject to the liens of ■ 225, 230 ;
the husband's creditors ac- Stewart i;. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, 788;
quired during the coverture, in Forbes v. Sweezy, 8 Neb. 520 ; s.o.
preference to the general liens 1 N. W. Rep. 571 ;
of her creditors upon her real Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y.
estate. 543, affirming s.c. 56 Barb. (N.
Browne v. Bockover, 84 Va. 424 ; Y.) 168 ;
s.c. 4 8. E. Rep. 745. Jackson ex d. Swartwouti;. John-
' See : 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29a, son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74, 95 ; s.c.
Hargrave's note 6. 15 Am. Dec. 433 ;
Chap. XVII. § 719.] EEQUISITES— LAWFUL MARRIAGE. 593
and (5) the right of the husband to hold real estate ; ^
but these requisites need not all exist contemporane-
ously.^ Thus it is not necessary that there should be
seisin and issue at the same time ; ^ and, therefore, if the
wife become seized of lands during the coverture, and
then be disseized, and then have issue, the husband shall
be tenant by the curtesy of those lands ; * also if the wife
become seized after issue born, though the issue die
before seisin. ° And the same is true of a birth before
marriage, if the issue is legitimized by the marriage.®
Sec. 719. Same— 1. Lawful marriage.— The first requisite
to an estate by curtesy is a legal and valid marriage,^
because a man has curtesy in a woman's lands only as
her husband. ^ Blackstone says ^ that the marriage should
be a "legal and canonical " one ; but this is manifestly
erroneous, because a marriage within the Levitical degrees
is voidable only, and if not voided by a divorce obtained in
the lifetime of the wife, the husband will take his estate
by the curtesy.^" A marriage is legal and valid when
all those conditions exist and are performed which are
essential before a man and woman may lawfully cohabit
and bear children. These essentials are, generally speak-
ing, as follows r (1) Parties competent to contract who have
the capacity to marry each other; " (2) a mutual agreement
Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn. (6 Allen) 166, 169 ;
595 ; Jackson ex d. Swartwoutt;. John-
Carpenter V. Garrett, 75 Va. 129, son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.o. 15
133 ; Am. Dec. 433.
Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W. Va. ' Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John-
455, 457 ; son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.o. 15
Menvil's Case, 13 Co. 19, 33. Am. Dec. 433.
See : Post, § 759. See : Heath v. White, 5 Conn.
' See : Post, section V., this chap- 228, 236 ;
ter. Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn.
« Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965, 595.
969 ; " Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965,
Comer v. Chamberlain, 88 Mass. 969.
(6 Allen) 166, 169 ; ' Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y.
Jackson ex d. Swartwout 1;. John- 543, afE'g s.c. 56 Barb. (N. Y.)
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74, 95 ; s.c. 168 ;
15 Am Dec. 433 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a.
Menvil's Case, 13 Co. 19, 23 : » See : Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 228,
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a. 235.
3 Comer v. Chamberlain, 88 Mass. ' 2 Bl. Com. 127.
(6 Allen) 166, 169 ; '» Brest. Est. 473, 478.
Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776. " The marriage must be between
* Comer v. Chamberlain, 88 Mass. people capable of contracting
38
594 LEX LOCI GOVERNS VALIDITY. [Book III.
between the parties to be henceforth husband and wife ; ^
(3) a ceremony accompanied by certain formalities is
usually necessary,^ and (4) an assumption of the marriage
relations, having sexual intercourse and taking on the
rights, duties, and obligations of husband and wife.^ .
Sec. Y20. same— Same— Lex loci governs.— The legality
and validity of a marriage is governed by the lex loci
contractus. If the marriage is valid v\rhere the contract
is made, it is valid everywhere else ; if it is invalid where
made, it is invalid everywhere else. In the various states
of the Union, marriage is usually regarded as a civil con-
tract,^ and differs from other contracts only in that it
cannot be rescinded at the will of the parties. Conse-
quently any agreement based upon mutual consent of the
parties properly made, by which a man and woman agree
to cohabit, as husband ana wife, necessarily establishes a
legal marriage. A solemnization by a clergyman ^ is un-
necessary in all except a few of the states, a mere con-
sent per verba de presenti being sufficient to constitute a
valid contract of marriage.®
a marriage, and curtesy cannot s.c. 1 Eng. Ec. 408, 409 ; 28
arise where one of tlie parties Eng. L. & Eq. 96, 101 ;
is an idiot or insane, for in that Deane v. Aveling, 1 Rob. Ecc. 279,
case the marriage is void, ab 398.
initio. * Marriage a civil contract. — It is said
See : Morison v. Stewart, Deleg. by Lord Stowell in the case of
1745 ; Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2
Turner v. Meyers, 1 Hagg. Cons. Hagg. Cons.54, that "marriage,
416. in its origin, is a contract of
• See : Maguire v. Maguire, 7 Dana natural law ; it may exist be-
(Ky.) 181, 183, 184; tween two individuals of dif-
Rundle v. Pegram, 49 Miss. 751, ferent sexes, although no third
"^54 ; person existed in tlie world, as
True V. Ranney, 21 N. H. (1 Faust) happened in the case of the
52, 54 ; common ancestors of mankind.
Ferlat v. Gojon, 1 Hopk. Ch. It is the parent, not the child,
<N. Y.) 478, 494 ; of civil society. In civil society
Mt. HoUy V. Andover, 11 Vt. 226, it becomes a civil contract, reg-
ulated and prescribed by law,
327;
Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2Hagg. and endowed with civil conse-
Cons. 54; s.c. 4 Eng. Ec. 485, quences."
489 ; 6 See : Post, % 731.
Lockyer v. Smclair, 8 Sess. Cas. « See : State ?j. Murphy, 6 Ala. 765 ;
(2d ser.) 583. Port v. Port, 70 111. 484 ;
; See : Po.s^, § 731. Estill v. Rogers, 1 Bush (Ky.)
' See : Dumaresly v. Fishly, 3 A. K. 62 ;
Marsh. (Ky.) 368, 377 ; Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. R. Co. v.
Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 3 Hagg. Drinker, 30 Mich. 126 ;
Cons, 54; s.c. 4 Eng. Ec. 485 ; Minnesota v. Worthingham, 23
Bnggs V. Morgan, 3 Phillim. 325 ; Minn. 538 ;
Chap. XVII. § 721.] CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE.
595
Sec. T'21. Same— Same— Celebration of marriage.— The
celebration of the marriage is not one of the essentials
by the law of nature/ by the civil law,^ by the common
law until after the Council of Trent/ or by the laws of
Scotland ; * whether it was required at common law has
been much discussed, and the decisions are conflicting.
In England it is held that a celebration was necessary
at common law to a valid marriage/ and the same doc-
trine prevails in this country in the states of Mary-
land/ Massachusetts/ North Carolina/ Tennessee/ and
Texas, by force of pre-existing law, and in Kentucky
by statute ; ^^ but a contrary doctrine has been held in
Russell V. State, 53 Miss. 371 ;
Boyer v. Dively, 58 Mo. 510 ;
Pearson 17. Howey, 6Halst. (N. J.)
13;
Caujole V. Ferrie, 23 N. Y. 90 ;
People r. Ferris, 1 Abb. N. S.
195;
Carmichael v. State, 13 Ohio St.
553 •
Hantz V. Sealy, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 405;
Peck V. Peck, 13 R. I. 485 ;
Bashaw r. State, 1 Yerg. (Tenn.)
177;
State V. Rood, 12 Vt. 396.
' See : Dumaresly v. Fishly, 3 A. K.
Marsh. (Ky.) 368, 370 ;
Richard v. Brehm, 73 Pa. St. 140,
144;
Lindo V. Belisario, 1 Hagg. Cons.
216 ; S.C. 4 Eng. Ec. 367.
"Hallett V. ColUns, 51 U. S. (10
How.) 174, 181 ; bk. 13 L. ed. 376,
379.
^ Prevost, Succession of, 4 La. An.
347, 349 ;
Patton V. Philadelphia, 1 La. An.
98, 101 ;
Hallett V. CoUins, 51 U. S. (10
How.) 174 ; bk. 13 L. ed. 376 ;
Queen v. MiUis, 10 CI. & Fin.
.534;
Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hagg.
Cons. 54; s.c. 4 Eng. Ec.
485.
■■ See : McAdam v. Walker, 1 Dow.
148;
Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hagg.
Cons. 54 ; s.c. 4 Eng. Ec. 485 ;
Wright V. Wright, 15 Sess. Cas.
767.
' Queen v. Millis, 10 CI. &Fin. .534 ;
Beamish v. Beamish, 9 H. L. Cas.
274;
Dumoulin v. Druitt, 13 Ir. C. L.
R. 313 ;
Catherwood i\ Caslor, 13 Mees.
& W. 261 ; s.c. 8 Jur. 1076.
8 Classen r. Classen, 57 Md. 510.
513;
Denison v, Denison, 35 Md.
361.
' Commonwealth v. Munson, 137
Mass. 459 ;
Thompson i\ Tliompson, 114
Mass. 566, 567 ;
Milford V. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48,
53.
* So held in the earlier cases of
State V. Samuel, 2 Dev. & B.
(N. C.) L. 177, 179, and Cooke
V. Cooke, 1 Phill. (N. C.) 583,
586 ; but questioned in later
decisions.
See : State v. Tachanatah, 64 N.
C. 614, 616.
' Wliile the question is not defi-
nitely settled in this state, it is
thought that the state is prop-
erly classified here.
Grisham v. State, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.)
589, 592 ;
Bashaw v. State, 1 Yerg. (Tenn.)
177.
See : Jolmson v. Johnson, 1
Coldw. (Tenn.) 636, 635 ;
Rice i\ State, 7 Humph. (Tenn.)
14, 15.
Compare: Andrews v. Page, 3
Heisk. (Tenn.) 653, 667.
'« Estill V. Rogers, 1 Bush (Ky.)
63, 64 ;
Respecting the rule before the
passage of the statute, consult:
Dumaresly v. Fishly, 3 A. K.
Marsh. (Ky.) 369.
596
CELEBRATION— NOT :!^EC
[Book IIL
Alabama/ California.^ District of Columbia,^ Greorgia,*
niiiiois,-' Iowa.® Louisiana/ Michigan,^ Minnesota,'
jlississippi/** ilissouri," Xew Hampshire.^ Xew Jersej,^
New York," Obio,^ Pennsylvania,'® Soutb Carolina,'^
and Wisconsin.^' The same doctrine bas been announced
' Campbell v. GuIIatt, 43 Ala. oT.
69:
Boberison r. State. 43 Ala. 509 :
State V. Murphy, 6 Ala. 845.
' McCansIand r. McCansland, "i?
Cal. oft*. .!;T7 ;
Graham v. Bemiett. 2 CaL 503,
506.
» Meister r. Moore, 96 U. S. 76. 7$ ;
bk. -24 L. ed. 826 ;
Blackbnm v. Crawfords, 70 U. S.
(3 WalL) 175: bk. is L. ed.
1?6:
tTnited States v. Lambert, 2 Or.
C. C. 137 :
United States r. ilcCormick, 1
Cr. C. C. .593.
* Askew r. Dnpree, 30 Ga. 173.
179.
' Hebblethwaite v. Hepworth, 9s
HI. 126: 3.C. 13 Chic. L. X.
19:
Port V. Port. 70 HI. 454. 4*<5.
' Blanchard v. Lambert, 4:3 Iowa
22n. 231 ;
Kilbum V. Midlen. 22 Iowa 498 ;
State i: Wilson, 22 Iowa 364 :
State f. Williams, 20 Iowa &S :
White i: State. 4 Iowa 449.
' Blasini i-. Blasini. 30 La. An.
13>? :
Hubee v. Habee, 20 La. An. 97 :
Philbrick V. Spangler, l.j La. An
46;
Cole '■. langlej-, 14 La. An. 7*4 :
Holmes v. Holmes, 6 La. 463, 47i.i:
Prevost r. Prevost, 4 La. An.
347. 349 :
Patton V. Philadelphia, 1 La. An.
9S, 101.
' Hutchins i: Kimmell. 31 Mich.
126, 1-30.
See : Meister v. Moore. 96 U. S.
76, 7s : bk. 25 L. ed. s2ij
' State V. Wortiiington, 23 Minn.
528. 533.
" noyd f. Calvert, 53 iliss. 37. 44 :
Bundle r. Pegram, 49 iliss. 751 :
Dickeison r. Brown, 49 Miss. a57:
HajTOTer v. Thompson, 31 iliss.
211. 21.5.
" Dyer i: Brannock, 66 Mo. 391.
402;
Boyer v. Dively, 5^ Mo. 510.
'- State V. WinkleT, 14 X. H. 480 ;
dark v. dark, iO X. H. 380, 383;
Londonderry i-. Chester, 2 N. H.
26*. 270.
Compare: Dnnbarton v. Frank-
lin, 19 X. H. 257.
"Vreeland v. Treeland, 18 X. J.
Eq. (3C. E. Gr.)43, 45;
Goldbeck r. Goldteck, 18 >'. J.
Eq. (3C. K Gr.)42. 43;
Wilson V. Hill, 13 Js. J. Eq. (2
Beas.) 143. 145 :
Pearson r. Howev, 11 X. J. L. (6
Halst.) 12, IS.
" Hvnes v. McDermott, 82 X. Y.
41,46;
Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 71
X. T. 423, 427 :
Hayes v. People, 25 X. T. 390 ;
CanjoUe v. Ferrie. 23 X. Y. 90 ;
Davis V. Davis, 1 Abb. (X. Y.) X.
C. 140:
Van Tuyl v. Tan Tuyl, 57 Barb.
(X. Y.) 2.85 ;
Bissell 1-. Bissell, .55 Barb. (X. Y.)
325:
Fenton v. Reed, 4 John. (X. Y.)
52 :
Re Tavlor. 9 Paige Ch. (X. Y.)
611:
Rose v. Clark, 8 Paige Ch. (X.
Y.) 574.
" Carmichael r. State, 12 Ohio St.
553. .557-559 ;
Duncan v. Duncan, 10 Ohio St
ISl. 18:3.
« Richard i: Brehm, 73 Pa. St. 140,
144:
Commonwealth v. Stump, 53 Pa.
St. 132 :
Hantz V. Sealy, 6 Binn. (Pa.) 405:
Phvsick r. Physick, 2 Brewst.
(Pa.) 179 ;
Guardians v. Nathans, 2 Brewst.
(Pa.) 149, 152 ;
Brices Estate. 11 PhOa. (Pa.) 98.
' ■ State r. ^Vhaley, 10 S. C. 500 ;
Xorth 1-. Talk, Dud. (S. C.) Eq.
Frver i". Frver, 1 Rich. (S. C.) Eq.
Cas. 85. 92.
" Williams v. Williams, 46 Wia.
464, 475.
Chap. XVII. § 723.] VOID AND VOIDABLE MARRIAGE. 597
by the Supreme Court of the United States.^ It is open
to some doubt whether a celebration is requisite to a
vahd marriage in some of the states not above enumer-
ated ; but it is thought that it is probably necessary
in Delaware,^ Maine,^ Virginia,* and West Virginia ;
and is not required in the states of Arkansas,^
Florida,*' Indiana/ Kansas,^ Nebraska, Nevada,^ Ehode
Island,^" and Vermont. ^^ Although the question
has not been decided in the states of Connecticut, Colo-
rado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Oregon, Utah, and Washington, it is thought there is
reason to believe that, should the question be directly
raised in either of these states, a celebration of the mar-
riage will be held not to be essential.^
Sec. 723. Same — Same — ^Void and voidable m.arriage. —
Where the marriage is a void one because of some ille-
gality, the man acquires no right to curtesy ; but if it be
voidable merely, and is not annulled during the lifetime
of the wife, the husband will be tenant by the curtesy ;
for a marriage cannot be avoided by the courts after the
death of either of the parties. ^^
Sec. 723. Same— 2. Seisin of wife.— To entitle the husband
to hold as tenant by the curtesy, the wife must be seized,"
' Meister c. Moore, 96 U. S. 76, 78 ; (Ind.) 234, 235.
bk. 24 L. ed. 826. • See : State v. White, 19 Kan.
« See : Pettyjohn v. Pettyjohn, 1 445, 449.
Houst. (Del.) 232, 234. ' Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 6 Nev.
=> State V. Hodgskins, 19 Me. 155, 63, 66.
157 ; " Peck V. Peck. 13 R. I. 485, 488.
Damon v. Damon, 6 Me. (6 " Newberry v. Brmiswick, 2 Vt.
Greenl.) 148 ; 151, 160.
Cram v. Burnham, 5 Me. (5 See : Northfield v. Vershire, 33
Greenl.) 213 ; Vt. 110 ;
Brunswick v. Litchfield, 3 Me. (3 State v. Rood, 13 Vt. 396, 399.
Greenl ) 28. Compare : Northfield v. Ply-
■» Francis v. Francis, 31 Gratt. (Va.) mouth, 20 Vt. 583, 591.
283 386-7 ; " See : Andrews •;;. Page, 3 Heisk.
O'Neal V. Commonwealth, 17 (Tenn.) 653, 667;
Gratt. (Va.) 582, 587. Catterall v. Sweetman, 1 Rob.
' ScoKKins V. State, 33 Ark. 205, Eoc. 304, 313, 317.
212 " 2 Burns Ecc. Law, 458, 501.
« Burns' •?;. Burns, 13 Fla. 369, 380 ; ■" Bogy v. Roberts, 48 ArK 17 ;s.c.
Pondes v. Graham, 4 Fla. 33. 3 Am. St. Rep. 311 ; 3 S. W.186 ;
' Nassamon v. Nassamon, 4 Ind. Mackey v. Proctor, 13 B. Mon.
648 650 • (Ky-) 433 ;
Trimble ■y.'Trimble, 3 Ind. 76. 78 ; Neely v. Butler, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.)
Fleming v. Fleming, 8 Blackf. 48 ;
598
SEISIN OF WIFE.
[Book HL
during coverture, of an estate of inheritance,^ which may-
be either legal ^ or equitable ; ^ and the estate must also
be an estate in possession, for it is a general rule that
there can be no curtesy in an estate in reversion ex-
pectant on a life interest, or other estate of freehold.*
Stevens v. Smith, 4 J. J. Marsh.
(Ky.) 64 ; s.c. 20 Am. Dec. 205 ;
Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 161 ;
s.c. 90 Am. Dec. 320 ;
Den ex d. Hopper v. Demarest,
21 N. J. L. 525 ;
Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
400;
Jackson ex d. Swartwont v. Jolin-
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15
Am. Dec. 433 ;
Adair v. Lott, 3 HiU (N. Y.) 186 ;
Lessee of Merritt v. Horns, 5 Ohio
St. 307 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec. 298.
Thus where an estate was devised
to the wife during vpidowhood,
or until his son B arrived at
the age of twenty-one, and one-
third on her marriage, and a
daughter married and had issue
and died before B arrived at
the age of twenty-one and in
the lifetime of lier mother,
the court held that the hus-
band of the daughter so dying
was not entitled to curtesy in
the one-third left to the widow
of the testator, because the wife
never had seisin thereof.
Carter v. Williams, 8'lred. (N. C.)
Eq. 177 ;
Carpenter v. Garrett, 75 Va. 129.
Sale and reinvestment of funds. — In
the case of Bogy v. Roberts, 48
Ark. 17, a fatlier who was ten-
ant by the curtesy sold his in-
terest in his deceased wife's
lands in connection with a sale
as guardian of the children's
interest therein, under an order
of the Probate Court, and re-
invested the whole proceeds in
other lands, taking a deed to
himself as guardian of the chil-
dren, under wJiich deed he took
possession, received the rents
and profits for years, and made
valuable improvements. On
marriage of his daughter and
ejectment brougiit, the court
held that the husband was not
entitled to curtesy in the tract
of land thus purchased, because
his deceased wife was never
seized of it.
A contrary doctrine, however, is
held by some courts, whicli
maintain that a husband may
be entitled to tenancy by curt-
esy though the wife never was
seized in deed, either actually
or constructively, of the land,
and although the same may be
held adversely during covert-
ure.
See -. Mitchell v. Ryan, 3 Ohio St.
377.
Thus it was held in Borland v.
Marshall, 2 Ohio St. 308, that
the owner of the inheritance in
land is "possessed" of it for
the pui'poses of dower and curt-
esy.
Weir V. Tate, 4 Ired. (N. C.) Eq.
264.
' Ferguson v. Tweedy, 56 Barb. (N.
Y.) 168 ;
Watkins v. Thornton, 11 Ohio St.
367.
See : Haynes ■y.Bourne,42 Vt. 686.
^ See : Post, § 737.
^Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn,
595.
Under the statute of uses, in giving
effect to estates imder, courts
of equity have always sought
to follow, and in most respects
have followed, the law in re-
gard to the nature and inci-
dents of such estates, and the
husbands of cestui que trusts
were allowed to take curtesy in
the trust estates where they
were estates of inheritance, and
the wife had an equity which
answered to a seisin in law of
legal estates in possession.
See : Davis v. Mason, 26 U. S. (1
Pet.) 503 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 239 ;
Robinson v. Codman, 1 Sumn. C.
C. 121 ;
Hearle v. Greenback, 3 Atk. 695,
717;
Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408;
Sweetapple v. Bindon, 2 Vern.
537, n. 3 ;
Watts V. Ball, 1 Pr. Wms. 109.
* See : Bogy v. Roberts, 48 Ark. 17 ;
Chap. XVII. § 724.] SUFFICIENCY OF WIFE'S SEISIN.
599
Whether the husband is entitled to hold as tenant by the
curtesy, or not, must be determined by the nature of the
estate of which the husband and wife were seized in her
right in her lifetime.^
Sec. Y24. Same— Same— What seisin is sufaeient.— To en-
title a husband to curtesy in the lands of his deceased
wife, there must have been seisin of the wife, or of the
husband in her right : ^ (1) in law or in fact ; (2) the seisin
must be beneficial ; ^ (3) it must be sole, and (4) must exist
s.c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 311 ; 3 S.
W. Rep. 186 ;
Carter v. WUliams, 8 Ired. (N. C.)
Eq. 177 ;
Watkins v. Thornton, 11 Ohio St.
367;
Carpenter v. Garrett, 75 Va. 129 ;
Watk. Deso. (4th ed.) 131.
' Haynes v. Bourn, 43 Vt. 686.
' Petty V. Malier, 1.5 B. Mon. (Ky.)
591 ;
Stinebaugh v. Wisdom, 13 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 467 ;
Orr V. Holiidays, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.)
59.
^ Thus where a woman was seized
in fee, in trust for the grantor
for life, with a reversion in the
beneficial interest to herself, it
was held that the husband was
not entitled to curtesy in Chew
V. Commissioners of South-
wark, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 159. In
the course of the opinion the
court say: "Now the quota-
tion from Lord Coke relative to
the seisin that is necessary to
give a right of dower, and the
nature of the estate out of
which such right may or may
not be claimed, is equally ap-
plicable as well as necessary to
establish a right by the curtesy.
And LordHAEDWiCKE, accord-
ingly, in the case of Hearle v.
Greenback, 1 Ves. Sr. 307,
laid it down in these words :
' Though said to be determined
in Casborn «., Scarf e, 1 Atk.
603, that a husband may be
tenant by the curtesy of a trust
in equity, yet the wife must in
the first place have the inherit-
ance ; and secondly, there must
be a seisin of the freehold dur-
ing the coverture.' The same
principle is repeated and con-
firmed by Chancellor Kent in
his Commentaries, vol. IV., p.
31 (of the first edition), who
there states, ' The wife must
have had a seisin of the freehold
and inheritance seniel et simul,
either at law or in equity, during
the coverture. ' But the seisin at
law here mentioned must be
imderstood as a seisin attended
by or under a right of owner-
ship ; because in addition to
what has been already ad-
vanced going to show that this
must be so, the husband, if en-
titled to tlie estate at all by the
curtesy, has the right to it im-
mediately upon the death of
his wife, or it would not be, as
has been already shown, a con-
tinuation of the estato or right
of the wife ; but if the wife was
seized only in trust for the use
of another, and not for her own
benefit, at the time of lier death,
the husband cannot take, for
Chief Baron Gilbert, in his
treatise on Uses and Trusts, 171 ,
lays it down that ' tenant by
the curtesy, or tenant in dower,
cannot be seized to uses, be-
cause they come to these estates
by the disposition of law, for
the advancement and encour-
agement of matrimony ; and
those estates are given them for
their own maintenance, and
are consequently exclusive of
all other uses for the advantage
of- other people. ' And besides,
to permit the husband to take
the estate for his own use on
the death of the wife, where
she was only seized of the free-
hold as a trustee, would be in
direct violation of the trust and
of the rights of the cestui que
600
SEISIN IN FACT.
[Book III.
some time during coverture.^ In some of the states the
wife must die seized. ^ In this country the common law
on this point is not observed with the same degree of
strictness as in England, and an immediate right of entry
or constructive seisin, in the absence of any adverse pos-
session, is considered sufficient to vest the title as tenant
by curtesy in the husband.^
Sec. 725. Same— Same— Seisin in fact or in deed.— At com-
trust, -which are paramount to
that of either the wife or the
husband, and, therefore, is not
to be tolerated for a moment."
See to same effect McKee v.
Jones, 6 Pa. St. 429.
' Lord Coke says, if a man dies
seized of lands in fee-simple or
fee-tail general, and they de-
scend to his daughter, who
marries, has issue, and dies be-
fore entry, the husband shall
not be tenant by the curtesy ;
yet in this case the husband
had a seisin in law. But if she
or her husband had entered
during her life, he would have
been tenant by the curtesy.
Doe V. Rivers, 7 T. R. 276 ;
Thomas v. Thomas, 6 T. R. 671,
679 ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep. 306 ;
1 Inst. 29a.
« See : Post, § 731.
Incorporeal hereditaments. — With
respect to the seisin which is
necessary in the incorporeal
hereditaments, to give a title
to curtesy, a seisin in law or
constructive seisin is sufficient,
even at common law, as the
husband could not by any in-
dustry obtain a seisin in deed.
If it be a rent created by means
of a conveyance to uses, the
grantee immediately acquires
a seisin by the words of the
statute.
1 Inst. 29a.
Eemainder in tail — Surrender of par-
ticular estate. — A married wo-
man owning a vested remainder
in tail receiving a surrender of
a particular estate acquires a
sufficient seisin to support an
estate by the curtesy.
Pierce r. Hakes, 28 Pa. St. 331.
^ Jackson ex d. Beekman v. Selliok,
8 John. (N. Y.) 262 ;
Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill (N.Y.) 1S3:
McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3
Humph. (Tenn.) 267 ;
Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.)
507, 508 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 239 ;
Green v. Liter, 12 U. S. (8 Cr.)
239, 349 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545 ;
Barr v. GaUoway, 1 McL. C. C.
476.
Compare: Day v. Cochran, 24
Miss. 261 ;
Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
388.
The owner of the inheritince in land
is possessed of it sufficient for
the purpose of curtesy in
dower.
Wier V. Tate, 4 Ired. (N. C.) Eq.
264.
A recovery alone, in ejectment, by
the husband and wife, has been
held sufficient for this pui-pose.
Ellsworth V. Cook, 8 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 643.
A right of entry by the wife is
sufficient, in some of the states,
by force of the statute of de-
scents, notwithstanding any
adverse seisin or possession.
Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494 ;
Bush r. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.)
398, 306 ;
Hillhouse v. Chester, 3 Day
(Conn.) 166 ;
Mitchell V. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377.
Peaceable possession under claim of
title, though for less than 20
years, when there has been no
abandonment, is sufficient
prima facie evidence of an
estate of inheritance in the wife
to sustain a claim of curtesy by
the husband.
Smoot V. Lecatt,l Stew. (Ala.) 590.
A fortiori, is this sufficient, with
a descent cast, or devise ?
Rochon V. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.)
609.
Chap. XVII. § 726.] SEISIN IN FACT— EXCEPTIONS.
601
mon law a husband could not be tenant by the curtes3%
unless the wife, or the husband in her right, liad actual
seisin, or seisin in deed, that is, had possession of the
land during coverture ; ^ and this doctrine has been held
by some of the courts of this country.^ Any one who is
in actual possession of land, claiming a freehold,^ or who
has the immediate right to possession under a deed* or a
judicial judgment,^ is said to be seized in fact or in deed.
Sec. ^'2Ck Same— Same — Same — Exceptions to the rule.—
The common-law rule, that actual seisin or seisin in deed
must be acquired during the coverture, applied in its full
1 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 2di\.
* See : Rochon v. Lecatt, 1 Stew.
(Ala.) 603, filO;
Bush r. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.)
30y, so.-) ;
StinebauR-h v. Wisdom, 13 B.
Mon. (ky.)467;
Welch's Heirs v. Chandler, 13 B.
Miin. (Ky.) 420 ;
Neely v. Butler, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.)
48;
Orr V. Hollidays, 9 B. Mon. (Ky.)
59;
Adams v. Logan, 6 T. B. Mon.
(Ky.) 175 ;
Stevens v. Smith, 4 J. J. Marsh.
(Ky.) 64; s.c. 20 Am. Dec.
205;
Ferguson v. Tweedy, 56 Barb.
(N. Y.) 186 ; s.c. 43 N. Y. 543 ;
Gibbs V. Esty, 22 Hun (N. Y.)
266;
Nixon V. Williams, 95 N. C. 103 ;
Carpenter v. Garrett, 75 Va. 129,
134;
Mercer's Lessees v. Selden, 42 U.
S. (1 How.) 37 ; bk. 11 L. ed.
38;
Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.)
503, 507 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 239, 240 ;
Lessee of Barr v. Galloway, 1
McL. C. C. 476 ;
Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. C. C.
263.
The reason for the rule is given by
the Supreme Court of Kentucky
in the case of Neely v. Butler,
10 B. Mon. (Ky.) 48, to be
because " it is the duty of the
husband, to enable him to pro-
tect the land from injury and
for the purpose of fortifying
the title of his wife, to take it
into actual possession. The
wife being disabled by coverts
ure to do it herself, the law
devolves the duty on the hus-
band, and if he fails in his
performances, he has no in-
terest in tlie land upon the
deatli of the wife. The uni-
form course of the decisions in
this court, therefore, lias been
to regard actual seisin by the
husband during coverture as
necessary to entitle him to an
estate in the land of his wife
after her death, as tenant by
curtesy."
* See : Durando r. Durando, 32
Barb. (N. Y.) 539 ;
Vanderheyden v. Crandall, 2 Den.
(N. Y.) 9, 21 ;
Wendell v. Crandall, 1 N. Y. 491 ;
Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 42 U.
S. (1 How.) 37, 54 ; bk. 11 L.
ed. 38, 46 ;
Hovenden r. Annesley, 2 Schoales
& Lef . 623.
The word "seisin" applies only to
freehold estates.
See : Fitzhugh v. Croghan, 2 J.
J. Marsh. (Ky.) 439; s.c. 19
Am. Dec. 139 ;
Slater v. Rarason, i7 Mass. (6
Met.) 439, 444 ;
Towle V. Ayer, 8 N. H. 58 ;
Englishbe v. Helmuth, 3 N. Y.
294;
1 Co. Litt. (19fch ed.) 153a.
■* See : Higbee v. Rice, 5 Mass. 352 ;
Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 182 ;
Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 42 U. S.
(1 How.) 37, 54 ; bk. 11 L. ed.
38, 46.
'■ Ellsworth V. Cook, 8 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 643.
602 EXCEPTIONS TO RULE OF SEISIN. [Book III,
rigor only to lands. As regards other realty of which
there is curtesy, a seisin in law suffices if circumstances
make seisin in deed impossible ; as of a rent, if the wife
dies before it becomes due.^ Entry is not necessary to
acquire seisin in deed of land, if there be a tenant for
years of the land ; because his possession is the possession
of the husband and wife, even before the receipt of rent
from him.'' The Supreme Court of New York have de-
clared that the doctrine of actual seisin, or seisin in deed, is
of limited scope.^ The court say that in all cases where
actual seisin of the wife has been required, it will be found
that the wife claimed either as heir or devisee, and hold
that where the wife's title rests on a deed taking effect
by the statute of uses, the corporal possession would be
drawn to the legal title "by a kind of parliamentary
magic. "
We have already seen* that the rule requiring that
the wife should have actual seisin is not applied in
this country as strictly as in England, and we will see
presently ^ that it is not applied to wild and uncultivated
lands ; where she is owner of such lands, she is deemed
in possession, so as to entitle her husband to become
tenant by the curtesy, though there has been no actual
possession by either of them during the coverture.®
There is also an exception to the rule requiring seisin
in fact or deed, where actual seisin during coverture was
prevented by bodily fear.^
1 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29a. actual descent at common law,
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29a, Har- there could never be an absolute
grave's note 3. impossibility to obtain seisin in
Seisin under English Descent Act — ■ deed, but only a certain degree
In Eager v. Furnivall, 17 Ch. of difficulty which, however
D. 115, it seems to have been great in practice, could not in
assumed that the alteration of theory be said to be insuperable.
the English rules of descent has ^ Jackson ex d. Swartwout v.
not affected the necessity for Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ;
actual seisin ; but the point s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 433.
was not raised. It was also ^ See : Ante, § 724.
assumed that a seisin in law of ' See : Post, % 743.
lands would suffice, when a ^ Jackson ex'd. Beekman v. Sellick,
seisin in deed could not by any 8 John. (N. Y.) 262.
possibility be had. It is to be See : Davis v. Mason, 26 U. S.
observed that in this case the (1 Pet.) 503, 506 ; bk. 7 L. ed.
impossibility arose out of a 239, 240 ;
peculiar state of circumstances Green v. Liter, 12 U. S. (8 Cr.)
caused by sect. 33 of the Wills 229, 249 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545, 552.
Act, and was an absolute im- ' Lessee of Barr t;. Galloway, 1 McL.
possibility ; whereas, upon an C. C. 476.
Chap. XVII. § 727.] SEISIN IN LAW.
603
Sec. 727. same— Same— Seisin in lav-— The common-law
rule requiring seisin in fact, or actual possession, by the
wife or by the husband in her right during coverture, has
been greatly relaxed in this country, so that in most of
the states it is deemed sufficient that the wife had title
to the lands, and a potential seisin or right of seisin,^ so
that entry could have been made by the voluntary act of
the husband, there being no adverse possession. ^ It seems
' Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ;
s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76;
Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494 ;
Bush V. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.)
398 ■
Mettie'r v. MiUer, 139 lU. 630 ;
s.o. 33 N. E. Rep. 539.
See : Neely v. Butler, 10 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 48 ;
Wass V. Buoknam, 38 Me. 356 ;
Kedus V. Hayden, 43 Miss. 614 ;
Day V. Cochran, 34 Miss. 377 ;
Stephens v. Hume, 35 Mo. 349 ;
Harvey v. Wickham, 33 Mo. 113
Reaume v. Chambers, 23 Mo. 36
McKee v. Cottle", 6 Mo. App. 410
Jackson ex d. Beekman v. Sel-
Uck, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 362 ;
Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John-
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15
Am. Dec. 433 ;
Adair v. Lott, 3 HiU (N. Y.) 183 ;
Lessee of Merritt v. Home, 5
Ohio St. 307 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec.
398;
Buchanan v. Duncan, 40 Pa. St.
82;
Chew V. Commissioners of South-
wark, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160 ;
McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3
Humph. (Tenn.) 267 ;
Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 43 U.
S. (1 How.) 37, 54 ; bk. 11 L. ed.
38, 45 ;
Davis V. Mason, 36 U. S. (1 Pet.)
506 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 249.
Mississippi doctrine. — Livery of
seisin being unknown in Mis-
sissippi, and pedis possessio
being unnecessary to vest a
freehold, an estate by curtesy
may be created, in that state,
whenever there is a seisin of
the wife during the coverture,
with actual possession of the
husband and wife, or a right
to immediate entry by their
voluntary act.
Redus V. Hayden, 43 Miss. 614.
In West Virginia — The mere seisin
in liw by a maiTied woman
created by her inheriting realty
does not entitle her husband to
curtesy.
Fulton V. Johnson, 24 W. Va. 95.
' Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ;
s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ;
McDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 465 ;
Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494 ;
Bush V. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.)
398:
Stinebaugh v. Wisdom, 13 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 467 :
Neely v. Butler, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.)
48;
Adams v. Logan, 6 T. B. Mon.
(Ky.) 175 ;
Wass u. Bucknam, 38 Me. 356 ;
Redus V. Hayden, 43 Miss. 614 ;
Rabb V. Griffin, 36 Miss. 579 ;
Day V. Cochran, 34 Miss. 361,377;
Reaume v. Chambers, 33 Mo. 30 ;
McKee v. Cottle, 6 Mo. App. 416 ;
Den exd. Hopper v. Demarest, 21
N. J. L. (1 Zab.) 535 ;
Jackson exd. Swartwout v. John-
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15
Am. Dec. 433 ;
Jackson ex d. Beekman v. Sel-
lick, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 362 ;
Ellsworth V. Cook, 8 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 643 ;
Pierce v. Wanett, 10 Ired. (N. C.)
L. 446;
Watkins v. Thornton, 11 Ohio St.
367;
Mitchell V. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377 ;
Borland's Lessee v. Marsiiall, 3
Ohio St. 308 ;
Buchanan v. Duncan, 40 Pa. St.
83;
Chew V. Commissioner's of South-
wark, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160 :
McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3
Humph. (Tenn.) 267 ;
Barr v. Galloway, 1 McL. C. C.
476;
Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 43 U.
8. (1 How.) 37, 54 ; bk. 11 L.
ed. 38, 45 ;
604 RELAXATION OF RULE— REASON. [Book III.
that the rule requiri/ig actual seisin applies only to cases
in which seisin is not complete until entry is made, as
where the estate descends or is devised to the wife, and
not where it is acquired by deed, and is transferred into
possession by the statute of uses.-^
Sec. 728. Same— Same— Same— Reason for relaxing rule.—
The general tendency of the courts in this country is to
disregard the common-law requirements of actual seisin, as
being no longer supported by the reason which formerly
existed when the feudal regime prevailed. Justice Story
says in G-reen v. Liter, ^ that " the object of the law in re-
quiring actual seisin was to evince notoriety of title to
the neighborhood and the consequent burthens of feudal
duties. * * * But in a mere uncultivated country, in
wild and impenetrable woods, in the sullen and solitary
haunts of beasts of prey, what notoriety could an entry or
gathering of a twig or acorn convey to civilized man at
the distance of one hundred miles ? " ^
Sec. 729. same— Same— Same— Extent to which rule re-
laxed.—While the general tendency is to disregard the
Davis V. Mason, 36 U. S. (1 Pet.) Chew v. Commissioners of Soutli-
506 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 339 ; wark, 5 Rawle (Pa:) 161 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 80. Stoolfoos v. Jenkins, 8 Serg. & R.
A husband may have tenancy by 175.
the curtesy though the wife be In the case of Borland's Lessee v.
never seized in deed, either Marshall, 3 Ohio St. 308, it is
actually or constructively, of said that a husband may have
the land, and though the same tenancy by the curtesy though
be adversely held during covert- the vvif t' be never seized in deed,
ure. either actually or constructive-
Mitchell V. Ryan, 3 Ohio St. 377 ; ly, of the land ; andthough the
Borland's Lessee v. Marshall, 3 same be adversely held during
Ohio St. 308. coverture.
Compare : Den ex d. Hopper v. « 13 U. S. (8 Cr.) 343 ; bk. 3 L. ed.
Demarest, 21 N. J. L. (1 Zab.) 545.
535. 3 See : McDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark.
' Jackson ex d. Swartwoutv. John- 468 ;
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 Shores «. Carley,90 Mass. (8 Allen)
Am. Dec. 433. 425 ;
A constructive seisin is all that is Malonev. McLaurin, 40Miss. 161 ;
required in all other cases. Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y.
Day V. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261. 543 ; s.c. 56 Barb. (N. Y.) 168 ;
It is sufficient that the wife has Gellespie v. Worford, 3 Cald.
title to the lands, etc., and a (Tenn.) 633 ;
potential seisin, or right of Guion v. Anderson, 8 Humph.
seisin. (Tenn.) 398 ;
See : Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494 ; Davis v. Mason, 36 TJ. S. (1 Pet.)
Bush V. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.) 503 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 339.
298 ;
Chap. XVII. § 730.] EXTENT OF RELAXATION. 605
requirement of actual seisin, as being no longer supported
by the reason which formerly existed, yet the courts have
hesitated to go so far as to declare a legal seisin sufficient
under all circumstances, but have simply relaxed the rule
with reference to certain kinds of land and properties,
such as wild, waste, and uncultivated lands,^ and that
which lies in grant and not in livery.^ Actual entry and
possession is not necessary to give right to hold by cur-
tesy in any estate that lies in grant and not in livery, as
known to the common law,^ nor is it required in those
cases of grant by deed ,where the seisin passes to the
grantee by force of the statute of uses.^
Sec. '730. Same— same— Seizure by descent east.— Where
a descent is cast upon a married woman during coverture,
this is sufficient to support the husband's title to curtesy
without entrj^,^ and a devise to executors for payment of
debts does not prevent the descent of the freehold and in-
heritance ; consequently, in a case of this kind, the estate
by curtesy will attach. Thus where a person having
issue, a daughter, devised his lands to his executors for
payment of his debts, and until his debts were paid, and
the executors entered. The daughter married, had issue,
1 See • Post, § 743. Davis v. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.)
°- It is said in Wells v. Thompson, 503, 507 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 239, 240.
13 Ala. 793; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. * Jackson ex d. Swartwoutt). John-
76, that by the conmion law son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15
as administered in England it Am. Dec. 433.
was essential to an estate by ' Lochon v. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.)
the curtesy that the wife should 009 ;
liave had an actual seisin or pos- Harvey v. Wickham, 23 Mo. 113 ;
session of the land and not the Stephens v. Hume, 2'i Mo. 349 ;
bare right to possess, which is Reaume v. Chambers, 22 Mo. 30 ;
a seisin in law. 1 Steph. Com. Childers v. Bumgarner, 8 Jones
246, et seq. But this rule has (N. C.) L. 297.
been relaxed in this country, Tlius where the ancestor of a
and if the wife be the owner of married woman died seized and
waste, uncultivated lands, not possessed of a tract of land, the
held adversely, she is to be Supreme Court of North Caro-
deemed seized in fact, so as to lina said that the descent cast,
entitle her husband to his right and the title derived from her
of curtesy. The title to such ancestor, accordmg to the law
property draws to it the posses- of the state, gave her an actual
sion ; and that constructive seisin ; and, having had chil-
possession continues in judg- dren during her coverture, her
ment of law until an adverse husband became tenant by the
possession be clearly made out. curtesy.
4 Kent Com. (I3th ed.) 29. Childers v. Bumgarner, 8 Jones
3 Jackson^ Sellick, 8 John. (N. Y.) (N. C.) L. 397.
263;
606 POSSESSION BY COPARCENER. [Book III.
and died ; afterwards the debts were paid. The court
held that the husband should be tenant by the curtesy.^
Sec. Y31. Same— Same— Seized at time of death.— In some
of the states the statutes make the right of the husband
to an estate by the curtesy contingent upon the seisin of
the wife in possession at the fime of her death. Under
these statutes the estate does not become vested in the
husband by the birth of issue, as at common law, but is
subject to be defeated by disseisin under statute.^
Sec. Y32. Sam.e — Same — Possession by coparcener. — The
occupancy of the land by part of several coparceners
is sufficient seisin to make the husband tenant by the
curtesy of his wife's part, although neither she nor her
husband had ever lived upon the land or exercised any
act of ownership over it.^ Thus, where land descended
to several coparceners, one of whom afterwards married,
had issue, and died without she or her husband having
lived upon or exercised any act of ownership over the
land, but permitted it to remain in the possession of the
coparceners, the court held that this was a suflBcient
seizure in fact to sustain the husband's claim as tenant
by the curtesy.* And where a person, in right of his
wife, became a partner, with others, in the ownership of
a cotton factory and other mills, and in the management
of the business thereof, and received a proportionate share
of the profits, from the time his wife became interested
therein until after her death, this was held to be a
sufficient seisin of the wife to consummate the estate by
the curtesy in the husband.^
Sec. 'r33. Same— Same— Possession by co-tenant.- The
seisin or possession of one co-tenant in common is so far
the seisin and possession of all the other co-tenants as to
enable the husband of one such co-tenant in common to
' Manning's Case, 8 Co. 96a. Barb. (N. Y.) 43 ;
See: Robertsons. Stevens, llred. DeGrey v. Richardson, 3 Atk.
(N. C.) Eq. 247. 469.
■^ See : Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776. ■• Carr v. Givens, 9 Bush (Ky.) 679 ;
» Carr v. Givens, 9 Bush (Ky.) 679 ; s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 747.
s.c. 15 Am. Rep. 747. <• Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. (N.
See : Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Y.) 43.
Chap. XVII. § 734.] POSSESSION BY CO-TENANT.
607
claim by the curtesy in the wife's part,^ though she die
before actual entry .^ Thus where the ancestors of a
married woman died seized and possessed of a tract of land,
and one of the wife's co-tenants made an actual entry,
the possession of this co-heir was held to be the posses-
sion of all the heirs, and to entitle the husband of one of
the deceased heirs to curtesy in her share of the estate.^
Consequently the right to claim by the curtesy will not be
lost by the abandonment of the premises to a co-tenant
in common.* The law in this respect in this country is
in accord with that of England, as found in the case of
Sterlings. Penlington,^ but differs from that in force in
England since the passage of the statute of William IV. ^
Sec. T34. same— Same— Possession by wife's tenant.— It is
a sufficient seisin for the purpose of curtesy, without
entry,^ or any receipt of rents,^ even at common law,
where the wife has a tenant in possession who holds
' Powell V. Gossom, 18 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 179 ;
Vanarsdall v. Fauntleroy, 7 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 401 ;
Wass V. Buckman, 38 Me. 360
Day V. Cochrane, 34 Miss. 261 ;
Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. (N.
Y.) 43 ;
Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
388;
Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John-
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15
Am. Dec. 433 ;
Dunscomb v. Dunscomb's Exrs.,
I John. Ch. (N. Y.) 508 ;
Carter v. WiUiams, 8 Ired. (N.
C.) Eq. 177 ;
Childers v. Bumgamer, 8 Jones
(N. C.) L. 397 ;
Green v. Liter, 12 U. S. (8 Cr.)
345 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545 ;
DeGrey v. Richardson, 3 Atk.
469;
Sterling v. Penlington, 2 Eq. Cas.
Abr. 730 ; s.c. 14 Vin. Abr. 513,
pi. 5 ; 7 Id. 150. pi. 11.
In England, this was formerly the
rule (see : Sterling v. Penling-
ton, sicpra), but the rule was
changed by the statute 3 & 4
Wm. IV., c. 37, § 13.
See : CuUey v. Doe d. Taylerson,
II Ad. & E. 1008 ; s.c. 39 Eng.
C. L. 527 ; , . ^
Dos d. Holt V. Harrocks, 1 Car.
&K. 566 ; s.c. 47 Eng. C. L.545.
' Sterling v. Penlington, 2 Eq. Cas.
Abr. 730 ; s.c. 14 Vin. Abr. 512,
pi. 5 ; 7 Id. 150, pi. 11.
8 Childers v. Bumgarner, 8 Jones
(N. C.) L. 397.
^ Wass V. Buckman, 38 Me. 356 ;
Buckley i\ Buckley, 11 Barb.
(N. Y.) 43 ;
Dunscomb v. Dunscomb's Exrs.,
I John. Ch. (N. Y.) 508 ;
Childers v. Bumgarner, 8 Jones
(N. C.) L. 297.
ii7 Vin. Abr. 150, pi. 11.
«3aad4Wm. IV.,c. 27, § 12.
See : CuUey v. Doe d. Taylerson,
II Ad. & E. 1008 ; s.c. 39 Eng.
C. L. 527 ;
Doe d. Holt V. Horrocks, 1 Car.
& K. 566 ; s.c. 47 Eng. C. L.
545.
■" Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John-
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15
Am. Deo. 438.
8 Powell V. Gossom, 18 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 179 ;
Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
388;
Ellsworth V. Cook, v. Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 643 ;
Carter v. Williams, 8 Ired. (N. C.)
Eq. 177 :
Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170 ;
Green v. Liter, 12 U. S. (8 Cr.)
229 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545.
608 POSSIISSION BY WIFE'S TENANT. [Book III.
from year to year, at will, or at sufferance ; ^ the tenant
in such case holding the estate as quasi bailee of the
wife.^ The same is true where the estate descends to the
wife subject to a tenancy for years in another, and the
wife dies before receiving rent,^ the possession of the
lessee for years being the possession of the person to
whom the inheritance descends, even before entry or
receipt of rent.*
In the case of Grey v. Eichardson,^ an estate- tail de-
scended from her brother to A, who was married and had
no issue ; the lapds were let on leases for years, and the
rents were payable at Michaelmas and Lady-day. The
tenants, being greatly in arrear, did not receive any of
the Lady-day rents, but died four months after that time ;
nor did any other person receive rent during her life.
The question was, whether her husband was entitled to
be tenant by the curtesy. Lord Hardwicke said, if A had
died before Lady-day, there could not have been a doubt
of the husband's right to curtesy, because he could do
nothing till the rent became due. The only objection
arose from the neglect of the husband in not distraining
for the rent which became due at Lady-day. The receipt
of rent would have amounted to an actual seisin. If the
representatives of the brother had received any rent dur-
ing the life of the wife, it would have been a material
' Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.)
161 ; 339, 345 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545, 550 ;
Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. DeGrey v. Richardson. 3 Atk. 469.
Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74; ^ Powell v. Gossom, 18 B. MOn.
s.c. 15 Am. Deo. 433; (Ky.) 179 ;
Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170 ; Mackey i}. Proctor, 13 B. Mon.
Buchanan v. Duncan, 40 Pa. St. (Ky.) 433 ;
82 ; Day v. Cochrane, 34 Miss. 261 ;
Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.) Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
245 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545. 388 ;
« Powell V. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John-
(Ky.) 179 ; son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 : s.c. 15
VanarsdaU v. Fauntleroy, 7 B. Am. Dec. 433 :
Mon. (Ky.) 401 ; Carter v. WiUiams, 8 Ired. (N. C.)
Wass V. Buokman, 35 Me. 360 ; Eq. 177 ;
Day V. Cochrane, 34 Miss. 261 ; Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170 ;
Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.) Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.)
388 ; 339, 345 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545,
Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- 550 ;
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 DeGrey v. Richardson, 3 Atk.
Am. Dec. 433 ; 469.
Carter v. Williams, 8 Ired. (N. * 1 Cruise's Real Prop. (4th ed.) 156.
C.) Eq. 177 ; '3 Atk. 469.
Chap. XVII. §§ 735-737.] RECEIVING RENTS AND PROFITS. G09
objection ; but no part of the rent which accrued after
the death of the brother was ever received by the wife,
or by any other person ; so that the possession of the
lessee was the possession of the wife ; nor could there be
any other without making the husband a trespasser.
The court decreed that the husband was entitled to be
tenant by the curtesy.
Sec. 735. Same— Same — Same— Lease for life before mar-
riage.—There seems to be an exception to the general rule
above stated, in those cases where the wife's estate was
leased by her for life before her marriage. If the rent
be reserved it seems doubtful whether the husband will
be entitled to have curtesy of it ; but in a similar case
Lord Coke was of the opinion that the wife should have
dower. ^
Sec. T36. Same— Same— Same— Keeeiving rents and profits.
— The receipt of rents and profits by the wife during cov-
erture, or by the husband for her, is sufficient seisin to
give the husband a right to an estate by curtesy, ^ even
in those states where the rule of actual seisin is insisted
upon; ^ but a devise to a woman of the sole control of all the
income from an estate, without accountability, does not
give such possession or seisin of the trust estate as to
entitle the husband to curtesy therein where the doctrine
of actual seisin is maintained.*
Sec. 737. Same— Same— Possession by husband— Kentucky
doctrine.— In some of the states, and particularly Ken-
tucky, actual possession by the husband of the lands of
his wife, at the time of or during coverture, is in general
necessary to constitute the husband tenant by the curtesy,
1 1 Cn Tnst 29a 32a See : Green v. Liter, 12 U. S.
See: Stoddardl Gibbs, 1 Sumn. (8 Cr.) 229, 245 ; bk. 3 L. ed.
C C 263 545, 550.
' Powell V. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) ' Powell v. Gossom, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.)
179 l^^-
If land is in lease for years, curt- ^ Stewart v. Barclay, 2 Bush (Ky.)
esy may be without entry, or 550. u i o am
even receipts of rents, the pos- See : Hearle v. Greenbank, 3 Atk.
session of the lessee being 717 ; o ^t- ™
deemed the possession of the Sweetapple v. Bmdon, 2 Vem.
husband and wife. 537n.
Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170.
39
610 POSSESSION BY HUSBAND'S GEANTEE. [Book III.
after her death ; ^ and in case he was not so seized, he has
no right in the land, which will prevent the heir, during
the life of the husband, from maintaining ejectment
against an adverse holder.^ Possession by the immediate
or remote vendee of the husband, or by any person under
authority of the husband, is sufficient.^
Sec. '738. Same— Same— Possession by husband's grantee. —
It seems that in some of the states, if the grantee of the
husband enters upon the land of the wife, and holds
possession under such grant, he will have the rights of a
tenant by curtesy against the heirs of the wife during
the life of the husband, notwithstanding the fact that
the latter never had actual possession of the premises.*
Thus in the case of Nixon v. Williams," where the wife
of the plaintiff, who was dead, was entitled to the land in
dispute as heir at law, and her husband rented it as ten-
ant of the ancestor's widow, but the wife lived on the
land, the court held that she had such a seisin as entitled
her husband to an estate by the curtesy.
Sec. Y39. Same— Same— Seisin by guardian.— Where the
wife is married while a minor, and her guardian retains
the possession of the land after her marriage, the seisin
and possession of the guardian is the seisin and posses-
sion of the wife, and will support the claim of the husband
to curtesy ; ^ and the possession of land by a tenant, who
leased the same from such guardian, is, in law, the pos-
session of the ward, and such possession by the ward, at
the time of her marriage, entitles her husband to tenancy
by the curtesy.^
Sec. 740. Same— Same— Equitable title and seisin.— At
common law the husband's right of curtesy exists in
' Vanarsdall v. Fauntleroy, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 401 ;
Mon. (Ky.) 401. Nixon v. WUliams, 95 N. C. 103.
See : Stinebaugh v. Wisdom, 13 « 95 N. C. 103.
B. Mon. (Ky.) 467. "■ Phillips v. Phillips, 2 Duv. (Ky.)
2 Stinebaugh v. Wisdom, 18 B. Mon. 549 ;
(Ky.) 467. Powell ■;;. Gossom, 18 B. Mon.
» Vanarsdall v. Fauntleroy, 7 B. (Ky.) 179.
Mon. (Ky.) 401. ■■ Powell v. Gossom, 18 B. Mon.
" Vanarsdall v. Fauntleroy, 7 B. (Ky.) 179.
Chap. XVII. § 741.] EQUITABLE TITLE AND SEISIN. 611
trust estates as well as legal estates,^ where the trust
estate is an estate of inheritance, of which the wife had
an equity that answered to a seisin at law of legal
estates in possession.^ And in all cases where curtesy is
sought in an equitable estate, an equitable seisin is suffi-
cient, and the receipt by the cesttd que trust of the rents,
issues, and profits, or an actual possession of the land by
her trustee, will be sufficient seisin to uphold the estate
by curtesy,^ but it is not sufficient seisin of a trust estate,
that the wife had the rents and profits of the estate, if it
was by the terms of the trust to her own separate use,
because her seisin in such case would not inure to the
benefit of the husband.^ A surviving husband takes an
estate by the curtesy in lands to which his wife acquired
an equitable title, and of which she took possession jointly
with him, claiming for herself under her muniment of
title.s
Sec. 741. Same— Same— Same— Exception to the rule.— But
a mere naked seisin by the wife, or trustee, is not sufficient
to entitle her husband to dower by the curtesy,^ even
though she should become entitled to the reversion of the
equitable estate after the equitable life estate of another,
but dies before such intermediate estate is determined.^
' See : Schermerhom v. Miller, 3 Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Mad. 408 ;
Cow. (N. Y.) 439 ; Watts v. Ball, 1 Pr. Wms. 109 ;
Dunscombew.Dunscombe'sExrs., Sweetapple v. Bindon, 3 Vern.
1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 508 ; 537, n. 3.
Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. C. C. ^ Cushing v. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. (3
363 ; Stew.) 689 ;
Eobison v. Codman, 1 Sumn. C. C. Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408 ;
131 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 31.
Casborne v. Scarfe, 1 Atk. 603, * Stewart v. Barclay, 2 Bush (Ky.)
606; 550;
Dodson V. Hay, 3 Bro. C. C. 404 ; Hearle v. Greenback, 3 Atk. 717 ;
Chaplin v. Chaplin, 8 Pr. Wms. Sweetapple v. Bindon, 3 Vern.
239 ; 537, n. 3.
Watts V. Ball, 1 Pr. Wms. 108 ; ' Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn.
Sweetapple v. Bindon, 3 Vern. 595. r., ^ -,a ^ a.
536 ; « See : Eigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. St.
Cunningham v. Moody, 1 Ves. 361;
gj. 174 Stockes V. McKibbm, 13 Pa. St.
'Eobison v. Codman,! Sumn. C. ^^^^"^ ' „ . . ^c .x.
Q -j^gi . Chew u. Commissioners of South-
Davis V. Mason, 26 V. S. (1 Pet.) wark, 5 Eawle (Pa.) 160.
503 508 • bk 7 L. ed. 239, 241 ; ' Chew v. Commissioners of South-
■ Hearie v. Greenback, 3 Atk. 695, wark, 5 Eawle (Pa.) 160.
717;
612 ACTUAL ENTRY. [BOOK HI.
Sec. 14:2. Same— Same— Actual entry.— The general rule
of law is that there must be an entry during coverture to
enable the husband to claim a tenancy by the curtesy.^
But where a descent is cast upon a married woman dur-
ing coverture, entry by the wife is not necessary to sup-
port curtesy in the husband,^ and in some of the states,
such as Connecticut,^ Ohio,* Pennsylvania,^ and perhaps
other states, adverse possession does not necessitate an
actual entry ; *^ but it is said in the case of Mercer's Lessee
V. Selden,^ that the general rule is, that there must be an
entry during coverture, to enable a husband to claim a
tenancy by the curtesy.
Sec. 'r4:3. Sam.e— Same — Sam.e— Wild, waste, and unculti-
vated lands.— The right of possession of wild, waste, and
uncultivated lands draws to it the possession, if the lands
are not held adversely ; consequently, where the other
incidents necessary to the creation of the estate by curtesy
exist, a husband becomes tenant by the curtesy of wild,
waste, and uncultivated land, not held adversely by
another, of which the wife had the legal seisin.^ The
' Mercer's Lessee v. Selden, 42 U. Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. Jolin-
S. (1 How.) 37 ; bk. 11 L. ed. son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74'; s.c. 15
38. Am. Dec. 433 ;
It was held by the Supreme Court Adair v. Lett, 3 HiU (N. Y.) 183 ;
of Kentucky in the ca.se of Van- Childers ?;. Bumgarner, 8 Jones
arsdall v. Fauntleroy's Heirs, (N. C.) L. 297 ;
7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 401, that where Chew v. Commissioner of South-
a husband and wife execute a wark, 5 Eawle (Pa.) 160.
deed of the wife's unimproved * Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494 ;
land, purporting to pass the Bush v. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.)
fee, and the deed is ineffective 298.
. for want of a proper certificate * Merritt's Lessee v. Home, 5 Ohio
of acknowledgment, the entry St. 307 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec. 298 ;
of the grantees under the deed Borland's Lessee v. Marshall, 2
is a suflftcient seisin to support Ohio St. 308.
curtesy, and uphold, until the ^ Stoolfoos v. Jenkins, 8 Serg. & E.
husband's death, the possession (Pa.) 175.
of the grantee. « See : Post, § 745.
A recovery m ejectment by the hus- ■> 42 U. S. (1 How.) 37 ; bk. 11 L.
band and wife has been held ed. 38.
equivalent to an actual entry. « Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ;
Ellsworth V. Cook, 8 Paige Ch. s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ;
(N. Y.) 643. Mettler v. Miller, 129 111. 630 ; s.c.
• Carr v. Givens, 9 Bush (Ky.) 679 ; 22 N. E. Bep. 529 ;
S.C. 15 Am. Rep. 747 ; Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 161 ;
Day V. Cochrane, 34 Miss. 261 ; s.c. 90 Am. Dec. 320 ;
Stephens v. Hume, 25 Mo. 349 ; Day v. Cochrane, 34 Miss. 277 ;
Harvey v. Wickham, 23 Mo. 112, Jackson ex d. Beekman v. Selliok, •
„ 115 ; 8 John. (N. Y.) 262 ;
Keaume v. Chambers, 32 Mo. 36 ; Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John-
Chap. XVII. § 743.1 SEISIN OF WILD LANDS.
613
general rule that there must be an entry, and the wife
must have actual seisin during coverture to entitle the
husband to curtesy,^ is not applied to such lands in this
country.^ Where the wife is the owner of such lands, she
is deemed in possession, so as to entitle her husband to
curtesy, though there has been no actual possession,^
even though the husband states that he never owned the
premises, and never went through the formal cere-
mony of putting his foot on the land.*
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.o. 15
Am. Dec. 433 ;
Merritt's Lessee r". Home, 5 Ohio
St. 307 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec.
398;
McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3
Humph. (Tenn.) 267; s.c. 39
Am. Dec. 16.") ;
Mercer's Lessee r. Selden, 41 U.
S. (1 How.) 37, 54 ; bk. 11 L.
ed. 38 ;
Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.)
339, 349 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545, 553.
Compare : Neely i'. Butler, 10 B.
Mon. (Kt.) 48.
In Alabama, a husband is said to
be entitled to his curtesy in
wild and uncultivated lands of
which the wife died lia ving only
the legal seisin, where they were
not held adversely to her and
the other conditions of curtesy
Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 791 ;
s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76.
In Illinois, the common-law rule
requiring actual possession as
a precedent to curtesy does not
apply to wild, vacant, or unoc-
cupied lands of the wife.
Mettler v. Miller, 129 lU. 630 ; s.c.
23 N. E. Rep. 539.
A different mle, however, prevails
in Kentucky, where a feme sole,
possessed of a large tract of
wUd and uncultivated land,
married, and had issue, and
afterwards died, her husband
and child surviving, and where
neither she nor her husband
had actual possession of the
land, but he had paid the taxes
on it from the time of the mar-
riage, and there was no claim
of adverse possession, it was
held, that as there was no
actual seisin by the wife or
husband during coverture, he
was not tenant by the curtesy,
as actual seisin was necessary
in that state to create that es-
tate, and that the husband was
bound to strengthen the title
of his wife to lands by actual
possession, so as to protect them
against advereary claims.
Noely V. Butler, 10 B. Mon. (Ky.)
48.
' See : Mercer's Lessee r. Selden,
43 U. S. (1 How.) 37 ; bk 11 L.
ed. 38.
' See : Pierce r. Wanett, 10 Ired.
(N. C.) L. 446 ;
Barr v. Galloway, 1 McL. C. C.
476.
Perception of theesplees. — An entry
on wild land is not necessary
to enable the husband to claim
as tenant by the curtesy ; be-
cause the perception of the es-
plees is evidence of seisin, but
this is presumed under a deed.
Barr i: Galloway, 1 McL. C. C.
476.
' Jackson ex d. Beekman v. SeUick,
8 John. (N. Y.) 26C ;
Pierce v. Wanett, 10 Ired. (N. C.)
L. 446 ;
McCorry v. King, 8 Humph.
• (Tenn.) 367 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec.
165;
Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.)
506 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 239 ;
Green v. Liter, 13 U. S. (8 Cr.)
229, 249 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 545, 552.
A constmctive seisin of wUd lands,
not adversely possessed, in a
wife, whether claiming as heir
by devise or deed, is sufficient
to entitle the husband to curt-
esy.
McCorry v. King, 3 Humph.
(Tenn.) 367 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec.
165.
* Pierce v. Wanett, 10 Ired. (N. C.)
L. 446.
614 ADVEESE POSSESSION. [Book III.
Sec. T44. Same— Same— Time of seisin.— The seisin of tha
wife necessary to entitle the husband to hold the estate
by the curtesy must be some time during coverture. The
time when the seisin commences, whether before or after
issue born, is immaterial ; for if a man marries a woman
seized in fee, is disseized, and then has issue, and the
wife dies, he shall enter and hold by the curtesy. The
same is true where there is issue which dies before the
descent of the lands on the wife.^
Sec. 745. Same— same— Adverse possession.— At common
law a husband is not entitled to curtesy in lands of
which his wife did not have the seisin ; consequently pos-
session by one claiming adverse title will preclude the
husband's right of curtesy, if the seisin is not regained
during coverture. ^ In this country the rules of the com-
mon law are not strictly enforced in this respect, and
seisin in fact on the part of the wife is not essential to
constitute the husband tenant by the curtesy ; seisin in
law, as we have already seen,^ being sufficient for that
purpose.* In some of the states where a wife was seized
of land during her intermarriage, and there was issue of
the marriage, the husband may be tenant by the curtesy,
even if the land was adversely held during the coverture.^
Sec. 7iG. Same— Same— Remainder and reversion. — It is a
general rule that the estate must be an estate in posses-
1 Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- not an interest in the property,
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15 the ownership of which was in
Am. Dec. 443 ; the devisee.
1 Inst. 30a. s See ; Ante, §§ 727-729.
- Den ex d. Hopper v. Demarest, 21 ^ Jackson ex d. Swartwovit v. John-
N. J. L. (1 Zab.) 525. son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15
In Rankin's Appeal, 188 Pa. 327; Am. Dec. 433.
s.c. 16 Atl. Rep. 82 ; 3 L. R. A. ' Connecticut : Kline v. Beebe, 6
429, the court say that though. Conn. 494 ;
under the wUl, the executors Bush i;. Bradley,4 Day (Conn.) 298.
had the power to sell the coal Ohio : Mitchell v. Ryan, 30 Ohio
and mining privileges if they St. 377 ;
should deem it expedient, and Merritt's Lessee v. Home, 5 Ohio
though they paid taxes on the St. 307 ; s.c. 67 Am. Dec. 298 ;
property, and sold coal from it, Borland's Lessee v. Marshall, 20
and the devisee never had actual Ohio St. 308.
possession, the surviving hus- Pennsylvania : Stoolfoos v. Jen-
band would be tenant by the kias, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 175.
curtesy upon the death of the Confra— Mercer's Lessee v. Sel-
wife, leaving issue of their mar- den, 42 U. S. (1 How.) 37 ; bk.
riage, as the power of sale was 11 L. ed. 38.
Chap. XVII. § 746.] REMAINDER AND REVERSION. 615
sion to entitle the husband to curtesy; no such state exist-
ing in a reversion expectant on a life interest or other
estate of freehold/ unless the estate be determined dur-
ing the coverture ; ^ but to defeat the right to curtesy the
outstanding estate must be a freehold, for an outstand-
ing term of years will not have that effect,^ however
long it may be,* for the tenant for years is vested with
the term only, and not with the land, the possession of
the termor being the possession of the husband and wife.^
Thus in Carter x\ Williams ® a testator devised land to his
wife durante viduitate, or until his son should arrive at
the age of twenty-one years ; and then devised the land
to his children, one-third thereof on the death of the
widow, and the other two-thirds iipon her marriage. A
daughter of the testator married, had issue and died,
leaving a husband, before the son arrived at twenty-one.
On the same attaining the age of twenty-one the husband
of the deceased daughter claimed curtesj', and the court
held that he was entitled to curtesy in two-thirds of the
estate, the widow's interest therein being for years only ;
that is, until the son attained twenty-one, but that he
was not entitled to curtesy in the third held by the
widow for life, her estate therein being a freehold.'^
' Mackey v. Proctor, 12 B. Mon. is entitled to remain in the
(Ky.)433; mansion-house, and the mes-
2 BI. Com. 137 ; ' suage and land tliereto belong-
Watk. Desc. (4th ed.) Ill, 121. ing, without being charged
See : Post, this cliapter, sections -with rent. A died under such
II. & III. a statute leaving a widow and
- Watkins r. Thornton, 11 Ohio St. eight children, all infants but
867. one. Dower was never as-
" Weir y. Humphries, 4 Ired. (N. C.) signed, and she remained in
Eq. 270. possession of the mansion-house
■• Lessee of Lowry r. Steele, 4 Ohio and plantation until her death
172. in 1866, cultivating and renting
See : Carter v. Williams, 8 Ired. out the land in her own name,
^N. C.) Eq. 177 ; and using and disposing of the
Robertson v. Stevens, 1 Ired. (N. profits at her own pleasure ;
C.) Eq. 247. her children being with her,
' See : 2 Bl. Com. 144; and supported by her until their
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29a, Har- death or marriage. B, one of
grave's note. the daughters, married C, had
« 8 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 177. issue born alive, and died in
'The same doctrine was held in the the lifetime other mother.
case of Robertson v. Stevens, 1 The court held that C was not
Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 247. entitled to curtesy in the land, B
Exception to the rtde exists in those not having been seized during
states where by statute, until her lifetime.
dower is assigned, the widow Carpenter v. Garrett, 75 Va. 129.
(516 ISSUE OF MARRIAGE. [BOOK III.
Sec. YiT. Same— 3. Issue of marriage.— The third requi-
site at common law to entitle a husband to an estate by the
curtesy is issue of the marriage.^ The basis upon which
this doctrine rested was the theory that the husband's
estate by the curtesy was only a continuation of the wife's
estate of inheritance, entrusted to him for the benefit of the
issue. During feudal times, on the birth of issue the
husband did homage alone, and was called tenant by the
curtesy initiate ; ^ and although the custom of doing
homage has long since ceased, the husband is still said
to be tenant by the curtesy initiate upon the birth of
issue alive, during the lifetime of the wife, and capable of
inheriting.^ But to entitle a husband to an estate by the
curtesy, such issue must have the following qualities, to
wit : must —
a. Be born alive ;
6. Be born in the lifetime of the mother ; and
c. Be capable of inheriting the estate.
But all these qualities need not concur in time.
Sec. 748. Same— Same— Change of rule by statute.— The
common-law rule requiring the birth of issue to entitle the
husband to curtesy has been changed in some of the
states of the Union, so that a surviving husband will be
entitled to curtesy in the lands of which his wife was
seized although there was "qo issue of the marriage.*
This is the case in Alabama,^ Minnesota, "^ Michigan,'''
Nebraska,*" Ohio,^ Oregon,^" and Pennsylvania," since the
passage of the married woman's act.^^
' 2 Bl. Com. 137, 128 ; ' 2 Mich. Comp. L. (1857), c. 89,
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. § 30, p. 856.
See: Taylor v. Smith, 54 Miss. « Neb. Comp. Stat. (1881), c. 23, § 29,
50 ; p. 315.
Ferguson v. Tweedy, 56 Barb. » Ohio Eev. Stat. (1880), 8 4176, p.
(N. Y.)168; 1046.
Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn. " Oreg. Gen. Laws (1843-72), c.
595 ; XVII., tit. II., § 30, p. 588.
Mattocks V. Stearns, 9 Vt. 326. " Dubs v. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 154 ;
^ As to homage, see : Ante, § 714. Lancaster Co. Bank v. Staufler,
» See : Post, %% 749, 753, 753. 10 Pa. St. 398 ;
As a right of second husband to Gamble's Estate, 5 Clark (Pa.)
curtesy, see : Post, § 756. 4 ; s.o. 1 Parsons (Pa.) 489 ; 1
* See : 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 29. Sel. Eq. Cas. 489;
' Also Code 1876, tit. 5, c. 1, § 3714. Dunlop's Laws, 510 ;
« 1 Stat, at Large (BisseU ed. 1873), Rev. Stats. 1846, c. 403, p. 504.
c. 33, § 164, p. 630. '^ April 8, 1833.
Chap. XVII. § 749.] ISSUE BORN ALIVE. 617
Sec. 749. Same— Same— a. Born alive.— By the common
law, to entitle the husband to curtesy, there must not
only be issue of the marriage, but such issue must have
been born alive ; ^ and this rule of the common law pre-
vails in all the states of the Union where birth of issue
is not dispensed with by statute.^ Consequently the de-
livery of a child, after the death of the mother, by means
of the Caesarian operation, will not give the husband a
right to an estate by the curtesy, though such child is con-
sidered in esse before the birth, for its own benefit.^ By
the old law it was deemed necessary not only that the
child should be born alive, but that it should be heard to
cry out ; and the fact that it did so cry out was to be
proved by the persons who actually heard it, not by those
who learned of it by hearsay.* This doctrine was prob-
ably based on the occurrence in a writ used in the eleventh
year of the reign of Henry III. of the clause ' ' et ipse
postmodum exae prolem suscitaverit, cujus clamor audi-
tus f uerit inter quatuor parietes. '' This is no longer in
accord with the law, if it ever was, and the cry of the
child is now simply regarded as one amongst other proofs
of life.^ The burden of proof is on the person claiming
as tenant by the curtesy to show an existence of inde-
pendent separate life in the issue after birth ; ^ the dec-
larations of the wife, made shortly after the birth of the
child, that it had been born alive, are not competent evi-
dence to establish her husband's title to an estate by the
curtesy.'' A child is born alive within the meaning of
the rule as to curtesy, when it tries to breathe after being
fully delivered external to the mother, although it is
dead when the navel cord is cut.^
See : Pa. Rev. St. 1846, c. 403, p. Compare : Tyl. Inf. & Cov. (2d
504. ed.), «^ 281.
' 3 Bl. Com. 127 ; ^ See : 2 Bl. Cora. 137 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 39b. Bract. 4S8a ;
« See : Nicrosi v. Phillippi, 91 Ala. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b;
399 ; s.c. 8 So. Rep. 561 ; Prince's Case, 8 Co. 24b ;
Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. Holmes' Case, Dyer 25b.
E Gr.) 304. ' 3 Bl. Com. 137 ;
' Marsellis v.ThalMmer, 3 Paige Ch. 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b.
(N. Y.) 35 ; 8.0. 21 Am. Deo. 66. " Doe v. Killen. 5 Del. 14.
See : Post, § 750. ' Gardner v. Klutts, 8 Jones (N. C.)
See: Matter of Winne. 1 Lans. L. 375; s.c. 80 Am. Deo. 331.
(N. Y.) 513. * GrofiE V. Anderson, 15 S. W. Rep.
618
DEGREE OF DEVELOPMENT.
[Book III.
Sec. 750. Same— Same— Same— Degree of development and
vitality.— An unborn child, after conception, is to be con-
sidered in esse for every purpose which is for its own
benefit,^ but not for another person.^ Consequently, if the
child is born in such an early state of pregnancy as to be
incapable of living, it has been held that it is to be con-
sidered as if it had never been born or conceived. Chil-
dren born v^rithin the first six months after conception
are considered as incapable of living ; and for that reason
although they are apparently born alive, if they do not
in fact survive so long as to rebut this presumption, they
866; s.o. 11 L. E. A. 825; 12
Ky. L. Rep. 888.
Doe V. Killen criticised. — In the
case of Goflfi;. Anderson, supra,
the court say : " Counsel has
cited the case of Doe v. Killen,
5 Houst. (Del.) 14, where the
judge, upon trial of an action
of ejectment between the sur-
viving husband and heirs at
law, charged the jury that to
find for the former they must
believe that the child was bom
aUve, having an independent
circulation and existence of its
own, apart from the mother,
and by force of the child's own
inherent vitality ; and, though
not dii'ectly so stated, it may
be inferred the judge intended
such independent circulation
should exist after the navel
cord was cut. We have been
referred to no other authority
for such view, and we cannot
sanction it ; for a child when
delivered is eitlier alive or dead
for aU purposes, and to make
its legal existence date from
the time a physician may in
his wisdom see proper to cut
the navel cord is without rea-
son, and contrary to the plain
meaning and intent of our stat-
ute. We think the court prop-
erly found the child in question
was born alive, and that the
appellee was entitled as tenant
by the curtesy to the land
owned by his wife."
' See : Rawlins v. Rawlins, 2 Cox
Eq. Cas. 425 ;
In re Corlass, 1 Ch. D. 460, 463 ;
s.c. 45 L. J. Ch. 118:
Doe ex d. Clarke v. Clarke, 2 H.
BI. 899, 401 ; s.c. 3 Rev. Rep.
430:
Hale V. Hale, Free. Ch. 50 ;
Burdet v. Hopegood, 1 Pr. Wms.
486;
Northbey v. Strange, 1 Pr. Wms.
342;
Beale v. Beale, 1 Pr. Wms. 245 ;
Thellusson v. Woodford, 4 Ves.
227; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep. 205;
af&rmed 11 Ves. 112 ; s.c. 1
Ros. & P. (N. R.) 357 ; 8 Rev.
Rep. 104.
A child is not considered in esse
for another's benefit vvhen it is
afterwards born dead, or bom
too soon after conception to be
capable of living, the maxim of
the common law being mortuus
exitus non est exitus.
Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 2 Paige
Ch. (N. Y.) 35 ; s.c. Am.
Dec. 66 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b.
While a child en ventre sa mere
may, at the present day, be con-
sidered as in esse for all pur-
poses (Tliellusson v. Woodford,
4 Ves. 227 ; s.c. 4 Rev. Rep.
205 ; affirmed 11 Ves. 112 ; s.c.
1 Bos. & P. (N. R.) 357 ; 8 Rev.
Rep. 104), yet one of the dif-
ficulties suggested by Lord
Coke still exists, viz. ; The es-
tate during the interval suc-
ceeding the wife's death de-
scends to her next heir, and is
not divested ab initio by the
subsequent birth of the child.
See : Basset v. Basset, 3 Atk.
207;
Goodtitle v. Newman, 3 Wils.
516.
Chap. XVII. § 751.] DEATH OF ISSUE.
619
Avill be incapable of inlieriting so as to transmit the prop-
erty to others.^
Sec. T51. same— Same— Same— Death of issue. — Where
issue has been born alive, and capable of inheriting, dur-
ing the lifetime of the mother, it matters not whether it
dies before or after its mother, or how long it lives after
its birth, for its existence, though but for an instant,
clothes the husband with an estate by the curtesy
initiate,^ which is not divested by the death of the child
before the mother's seisin accrues,^ because the essentials
to entitle the husband to an estate by the curtesy need
not coincide in point of time.* Thus where land is
devised in fee-tail to the testator's daughter, and on her
death without issue to her executors, to be sold, and the
daughter marries and has issue, which dies in her life-
time, her husband, surviving her, will be entitled to a
tenancy by the curtesy, and the executors cannot sell
the estate until after the determination of the life estate
of the husband.^
Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 3 Paige
Ch. (N. Y.) 35 ; s.o. 21 Am.
Dec. 66 ;
Code Napoleon, art. 313, 72.j, 906 ;
Code La., art. 205 ;
Dig., lib. 38, tit. 16, 1. 3, s. 12 ; lib.
1, tit. 5, 1. 13 ;
Domat. Prel. B., tit. 3, s. 1, art. 5.
The civil law mle.— Although by
the civil law of successions a
posthumous child was entitled
to the same rights as those who
were born in the lifetime of the
decedent, it was only on the
condition that they were born
alive and under such circum-
stances that the law presumed
they would survive. The rules
on this subject are found in
Domat, in the Napoleon Code,
and in the Civil Code of Louisi-
ana. Children in the mother's
womb are considei'ed, in what-
ever relates to themselves, as if
already born; but children bom
dead, or in such an early state
of pregnancvas to be incapable
of living, although they be not
actually dead at the time of
their birth, are considered as if
they had never been born or
conceived.
Civil Code La. 28, 29 ;
Code Napoleon, art. 725, 906 ;
Domat, Prel. B., tit. 2, s. 1, art.
4-6 ; pt. 3, lib. 2, tit. 1, s. 1, art.
6, 7.
Still-bom children are not counted
in the number of children who
succeed ; and although they
were alive in the mother's
womb at the time of the suc-
cessions which concerned them
fell, yet they have no share in
tliem, for they are considered
in the same manner as if they
had never been born.
Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 2 Paige
Ch. (N. Y.) 35, 41 ; s.c. 21 Am.
Dec. 66, 69.
2 See : Ante, § 715.
3 Taliaferro v. Burwell, 4 Cal. 331 ;
Bush V. Bradley, 4 Day (Conn.)
398;
Phillips V. Phillips, 3 Duv. (Ky.)
549;
Malone i\ McLaurin, 40 Miss.
161;
Hay V. Mayer, 8 Watts (Pa.) 303 ;
Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn.
595.
4 See : Post, § 758.
<• Hay V. Mayer, 8 Watts (Pa.) 208 ;
s.c. 34 Am. Dec. 453.
620 BIRTH IN WIFE'S LIFETIME. Book III.
Sec. 752. Same— Same— to. In lifetime of wife.— The estate
by the curtesy being considered a continuance of the
inheritance, given to the husband for the benefit of the
issue of the marriage, it naturally followed that there
must be issue born alive,^ in the lifetime of the wife,^ to
entitle the husband to curtesy.^ Should the wife die in
the pains of parturition, and the child be delivered by the
Caesarian operation, there could be no curtesy at com-
mon law, because the child was not born during the covert-
ure.* In such a case the husband had no title to curtesy
because no issue of the marriage had been born, but the
child en ventre sa mere is to be considered as in existence
for the purposes of inheritance,^ and the land descended
to the child, while in his mother's womb ; and the estate
being once so vested shall not be taken from him and
his heirs.^
Sec. Y53. Sam.e— Same— c. Be capatole of inheriting. — The
estate by curtesy being considered, as we have seen, a
continuation of the inheritance transferred to the hus-
band for the benefit of the issue of the marriage, it is not
only necessary that there should be issue of that mar-
riage,' born alive, during the lifetime of the wife, but
also capable of inheriting the estate. ^ Hence, where there
is issue that could not by any possibility^ inherit the
mother's estate as heir, as where a woman is seized in
tail male, and has issue a daughter only, in that case
' See : Ante, § 749. qu'il auroit donne des signes de
2 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. vie par des oris ou autrement.
3 2 Bl. Com. 127, 128 ; 1 Flauat, Coutumes de Norman-
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. die, 613.
See : Porch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. * See : Ante, § 750.
(3 C. E. Gr.) 204 ; « 1 Inst. 29b.
Paine's Case, 8 Co. 35a. See : Marsellis v. Thalhimer, 3
* 2 Bl. Com. 130 ; Paige. Ch. (N. Y.) 85 ; s.c. 21
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. Am. Dec. 66.
See : Eyan v. Freeman, 36 Miss. ' Bastard issue of marriage when. —
175 ; , Where a statute exists legiti-
Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) mizing issue born out of wed-
508 ; s.c. 2 Id. 21 ; look by the parents subse-
Marselhs v. Thalhimer, 2 Paige quently marrying, this issue
Ch. (N. Y.) 85, 42 ; s.c. 21 Am. fulfills the condition.
Dec. 66 ; Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965.
Paine's Case, 8 Co. 35a. s Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 228, 286 ;
The rule in Normandy, whence the Taylor v. Smith, 54 Miss. 50 ;
estate of curtesy was probably Day v. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261 ;
derived, is thus stated : II faut Paine's Case, 8 Co. 34 ;
qu'il soit sorti du ventre de la 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b.
mere, il ne suffiroit pas que la " Paine's Case, 8 Co. 35b.
tete eut paru et qu'on pretendit
Chap. XVII. §§ 754-756.] DEVISED TO WIFE AND HEIRS. 621
the surviving husband could take no estate by the curt-
esy/ for the daughter cannot by possibiHty inherit the
estate from her mother.^
Sec. ^54. Same — Same — Same — Seisin toy wife.— The
general rule of law is that no person can be heir to an ances-
tor, unless such ancestor died seized ; and from this rule,
doubtless, sprang the doctrine which requires an actual
seisin in the wife to entitle the husband to curtesy ; for,
without such an actual seisin, her issue would not be
capable of inheriting from her.^ Another reason for this
rule depriving the husband of curtesy unless the wife has
actual seisin of all estates of which actual seisin could be
had, is the fact that the husband had it in his power to
obtain for his wife an actual seisin, and his neglect to do
so is such negligence as to defeat liis estate.
Sec. T55. Same— Same— Same— Estate devised to wife and
heirs.— In a case where the devise was to a woman and her
heirs, but if she died leaving issue, then to such issue and
their heirs, and she died leaving issue, it was held that
her surviving husband was not entitled to curtesy, as the
children took by purchase, and the wife had not such an
estate as could descend upon them.*
Sec. 756. Same — Same — Same — Gives second husband
curtesy.— By the common law, where a woman seized in
fee-simple married, had issue, after which her husband
died, and she took another husband, by whom she also
had issue, such second husband was tenant by the curtesy
on the death of the wife, although the issue of the first
husband was living, because his issue by possibility might
inherit, should the issue of the first marriage die without
issue. ^ The fact that the lands are held adversely when
' 3 Bl. Com. 128 ; Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 433 ;
See • Heath v. White, 5 Conn. Graham v. Luddington, 1 Hun,
328,236; (N. Y.) 251.
Day V. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261 ; " Barker v. Barker, 2 Sim. 249.
Paine's Case, 8 Co. 85b. " Paine's Case, 8 Co. 35b ;
! 3 Bl. Com. 31. Menvil's Case, 13 Co. 23 ;
See : Parker v. Carter, 4 Hare 1 Co. Inst. 30a.
4lg See : Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 233 ;
3 1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 144, Jackson ex d. Swartwout v.
^ 23. Johnson, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ;
See : Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 433.
622 CURTESY IN SECOND HUSBAND. [BOOK III.
the child is born does not defeat the husband's right. ^
Glanville^ and Bracton^ both agree that the second hus-
band was equally entitled with the first to the estate by
curtesy. It seems that one Stephanus de Segrave,
whose name we find among the justices itinerant in the
reign of Henry III., had written a treatise, in which he
had combated this opinion, as founded on a misconcep-
tion of the meaning and design of this sort of estate. He
thought there was an injustice in giving an estate per
legem Anglice to the second husband, more especially
when there were children alive of the first marriage.*
The statute De Bonis declared that the second husband
of a woman to whom lands had been given in tail should
not claim anything per legem Anglice, in such conditional
gift ; nor the issue of such second husband claim any-
thing by descent ; but that immediately upon the death
of a man and woman to whom land was so given, it
should revert to their issue, or to the donor or his heir,
so that the law, in this particular, as laid down both by
Glanville and Bracton, was changed ; and the opinion
maintained by Stephanus de Segrave was established.^
Sec. T57. Same— Same— Same— Wife's attainder.— At com-
mon law, if the wife had issue, and was afterwards at-
tainted of felony, the issue could not inherit from her, yet
the husband held as tenant by the curtesy, because of the
issue born before the felony, which by possibility might
have inherited from the mother ; but if the wife was at-
tainted of felony before issue had, the husband could not
be tenant by the curtesy, although she afterwards had
issue.^ We have already seen that treason or felony does
not work corruption of blood, ^ and for this reason the rule
of the common law has no application here.
It is said in the case of Heath v. son, 5 Cow. (N. Y ) 74 • s c 15
White, 5 Conn. 236, that the Am. Dec. 433.
husband's right of curtesy upon See: Guion v. Anderson, 8
the birth of a child by him Humph. (Tenn.) 307.
takes precedence over any = See : Glanv. lib. 7, c. 18.
claim by descent of a son of the * See : Bract. 43713.
wife by a prior marriage ; but * 1 Eeeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.)
under the statute of Michigan 298.
a different doctrine prevails. ' 2 Reeves' Hist. Eng. L. (2d ed.)165.
Hathorn v. Lyon. 2 Mich. 93. « 1 Co. Inst. 40a.
' Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- ' See : Ante, §
Chap. XVII. § 758.] COINCIDENCE IN TIME. 623
Sec. 'r58. Same — Same— d. Essentials need not coincide in
point of time.— The common-law essentials requisite to
give to the husband an estate by the curtesy need not
coincide in point of time,i and it is therefore immaterial
whether the issue is born before or after the seisin of the
wife ; if it had lived, it would have inherited the estate,
for its birth will entitle the husband to curtesy, even
though it died before the wife acquired the estate. ^ Thus
when, after issue is born, lands descend to the wife, be
the issue dead or alive at the time of the descent, the
husband shall be tenant by the curtesy. So if, after the
death of the issue, the wife acquires land in fee, and dies
without having had any other issue, her husband shall
be tenant by curtesy ; for the having issue, and being
seized during the coverture, is sufficient, though it be at
different times.^ In those states where bastards are legit-
imized by the subsequent marriage of their parents,
where a child is born to a man and woman in an illicit con-
nection, and they subsequently marry and have no other
issue, the right of curtesy in all the land of which the
wife may be seized during coverture will vest in the hus-
band, because of the birth of such child.* It not being
necessary that the birth of issue and seisin be coincident,
therefore where there is a seisin during coverture, and the
land is conveyed by the wife, without her husband join-
ing in the deed, before any child is born of the marriage,
and a child is born after the conveyance, the husband
will be entitled to curtesy, in such lands, because a wife
cannot, by her sole deed, deprive her husband of his right
to curtesy.^ Where the land is acquired after the death of
the issue, the husband will be entitled to curtesy the same
as though it had been acquired before the birth of the
issue. ^ Where adverse possession is taken of the wife's
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 39b. » Comer v. Chamberlain, 88 Mass.
^ Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John- (6 Allen) 166.
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 21 « Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 235 ;
Am. Dec. 66 ; Phillips v, Phillips, 3 Duv. (Ky.)
3 Bl. Com. 128 ; 549 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29b. Jackson exd. Swartwout v. John-
2 Menvil's Case, 13 Co. 23 ; son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 31
Paine's Case, 8 Co. 35b. Am. Dec. 66 ;
■* Hunter v. Whitworth, 9 Ala. 965. Guion v. Anderson, 8 Humph.
(Tenn.) 398.
C24: DEATH OF WIFE. [Book TII.
estate during coverture, and she then has issue and dies,
her surviving husband will be entitled to curtesy in the
land.i
Sec. '159. Same— 4. Death of wife.— The last requisite to
confer curtesy upon the husband is the death of the wife.
Until this event the estate is simply initiate,^ is a contin-
gent and not a vested estate.^ The other requisite con-
ditions being present, upon the death of the wife the
estate by curtesy is consummate.* The estate by curtesy,
though inchoate,^ is not in esse until the death of the
wife, is merely a contingent and not a vested estate^®
even though while she lives he may be tenant of the free-
hold in her right. ^ On the death of the wife the husband
becomes tenant by the curtesy by operation of law,^ and
without any assignment,^ and the land will be held by
him subject to all incumbrances which would affect it in
h6r possession, were she alive. ^^
Sec. 760. Same— Same— Civil death and bigamy of wife.—
By the common law, civil death was death in law also,^^
but aside from statutory provisions to that effect ^^ there is
no civil death known to the American law,^^ and the estate
' Jackson ex d. Swartwout t). John- ter, "Nature, Incidents, and
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 21 Duties."
Am. Dec. 66 ; " Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.)
Guion V. Anderson, 8 Humph. 599, 606 ;
(Tenn.) 307. ' Oldham v. Henderson, 5 Dana
2 Eice V. HofEman, 35 Md. 344, 350 ; (Ky.) 254.
Foster v. Marshall, 22 N. H. (2 « Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. 83,
Fost.) 491, 493 ; 86.
Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) « Rice v. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 350 ;
21, 24 ; Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 182.
Wilson V. Arentz, 70 N. C. 670, '» Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.)
673. 21.
See : Ante, § 714. " See : 1 Bl. Com. 132 ; 2 Id. 121 ;
" Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 4 Id. 380 ;
599, 606. Bract., fol. 301b, 421b ;
' Watson V. Watson, 10 Conn. 83 ; 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 130a, 132a-
Wheeler v. Hotchkiss, 10 Conn. 133a ;
225, 230 ; 1 Steph. Com. 132.
Witham V. Perkins, 2 Me. 400 ; " Estate of Nerac, 35 Cal. 392 ; s.c.
Ferguson v. Tweedy, 56 Barb. (N. 95 Am. Dea 111 ;
Y.) 168 ; Planter v. Sherwood, 6 John. Ch.
Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) (N. Y.) 118, 128.
21, 24 ; 13 It is said in the case of Baltimore
Jones V. Davies, 7 Hurl. &N. 507, v. Chester, 53 Vt. 315 ; s.c. 38
,„. 508. Am. Rep. 677, 679, that the
' Rice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 350. dictum of Lord Coke (1 Co.
See : Post, section II., this chap- Litt. (19th ed.) 130a), that " be-
Chap. XVII. § 760.] NATURE, ETC., OF CURTESY. 625
of a person convicted and attainted of felony, and sen-
tenced to imprisonment for life is not divested/ and even
where civil death exists by virtue of local statute, such
death does not give curtesy to the husband. ^ It is thought,
however, that by provisions of statute the conviction of
the wife of bigamy may be sufficient to invest the hus-
band with an estate by curtesy.^
Section II. — Nature, Incidents, and Duties.
Sec. 761. Nature of estate by the curtesy.
Sec. 762. Same— -Tenure.
Sec. 763. Same — Same — At common law.
Sec. 764. Same — Same — Continuation of wife's estate.
Sec. 765. Same — Has character of title by descent.
Sec. 766. Same — When estate attaches.
Sec. 767. Same — Same— Disclaimer.
Sec. 768. Same — Same — Action by husband to recover.
Sec. 769. Same — Same — Suspends descent.
Sec. 770. Same — Same — Suspends statute of limitations.
Sec. 771. Same — Proceeds of judicial sale — Curtesy in.
Sec. 773. Same — Insurable interest.
Sec. 773. Incidents of curtesy — Generally.
Sec. 774. Same — 1. Right to sell or lease.
Sec. 775. Same — 2. Subject to debts of the wife.
Sec. 776. Same — 3. Subject to debts of tenant.
Sec. 777. Same — Same — Wife's right as creditor against curtesy.
Sec. 778. Same — Same — Curtesy initiate.
Sec. 779. Same — Same — Same — Under statute subjecting "any estate
held by debtor."
sides men attainted in proETOMn- death seems to have been con-
ire, every person that is at- fined to the cases of persons
tainted of high treason, petit professed, or abjured, or ban-
treason, or felony, is disabled ished the realm, and I do not
to bring any action, for he is find that it was ever carried
extra legem positus, and is ac- further by the common law."
counted in law civiliter mor- This view is well sustained by
tuus," led Chancellor Kent to authority.
think, as he intimated in Troup See : Banyster v. Trussel, Cro.
V. Sherwood, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Eliz. 516 ;
Y.) 328, that every person at- Coppin v. Gunner, 3 Ld. Raym.
tainted of felony was accounted 1573 ;
in law civiliter mortuus ; but Ramsden v. MaoDonald, 1 Wils.
in a later case, Platner v. Sher- 217 ;
wood, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 118, Foster Crown Cases, 61, 62, 63.
he said this dictum of Lord ' Platner v. Sherwood, 6 Johns. Ch.
Coke "is not to be taken in the (N. Y.) 118.
full latitude of expression," and ' Woolridge v. Lucas, 7 B. Mon.
after reference to other expres- (Ky.) 49.
sions of Lord Coke (1 Co. Litt. ^ See : Md. Rev. Code 1878, p. 807,
(19th ed.) 133a, b, 133a ; 3 Inst. § 103.
215) he says : " The strict civil
40
626 TENURE OF CUETESY. [Book III.
Sec. 780. Same — Same — Same — Under recent American statutes.
Sec. 781. Same — 4. Emblements — Tenant by curtesy entitled to.
Sec. 782, Same — 5. Improvements — No allowance to tenant for.
Sec. 783. Same— 6. Waste by tenant by curtesy — Liability for.
Sec. 784. Same — Same — Liability of assignee.
Sec. 785. Same— 7. Partition.
Sec. 786. Same — 8. Power to sell, assign, or lease.
Sec. 787. Same — Same — Effect of subsequent divorce.
Sec. 788. Same — 9. Suits with reference to.
Sec. 789. Same — Same — Damages to reservation.
Sec. 790. Duties of tenant by curtesy.
Section 761. Ifature of estate by curtesy.— At common
law the husband was entitled to curtesy in all the real estate
of which the wife died seized, whether such estate was a
separate estate or not.^ Such an estate is a freehold
estate for the term of the husband's natural life, and not
a mere charge or incumbrance upon the land.^ By the
custom of Normandy an estate by the curtesy was deter-
minable upon the second marriage of the tenant ; and
this is still the rule in gavelkind lands. ^
Sec. 762. Same— Tenure.— With regard to the grounds
on which the right to an estate by the curtesy rests there
is a difference of opinion. Sir J. Jekeys maintained
that the husband's tenancy by the curtesy has no moral
foundation, and is therefore properly called a tenancy by
the curtesy of England, that is, an estate by the favor of
the law of England.* Craig says that curtesy was
granted cut of respect to the former marriage, and to
save the husband from falling into poverty ; and he
deduces curtesy from one of the rescripts of the Emperor
Constantine.^ Others still base the right to curtesy in the
husband on his obligation to support the children which
are the issue of the marriage ; but though the tenure by
' Eldridge v. Preble, 34 Me. 148, 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a ;
151 ; 3 Bl. Com. 126 ;
Dejarnette v. Allen, 5 Gratt. (Va.) Litt. , § 35.
49? ; See, also : N. Y. Eev. Stat. (8tTi
Wmkler v. Winkler, 18 W. Va. ed.), pp. 2600-3606.
455. 8 See : Ante, § 711.
' Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 228, 235; < 2 Pr. Wms. 703.
Foster v. Marshall, 22 N. H. (3 « Craig, Jus. Feud., lib. 3;
Post.) 491 ; Dieg. 22, § 40 ;
Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 38 ;
Adair v. Lott, 3 HiU (N. Y.) 183 ; Wright on Tenures, 194.
Chap. XVn. § 765.] CONTINUATION OF WIFE'S ESTATE. G27
curtesy may have originated from the husband's obUga-
tion to support his children, yet the extent of his interest
is not measured by this reason for its introduction. He
is entitled to hold for life, whether his children need his
support or not, and whether they live an hour only, or to
old age.^
Sec. 763. Same— Same — At com.mon law. — At common
law there was a difference between the tenure of an
estate by curtesy and the tenure of an estate in dower.
The tenant by the curtesy held immediately of the
superior lord, while tenant in dower held immediately of
the heir, and was attendant on him for one-third of the
services.^ In this country curtesy is regarded as a con-
tinuation of the wife's estate.^
Sec. 764. Same— Same— Conttauation of wife's estate.—
The estate by the curtesy being regarded as a continuation
of the wife's inheritance, the husband is therefore entitled
to all those rights and privileges which his wife would
have had if she were alive, and which were annexed to
her estate ; * and he will take it subject to the same incum-
brances under which she held it.^ The husband's estate
by curtesy being a continuance of the wife's estate, a
tenant by the curtesy does not hold adversely to the wife
or her heirs. Thus where, on a separation of a husband
and wife, an agreement is made setting apart to her a
third of land descended to her from her father, free from
all claims of the husband, but there is no stipulation as
to the residue, on which the husband continues to live,
the latter is tenant by the curtesy and does not hold ad-
versely to the wife or her heirs.® ^
Sec. 705. Same— Has character of title by descent.— An
estate by curtesy accrues, by the mere operation of law,
upon the death of the wife, and for that reason partakes
more of the character of an estate acquired by descent
'Heath V.White, 5 Conn. 235. ' ?f ^ ; -^°**'J '''^^- o« ,- oaa
' Watk. Desc. 104, 105. ' Dooley u Baynes 86 ^ a 644 : s.c.
= See : Post, § 764. OS. E. Rep. 974 ; 14 Va. L. J.
■i Walker's Case, 3 Co. 22b. 156.
628 WHEN ATTACHES— DISCLAIMER. [Book HI.
than by purchase.-' By marriage the husband derives an
estate of freehold in the real estate of the wife ; he is
jointly seized with his wife, and during the existence of
the coverture he is not tenant by the curtesy, and cannot
be, unless he survive her.^
Sec. T66. Same— When estate attaches.- An estate by
curtesy vests in the husband immediately on the death of
the wife ; ^ no entry or other act on the part of the hus-
band is necessary to complete the estate, for on the
death of the wife the law adjudges the freehold to be
in the husband immediately, as tenant by the curtesy.*
Thus where there was no one in actual possession of
certain land, whose owner had died intestate, the land
being wild, the husband of one of the heirs is to be regarded
as in possession as tenant by the curtesy, though he states
that he never owned the premises, and never went through
the formal ceremony of putting his foot upon the land.^
But where a married woman dies before the expiration of
a term of years for which she has leased her own estate, the
lessee is entitled to remain undisturbed during the term,
regardless of the husband's estate by curtesy, or any sub-
sequent execution creditor's claim thereon.^
Sec. T67. Same— Same— Disclaimer.— We have already
seen that an estate by curtesy partakes of the character of
descent rather than purchase,^ and becomes consummate
immediately upon the death of the wife, ^ and the estate
having so vested, it cannot be divested by a disclaimer,
though made under hand and seal, duly witnessed,
acknowledged, and recorded ; the object and effect of a
' Watson V. Watson, 13 Conn. 83 ; one who continues to occupy
Pemberton v. Hicks, 1 Binn his wife's lands after her death
(Pa.) 1 ; without demanding or filing a
1 Inst. 18b. 106 ; petition for the assignment of
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.),373. note a . dower under the Illinois statute
« Weisinger v. Murphy, 3 Head is liable to account to her heirs
(Tenn.) 674. for the rents and profits.
' Watson V. Watson, 13 Conn. 83. » Pierce v. Wannett, 10 Ired. (N. C.)
^ Witham v. Perkins, 3 Me. 400 ; L. 446.
Bro. Ab. Praecipe, 38. « Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Neb. 530 ; s.c.
But in the case of Bedford v. Bed- 1 N. W. Eep. 571.
ford, 36 N. E. Rep. 663, aff'g 32 ■> See : Ante, § 765.
m. App. 455, it was held that ^ See : Ante, §§ 714, 716, 766.
Chap. XVn. §§ 768-770.] SUSPENDS DESCENT. 6539
disclaimer being, not to transfer a title, but to prevent a
transfer.^
Sec. 768. Same— Same— Action by husband to recover. —
In all cases where it appears that a wife, at the time of
her death, owned land in her own right, and no state of
facts then existed that would bar the surviving husband's
right to curtesy therein, and the land is in the pos-
session of another, the surviving husband has a right of
action to recover the possession thereof ; ^ and where a
husband bringing ejectment for his curtesy dies, his
administrator may be substituted, and recover mesne
profits to the time of such death. ^
Sec. 769. Same— Same— Suspends descent.— At common
law the right of possession of the wife's lands did not
accrue to the wife or those claiming under her until the
cessation of the curtesy ; * and in this country, during the
existence of an estate by curtesy, lands do not descend to
the heirs so as to give them a right of entry ; ^ conse-
quently one claiming land as heir of his mother cannot
recover, in ejectment, against one claiming the land under
his father, who is tenant by curtesy.^ And where one
holds land as tenant by curtesy, those deriving title from
his deceased wife cannot sue during his life.^ But the
wife's heirs, being remaindermen in fee of the equitable
estate, can compel the life tenant by the curtesy, or his
assignee, by contract or by operation of law, with notice,
to convey to them the legal estate in remainder.^
Sec. 770. Same— Suspends statute of limitation.— The ex-
istence of an estate by the curtesy not only suspends the
' Watson V. Watson, 13 Conn. 8.3. ' Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John-
2 Hall V. HaU, 32 Ohio St. 184. son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15
See : Post. § 788. Am. Dec. 433 ;
Trespasses to try title. —In Alabama Bates v. Shraeder, 13 Johns. (N.
a plaintiff claiming as tenant Y.) 260.
by the curtesy may recover A strxnger in possession of land may
possession of the premises in an not set up an estate in curtesy
action of trespass to try title. to bar the claim of an heir.
Eochan v. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.) Adair v. Lott, '• Hill (N. Y.) 182.
609. " Grout v. Townsend, 2 Hill (N. Y.l
2 Hart V. McGraw, 11 Atl. Rep. 554.
617 ; s.c. 10 Cent. Rep. 312. ' Miller v. Bledsoe, 61 Mo. 96.
< See : Dyer v. Wittle, 89 Mo. 81 ; * Taylor v. Smith, 04 Miss. 50.
s.c. 58 Am. Rep. 85.
630
IN PEOCEEDS OF SALE.
[Book III.
descent of the land/ but during its continuance the statute
of limitations will not run against the wife/ or her heirs; ^
and where a plaintiff has been under disabilities, and the
estate by curtesy arose before the disability was removed,
the existence of the estate by curtesy at the time of the
removal of the disabilities will stop the running of the
statute.*
Sec. 171. Same— Proceeds of judicial sale— Curtesy in.—
Where lands subject to curtesy are sold at judicial sale
free and clear of the curtesy, the proceeds of the sale
take the place of the land, and the interest thereon will
belong to the husband for life ; ^ and if the wife's lands
are sold after her death under a deed of trust, in which the
husband joined, any surplus arising from such sale is
regarded as real estate, in which the husband has curtesy. °
I See : Ante, § 769.
' Bar of husband's estate by adverse pos-
session— Effect on wife's rights. —
If the hiisband permit an ad-
verse possession to bar his
estate, yet the wife's rever-
sion is not barred, and lier
right of action only accrues
upon the death of her husband.
See : Foster v. Marshall, 33 N. H.
(3 Fost.) 491.
5 Heath v. White, 5 Conn. 228 ;
White V. Perkins, 3 Me. (2Greenl.)
400;
Miller v. Bledsoe, 61 Mo. 96 :
Meraraan's Heirs v. Caldwell's
Heirs, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 33 ; s.c.
46 Am. Dec. 537 ;
Jackson ex d. Hardenburgh v.
Schoonmaker,4 John. (N. Y. )390 ;
Ege V. Medlar, 83 Pa. St. 86.
In Worth Carolina the children
■ of one entitled to an estate
as tenant by the curtesy are
allowed, seven years from the
death of their father before they
are barred by the statute of
limitations.
Childers v. Bumgarner, 8 Jones
(N. C.) L. 297.
* Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John-
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74 ; s.c. 15
Am. Deo. 433.
' Jacques v. Ennis, 35 N. J. Eq. (10
C. E. Gr.) 403 ;
Dunscomb v. Dunscomb, 1 John.
Ch. (N. Y.) 508 ; s.c.7 Am. Dec.
504;
EUs worth V. Cook, 8 Paige (N. Y.)
643.
In Estate of Tilghman, 5 Whart.
(Pa.) 44, by a private act of the
Legislature of Pennsylvania, A,
who was tenant by the curtesy
of certain town lots and lands,
was authorized to sell the lots
in fee, provided there should
be reserved a perpetual ground
rent of at least $3 per annum,
issuing out of, and charged on,
every lot sold, to be paid to the
said A during his life, with re-
mainder in fee to the heirs of
his deceased wife. Under this
power, A sold divers lots, on
which he reserved ground rents
in the manner prescribed by
the act, and for which he also
received gross sums of money,
in addition. The court held that
these sums were to be consid-
ered as real estate, and, as such,
went to the heirs of his deceased
wife, and not to the adminis-
ti'ator of a daughter who died
in his lifetime.
A sale nnder an order of the or-
phans' court, without making
the tenant by the curtesy a
party to the proceedings, was
held to be subject to the curtesy
in Jacques v. Ennis, 35 N. J.
Eq. (10 C. E. Gr.) 403.
" Robinson v. Lakeman, 38 Abb.
App. 185.
Chap. XVII. § 772.] INSURABLE INTEREST.
031
Sec. 772. Same— insurable interest.— An insurable inter-
est in property does not necessarily depend upon the
ownership of the property, legal or equitable title
not being necessary to give such an interest in the
property ; it may be a special or limited interest, discon-
nected with any title, lien, or possession.^ Any person
who has a right which may be enforced against the
property, and which is so connected with it that any in-
ju.ry thereto necessarily results in a loss to him, has an
.insurable interest.^ Thus a husband in possession and
enjoyment with his wife of her real and personal prop-
erty, with an inchoate right of curtesy, has an insurable
SwAYNE said: "A right of
property in a thing is not always
indispensable to an insurable
interest. Injury from its loss
or benefit from its preservation
to accrue to the assured may
be sufficient ; and a contingent
interest thus arising may be
made the subject of a policy."
'' Home Protection of North Ala-
bama V. Caldwell, 85 Ala. 607 ;
B.C. 5 So. Rep. 338 ;
Wainer i\ Milford Mutual Ins.
Co., 153 Mass. 335; s.c. 36 N.
E. Rep. 877 ; 11 L. R. A. 598 ;
Rohrbach i\ German Fire Ins.
Co., 63 N. Y. 47 ; s.c. 30 Am.
Rep. 451 ;
Lebanon Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v.
Erb, 113 Pa. St. 149 ; s.c. 4 Atl.
Rep. 8 ; 3 Cent. Rep. 783 ;
Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Wagner,
(Pa.) 1 Cent. Rep. 333.
Sole beneficial owcer is sufficient.
Lebanon Mutual Fire Ins. Co.
V. Erb, 113 Pa. St. 149 ; s.c. 4
Atl. Rep. 8 ; 3 Cent. Rep. 783.
A mere qualified or eqnitaWe interest
in property is insurable.
Home Pi'otection of North Ala-
bama i: Caldwell, 85 Ala. 607 ;
s.c. 5 So. Rep. 338.
A tsnant by curtesy has an insur-
able interest in a house.
Kyte V. Commercial U. Assur.
Co., 144 Mass. 43; s.c. 10 N.
E. Rep. 518 ; 3 New Eng. Rep.
884.
A direct pecuniary interest whicli
will be damaged by the desti-uc-
tion of a building is insurable.
Muttial F. Ins. Co. v. Wagner,
(Pa.) 1 Cent. Rep. 333.
Lazarus v. Commonwealth Ins.
Co., 36Ma.ss. (19 Pick.) 81 ;
German Insurance Co. v. Hyman,
Neb. ; s.c. 53 N. W.
Rep. 401 ; 31 Inst. L. J. 941 ;
Rohrbach v. Germania Fire Ins.
Co., 63 N. y. 47 ; s.c. 30 Am.
Rep. 451 ;
Porch V. Fi-ies, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C.
E. Gr.) 304 ;
Sturm V. Atlantic Mutual Ins.
Co.,88N. Y. Sup. 381;
Lebanon Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v.
Erb, 113 Pa. St. 149 ; s.c. 4 Atl..
Rep. 8 ; 3 Cent. Rep. 783 ;
Humes v. Providence Washing-
ton Ins. Co. , 33 S. C. 190;
Hancock v. Fishing Ins. Co., 3
Sumn. C. C. 133 ;
Hooper v. Robinson, 98 U. S. 538 ;
bk. 35 L. ed. 319 ;
Lucena v. Craufurd, 3 Bos. & P.
75 ; s.c. 3 Bos. & P. (N. R.) 369 ;
1 Taunt. 335 ; 6 Rev. Rep. 633 ;
Ebsworth v. Alliance Marine
Ins. Co., L. R., 8 C. P. 596,633;
s.c. 43 L. J. C. P. 305 ; 7 Moak's
Eng. Rep. 105.
Insurable Interest— Judge Story's defi-
nition.— In Hancock v. Fishing
Ins. Co., 3 Sumn. C. C. 133,
Judge Story said : " An insur-
able interest is sui geyieris, and
peculiar in its texture and op-
eration. It sometimes exists
where there is not any present
property, ov jus in re or jus ad
rem. Inchoate rights founded
on subsisting titles, unless pro-
hibited by the policy of the law,
are insurable."
Same — Justice Swayne's definition. —
In Hooper v. Robinson, 98 U.
S. 538; bk. 15 L. ed. 319, Justice
632
INCIDENTS OF CURTESY.
[Book III.
interest therein ; ^ but it seems that he must specifically
insure the right of using the property of his wife in
order to entitle him to recover damages for loss of it.^
On the other hand, it has been held in Indiana,^ Maine,*
and Michigan,^ that a husband has no insurable interest
in the statutory property of his wife.
Sec. 'TTS. Ineidentsof curtesy— Generally.— The interest
of a tenant by curtesy is a vested legal estate, distinct
from that of the wife, and is liable to all the incidents of.
any other freehold or life estate.^ The different stages
of the estate, however, are governed by different rules.
We have already seen that curtesy is divided into two
kinds or classes, which are properly but stages ; "* the one
being known as curtesy initiate,^ and the other as
curtesy consummate.^ The first stage in the estate, as
already explained, commences either on the birth of
issue, ^'^ or seisin" of the wife during coverture, which-
ever takes place first. ^^ Although the husband holds
' Merrett v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 42
Iowa 11 ;
American Central Ins. Co. v. Mo-
Lanathan, 11 Kan. 533 ;
Franklin Ins. Co. v. Drake, 2 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 47 ;
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Deale, 18 Md.
26 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 673 ;
Kyte V. Commercial Union As-
surance Co., 144 Mass. 43 ; s.c.
10 N. E. Eep. 518 ; 3 New Eng.
Rep. 884 ;
Williams v. Roger Williams Ins.
Co., 107 Mass. 377 ; s.c. 9 Am.
Eep. 41 ;
Trade Ins. Co. v. Barraoliff, 45
N. J. L. (16 Vr.) 543 ; s.c. 46
Am. Rep. 792 ;
Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C.
E. Gr.) 204 ;
Harris v. Yorfe-ins. Co., 50 Pa.
St. 841 ;
Cohn V. Virginia Ins. Co., 3
Hughes, C. C. 272 ;
(raulstine v. Royal Ins. Co., 1
Fost. & F. 276.
Compare: Agricultural Ins. Co.
r. Montague, 38 Mich. 548 ; s.c.
31 Am. Rep. 336.
■ Ani where a husljand, who has in-
sured for himself without men-
tion of his wife's ownership,
sues for damage by fire to liis
wife's estate, claiming an in-
surable interest, his declaration
must set out his interest, and
claim damage to that interest,
or he cannot recover.
Cohn V. Virginia Fire, etc., Ins.
Co., 3 Hughes C. C. 273.
2 Traders' Ins. Co. v. Newman, 120
Ind. 554 ; s.c. 33 N. E. Rep.
428. This case, however, was
decided on a point in pleading.
^ Clark V. Dwelling-House, 81 Me.
373 ; s.c. 17 Atl. Eep. 303.
' Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Montague,
38 Mich. 548 ; s.c. 31 Am. Rep.
326.
' Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 lU. 219.
■> See : Ante, 8 714.
' Sec : Ante, s 715.
» See : Ante, § 716.
■"> See : Ante, § 747.
"See: Ante, §733, et seq.
" Rice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 350 ;
Foster v. Marshall, 33 N. H. (4
Fost.) 491, 493 ;
Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.)
81,34;
Wilson V. Arentz, 70 N. C. 670,
674.
See : Ante, §§ 151, 153, 156.
Chap. XVII. § 774.] RIGHT TO SELL OE LEASE. 633
curtesy initiate in his own right,-' yet he has no present
tenancy by virtue of it,^ and it in no way changes the
incidents of his tenancy in his wife's right during
coverture.^ Curtesy initiate is not a vested riglit,* hut
a prior estate of things/ and may be taken from the
husband either by act of the Legislature or judgment of
a court of law, or a decree in chancery.^ When
tenancy by curtesy consummate vests, the husband
becomes practically the owner for the time being, and
may do with the estate as an owner in fee-simple could,
except to transfer it in fee, or commit waste.''' The
estate has all the rights and incidents of a conventional
life estate.^ Thus the tenant by curtesy has a right to
the possession of the premises,^ may prosecute, ^^ and
defend suits in ejectment ; ^' may recover damages for
injuries to his estate ; ^^ has a right to take reasonable
estovers ; ^^ is entitled to work mines, quarries, and the
like ; ^* has a right to sell ^^ or lease ^^ the premises, and is
liable for waste. ^^
Sec. TTi. Same— l. Eight to sell or lease.— The interest
of a tenant by the curtesy being a legal estate, with all the
incidents of any other freehold or life estate, the tenant
will have a right to sell or lease the premises, provided
' See : Heath v. White, 5 Conn. « See : Star v. Pease, 8 Conn. 541,
228 235 ■ 546.
Short'all v. Hinckley, 31 111. 219, ' See : Ante, 8 670.
227. * See : Ante, ^ 578, et seq.
' See : Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. ' See : Ante, g§ 578, 768.
(N. Y.) 21, 24 ; "> Hall v. Hall, 32 Ohio St. 184.
Jones V. Davies, 5 Hurl. & N. " Grout v. Townsend, 2 Hill (N.
Si 766 ; s.c. 7 Hurl. & N. 507, 508. Y.) 554.
3 See : Kibble v. Williams, 58 111. '^ See : Ante, § 580, et seq.
3() 31 • 1' Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111. 226,
Cole'-y. Van Eiper, 44 HI. 58, 66 ; 228.
Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W. Va. See : Ante, §§ 582, 653-663.
455, 469. " See : J.iife.'g 583, et seq.
* Heath'on v. Lyon, 2 Mich. 93, 95 ; '=■ Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ;
Matter of Wmne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ;
21 24 • Bottoms v. Corley, 0 Heisk.
Sharpless ■;;. West, 1 Grant (Pa.) (Tenn.) 1, 5.
250 260- " Shortall u Hinckley, 31 111. 219,
Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 236.
599 606. Sfe : Post, § 774.
Compare ■ Millinger v. Bosman, " Weise v. Welsh, 30 N. J. Eq. (3
45 Pa. St. 523, 529. Stew.) 431, 434.
'- Ironsides v. Ironsides, 31 L. J. See : Ante, §§ 664, 704.
Ad. li. 129, 131.
63i
SUBJECT TO DEBTS OF WIFE.
[Book III.
he does not grant a greater interest than he possesses, or
convey for a longer period than his own Hfe.-'
Sec. YY5. Same— 2. Subject to the debts of the wife.—
Formerly the wife was classed with infants and persons
of unsound mind in regard to her capacity to enter into
contracts or incur debts, ^ not that she was less capable
of contracting by reason of her marriage, but because
by the ancient common law the wife was little better
than a slave ; the husband acquired her personal prop-
erty, the rents and profits of her estate, the custody of
her person, and the right to her services. She possessed
nothing and could possess nothing independently of her
husband. The law therefore deprived her of the capac-
ity of contracting, because she had nothing in relation
to which she could contract ; consequently she could
have no debts that were a lien upon, her estate.^ The
status of married women has been changed by the
statutes in this country. On the death of the wife the
estate by curtesy becomes consummate,* and being con-
sidered simply as a continuance of the wife's inherit-
ance,^ it passes to the husband and is held by him subject
to all the debts and incumbrances under which the wife
held it. 8
Sec. Y76. Same— Same— 3. Subject to debts of tenant.—
The estate by curtesy is subject to the debts of the
husband or tenant, and is bound by a judgment against
him, and may be taken and sold under a levy of
execution on such judgment.' Whether the estate be
1 Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 III. 319,
226.
See : Ante, § 590, et seq.
^ Forbes ■;;. Sweesy, 8 Neb. 520 ; s.o.
1 N. W. Eep. 571.
8 2 Bl. Com. 325.
See : Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Neb.
520 ; s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 571.
* See : Ante, S, 716.
^ See : Ante, § 705, et seq., § 764.
^ See : Phillips v. Phillips, 2 Dev.
(Ky.) D49 ;
Taylor v. Smith, 54 Miss. 50 ;
Forbes v, Sweesy, 8 Neb. 520 ;
s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 571.
' Watson V. Watson, 13 Conn. 83 ;
Gay V. Gay, 123 111. 567 ; s.o. 18
N. E. Eep. 840 ; 11 West. Rep.
608 ;
Lang V. Hitchcock, 99 111. 550 ;
Jacobs V. Rice, 33 111. 369 ;
Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 111. 319 ;
Eldredge v. Preble, 34 Me. 151 ;
Gardner v. Hooper, 69 Mass. (3
Gray) 398 ;
Mechanics' Bank v. Williams, 34
Mass. (17 Pick.) 438 ;
Litchfield v. Cudworth, 32 Mass.
(15 Pick.) 23 :
Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186 ;
Taylor ■;;. Smith, 54 Miss. 50 ;
Day V. Cochran, 26 Miss. 361 ;
Chap. XVII. § 776.] SUBJECT TO DEBTS OF TENANT.
635
initiate ^ or consummate.^ The levy may be made on the
land directly ; 3 and a court of equity will not interfere in
favor of the wife and children to prevent such a levy upon
the curtesy initiate by creditors,* unless the husband has
forfeited his right thereto by such a breach of the
marital contract as entitles the wife to a decree of
separation. 5 The husband cannot defeat the right of a
Forbes i: Sweesy, 8 Neb. 520 ;
s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 571 ;
Van Duzer i\ Van Duzer, 6 Paige
Ch. (N. Y.) 366 ; s.c. 31 Am.
Dec. 257 ;
Canby v. Porter, 13 Ohio 79 ;
Lancaster Bank v. StaufiEer, 10
Pa. St. 398 ;
Burd V. Dansdale, 3 Binn. (Pa.)
80;
Mattocks V. Stearns, 9 Vt. 336 ;
Dejamette v. Allen, 5 Gratt. (Va.)
499.
la Pennsylvania, the husband's es-
tate by curtesy cannot be levied
on under the statute.
Brightley Pru. Dig., p. 1007 ;
Curry v. Bott, 53 Pa. St. 400.
See : Post, § 780.
In Blissonrl, there is a question
hov5^ far the husband's estate by
curtesy is liable for his debts.
Harvey v. Wickham, 23 IIo. 112,
117;
ChurchUl v. Hudson, 34 Fed. Rep.
14.
See : Post, % 780.
In Uassachnsetts, it is said that
Btatutes permitting the wife to
cut off the husband's estate by
curtesy with his consent are
inconsistent with a riglit in
creditors to levy thereon, and
for that reason prevent a sale
of the estate on execution.
See : Staples v. Brown, 95 Mass.
(13 Allen) 64 ;
Silsby V. Bullock, 92 Mass. (10
AUen) 94.
1 See : Plumb v. Sawyer, 21 Conn.
351;
Lang V. Hitchcock, 99 111. 550 ;
ShortaU v. Hinckley, 31 111. 219,
337 *
Anderson v. Tydings, 8 Md. 427,
443 ; s.c. 63 Am. Dec. 708 ;
Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186 :
Day V. Cochran, 24 Miss. 261, 275 ;
Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.)
21 25 ■
. Canby v. Porter, 12 Ohio 79, 80 ;
Burd V. Dansdale, 2 Binn. (Pa.)
80;
Mattocks V. Stearns, 9 Vt. 326.
' See : Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Neb.
520; s.o. 1 N. W. Rep. 571.
" Roberts v. Wliiting, 16 Mass. 186,
190. .
See : Mechanics' Bank v. Wil-
liams, 34 Mass. (17 Pick.) 438,
441.
•■ Lang V. Hitchcock, 99 111. 550 ;
Wiokes V. Clarke, 8 Paige Cli.
(N. Y.)161, 172;
Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 0 Paige
Ch. (N. Y.) 366 ; s.c. 31 Am.
Dec. 257 ;
Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. (N. Y.)
514.
' Renwick v. Renwick, 10 Paige
Ch. (N. Y.) 172 ;
Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 6 Paige
Ch. (N. Y.) 366 ; s.c. 31 Am.
Deo. 357 ;
Hanke v. Finke, 9 Watts (Pa.)
336;
Gibson v. Gibson, 46 Wis. 458;
s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 147 :
Galligo V. ChevalHe, 2 Bro. C. C.
285.
Breach of marital contract by hus-
band— Effect on curtesy. — Under
such circumstances it is but
just and equitable to the wife
that she should be permitted to
retain for her own use, and for
the education and support of the
children, if any, all the real and
personal estate which belongs
to her at the time of the mar-
riage, or which has come to her
since by gift, devise, or descent
from any of her relatives, and
which the husband had not
received and reduced to his
actual possession previous to
the commission of the offense.
Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 6 Paige
Ch. (N. Y.) 366 ; s.c. 31 Am.
Dec. 257.
See : Renwick v. Renwick, 10
Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 455;
636 WIFE AS CREDITOR. [Book III.
creditor to proceed against the estate by any disclaimer
of his right to the curtesy.^
Sec. ■777. Same— Same— Wife's right as creditor against
curtesy.— The estate by the curtesy will pass to the husband
subject to the right of the wife as a creditor.^ Thus in a
case where a mortgage was made by the wife, with her
husband, of her separate estate, and the husband used
the money for his own purposes exclusively, without
accounting to her, and subsequently by a deed of assign-
ment, in which she joined, transferred all his estate for
the benefit of creditors. The wife, after having devised
her estate to her son, died, and her land was sold under
the mortgage, leaving a balance after its payment.
The court held that if the husband had any interest, as
tenant by the curtesy, in the balance, the amount taken
by him of the wife's money having been greater than such
interest, her devisee was entitled to receive it, in pref-
erence to the husband's assignees. The fund having
come from her separate estate, it would have been hers
if living ; her right did not depend upon subrogation,
but was a legal right, to be enforced, unless the claim-
ant under the husband could show a superior title, both
in law and equity.^
Sec. 778. Same — Same — Curtesy initiate.— At common
law the interest of a husband as tenant by the curtesy
Gibson v. Gibson, 46 Wis. 458 ; Holmes v. Holmes, 4 Barb. (N.
s.o. 1 N. W. Rep. 147 ; Y.) 295, 297.
Gallego V. ChevalUe, 2 Bro. C. C. ' Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. 83 ;
285. Litchfield v. Cudworth, 32 Mass.
See : Kashaw v. Kashaw, 3 Cal. (15 Pick.) 23 ;
313 ; Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186 ;
Foster v. HaU, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) Day v. Cochran, 26 Miss. 261, 275 ;
546 ; Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 6 Paige
McCranklin v. McCranklin, 2 B. Ch. 366 ; s.c. 31 Am. Deo. 357 ;
Mon. (Ky.) 370. Canby v. Porter, 13 Ohio 79 ;
Same— The husband forfeits all equit- Lancaster Bank v. Stauffer, 10
able rights to tlie wife's property Pa. St. 398 :
by his violation of the marriage Burd v. Dansdale, 2 Binn. (Pa.)
contract, and for that reason 80 ;
win be restored by courts of Mattocks v. Stearns, 9 Vt. 326.
equity. See : Ante, § 767.
Renwick v. Renwick, 10 Paige = Piatt's Estate, 2 W. N. C. 468 ; s.c.
Ch. (N. Y.) 420 ; . sub nom. Shippen's Appeal, 80
Fry V. Fry, 7 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) Pa. St. 391.
461 ; 3 Shippen's Appeal, 80 Pa. St. 391.
Chap. XVII. § 779.] CURTESY INITIATE. 63T
became initiate by tbe birth of a child/ or the acquisi-
tion of possession by the wife during coverture, ^ and was
subject to the husband's debts as well as after it became
consummate, 3 and could be sold under a levy of execu-
tion,* and the husband could not, by refusal to take the
property, defeat the rights of his creditors therein." The
estate by the curtesy may be set off by appraisement,
or the rents and profits may be levied on, at the election
of creditors.^
Sec. '7T9. Same— Same— Same— ITiider statute subjecting
" any estate held by debtor."— Under a statute making liable
to execution "any estate held by the debtor m his own
right, or for his own life, or the life of another, paying
no rent therefor," the Supreme Court of Vermont '^ held
an estate by the curtesy initiate liable to execution.
The court say : " We see no difficulty in considering this
an estate which the debtor held in his own right.
The title was indeed derived through the right of his
wife ; but, by virtue of the marriage, he, as husband,
acquired certain rights, among which the use of the
freehold estate on inheritance of the wife during the
coverture is one. After issue born alive, this estate is
enlarged, and extends not only during the coverture,
> See : Ante, §§ 747, 773. Burd v. Dansdale, 2 Binn. 80 ;
■ See : Aiite, §§ 723, 773. Mattocks v. Stearns, 9 Vt. 326.
' Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186 ; A judgment against a tenant by
Burd V. Dansdale, 2 Burn. (Pa.) the curtesy initiate, after issue
80 ; born, binds his estate in his
Mattocks V. Steams, 9 Vt. 326. wife's lands which have been
' Plumb V. Sawyer, 21 Conn. 351 ; ordered to be appraised in pro-
Watson V. Watson, 13 Conn. 83 ; ceedings in partition, but which
Litchfield v. Cudworth, 33 Mass. have not been accepted or sold
(15 Pick.) 23 ; at the date of the recovery of
Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186 ; the judgment ; and this lien
Day V. Cochrane, 24 Miss. 261 ; continues to bind securities
Harvey v. Wickham, 23 Mo. 112, given for the wife's share of the
117 ; valuation.
Bunn V. Daly, 24 Hun (N. Y.) Lancaster County Bank v. Stauf-
536 ; fer, 10 Pa. St. 398.
Van Duzer v. Van Duzer, 6 Paige * Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. 83.
Ch. (N. Y.) 366 ; s.c. 31 Am. See : Ante, § 767.
Dec. 257 ; * Roberts v. Whiting, 16 Mass. 186.
Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) But the widow of the execution
508 ; creditor is not entitled to dower
Canby v. Porter, 12 Ohio 79 ; in such estate.
Lancaster Bank v. Stauffer, 10 Gillis v. Brown, 5 Cow. (N. Y.)
Pa. St. 398 ; 388.
' Mattocks V. Stearns, 9 Vt. 326.
638 CURTESY INITIATE UNDER STATUTES. [Book III.
but till the death of the husband, except in one event,
which will be named hereafter. This, in England, after
the death of the wife, was denominated an estate by the
curtesy, but is strictly an estate, which the husband
holds in his own right, whether before or after the
death of the wife. He may bring trespass or ejectment
in his own name for any injury to the usufruct during
the continuance of the estate. The next inquiry is
whether this is an estate for the life of the debtor. It is
undoubtedly true that this estate might be terminated
by a divorce a vinculo,^ before the death of either
husband or wife. But this is a contingency of so
remote expectation, as not to enter into the ordinary
calculations of the duration of the relation of married
life. It is one of those extreme cases which, like earth-
quakes and tempests in the natural world, or like public
executions in the history of individual existence, do,
indeed, sometimes occur, but which no one feels bound
to expect or provide against. "
Sec. Y80. Same— Same— Under recent American statutes.—
The passage in many of the states of what are known as
" Married Women's Acts " has abolished curtesy initiate,
and in those states there cannot of course be a levy upon
the husband's estate in the wife's lands in her lifetime ;
for his estate does not arise until after his wife's death,
and until that event occurs, his interest is a mere ex-
pectancy of an estate in such lands as remain upon the
wife's death, and this is too uncertain and indefinite a
property to be subject to levy and sale on execution!^
In those states where married women's acts have been
passed and where tenancy by curtesy initiate is still
recognized, the statutes have the effect to restrain a levy
upon, or the sale of, the curtesy initiate by virtue of a
writ of execution, postponing all actions by the husband's
creditors until the estate becomes consummate by the
wife's death.3 Under these statutes the courts hold that
' See : Post, §§ 814, 817. Silsby v. BuUock, 93 Mass. (10
" See : Jones v. Carter, 73 N. C. 148 ; Allen) 94 •
Williams V. Baker, 71 Pa. St. 476. Clarke's Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 376 ;
Staples y. Brown, 95 Mass. (13 Woodward v. "Wilson, 68 Pa. St.
AUen) 64 ; 208 :
Chap. XVII. §§ 781-783.] EMBLEMENTS— IMPROVEMENTS. 639
as the wife's estate cannot be taken in execution for the
husband's debts, on account of his curtesy, he cannot
alienate it during coverture.-'
Sec. 781. Same — 4. Emblements — Tenant by curtesy en-
titled to.— We have already seen^ that among the inci-
dents which attach to an ordinary life estate is a right
to the possession and usufruct, or annual produce, of the
land^ during the continuance of the life estate. The
rights of a tenant by the curtesy in this regard are not
different from those of any other life tenant.*
Sec. 782. Same — 5. Improvements — No allowance to ten-
ant for.-We have heretofore seen that an ordinary life
tenant is not permitted to burden the reversioner or
remainderman with the expense of permanent improve-
ments.* In respect to such improvements the life tenant
is under the same inhibitions as ordinary life tenants,
and has no right to make improvements at the expense
of the heirs or remaindermen ; ^ and where such tenant
makes permanent improvements upon the land, neither
he nor any one who claims through him is entitled to an
allowance for the increased value of the premises by vir-
tue of the buildings and improvements made by such
tenant by the curtesy.'' There is an exception to this
rule, however, in those cases where there is a partition
of the estate.^
Sec. 783. Same— 6. Waste by tenant by curtesy- Lia-
bility for.— That an ordinary tenant for life is liable for
waste has already been pointed out." A tenant by the
curtesy being a tenant for life merely, since the statute of
Gloucester, 1° is liable for waste ;" and where he has as-
Curry v. Bott, 53 Pa. St. 400 ; ^ See : Ante, § 610.
Churchill v. Hudson, 34 Fed. Rep. « Bedford v. Bedford, 26 N. E. Rep.
14 . 662, aff'g s.c. 32 111. App. 455.
Mass! Gen. St., c. 108, § 1 ; ' Runey v. Edmands, 15' Mass. 391.
Rev. St. Mo., § 3295 ; « See : Post, S 785.
Act. Pa. Apr. 23, 1850, § 3 ; P. L. » See : Ante, bk. III., c. XVI., sec-
553 ^ tionVII., "Waste."
' WiUiaims v. Baker, 71 Pa. St. 476. '» 6 Edw. I., c. 5.
^ See : Ante, 8 578. " Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111. 336 ;
3 See : Ante', 6k. III., o. XVI., sec- Bates v. Shraeder, 13 John. (N. Y.)
tion v., "Emblements." 260.
* Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111. 236.
640 "WASTE— LIABILITY OF ASSIGNEE. [BOOK III.
signed his interest in the estate by curtesy, and waste is
committed by his assignee, the original tenant by curtesy
is still liable to an action by the heir for such waste. ^ We
shall hereafter see that a tenant by curtesy may forfeit
his estate by being guilty of waste. ^ At common law it
was doubtful whether a tenant by the curtesy was
punishable for waste. To remedy this defect the
statute of Gloucester ^ was passed. This statute enacted
that a writ of waste might be brought against a tenant
by the curtesy, and that such tenant should incur the
same penalties for committing waste as any other tenant
for hfe.*
Sec. Y84. Same — Same— Liability of assignee.— At com-
mon law the assignee of a tenant by curtesy could not be
sued in waste ; the action had to be brought against the
tenant himself by the heirs, whereby he recovered the
loss against the assignee, for the privity was between the
heir and the tenant by the curtesy ; ^ hence, in the
absence of statutory regulation, where a tenant by the
curtesy grants over his estate the privity of action re-
mains between the heir and such tenant, and he shall
have an action of waste against such tenant for waste
committed after the assignment ; but if the heir grant
over the reversion, then the privity of action is destroyed
and the grantee cannot have any action of waste except
against the tenant ; for between them there is privity in
estate, and between them and the tenant by the curtesy
there is no privity at all ; so that in law if the tenant is
suable in waste there must be a privity of estate.^
Sec. T85. Same— 7. Partition.— Tenants for life in pos-
session are entitled to have a partition of the estate as
between themselves and all persons entitled to the rever-
sion and the remainder.'' A tenant by the curtesy, being
a tenant for life in the lands of his -deceased wife, is,
' Bates V. Shraeder, 13 John. (N. Y.) See : 3 Bao. Abr. 230 ;
, „ 260. 2 Inst. 301.
^ bee: Post, section V., this chapter. « See : Bates v. Shraeder, 13 John.
I T ^^"Z; ^■' ^- ^- (^- Y.) 360, 363.
5 w ,-, ^*,^' 5"^' ^^^- ' See : Jenkins v. Fahey, 73 N. Y.
' Walker's Case, 3 Co. 33. 355
Chap. XVII. § 786.1 PARTITION— POWER TO SELL. G-11
when such lands are held in co-tenancy, entitled to have
a partition thereof ; ^ and even a tenant by the curtesy
initiate has a sufficient estate in the lands upon which to
base a partition suit.^ And it has been held that even
the grantee of a tenant by the curtesy initiate has a
sufficient estate in lands upon which to base a partition
suit.* It is said by the Supreme Court of Kentucky, in
the case of Russell r. Eussell,* that whereupon the death
of some of the children of a tenant by the curtesy, their
interest in their mother's estate vests absolutely in the
husband, and there is a partition made between him and
the other children, it is proper to deduct any enhanced
value to the entire estate arising from improvements
made by the husband.
Sec. T86. Same— 8. Power to sell, assign, or lease.— A ten-
ant by curtesy, like any other tenant for life,^ luay sell,
assign, or lease his interest as such tenant,^ whether he be
tenant by curtesy, consummate or initiate, 'or has simply
an inchoate interest which attaches on the death of the
wife.^ Where the husband as such tenant conveys by a
deed of bargain and sale, no greater interest passes than
1 Tilton V. Vail, 42 Hun (N. Y.) 638; 668 ;
Rikerv. Darke,4Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) Otley v. MoAlpine's Heirs, 2
fifiS ■ Gratt. (Va.) 343.
Seai-s 'v. Hyer, 1 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) » Riker v. Darke, 4 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.)
483, 486 ; 668 ;
Otley V. McAlpine"s Heii-s, 3 Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. (N. Y.)
Gratt. (Va.) 340; 515.
Hutchinson's Case, 4 Dane's Abr. See : 2 Van Santv. PI. 6.
C62 ; ■* 13 S. W. Rep. 709 ; s.c. 11 Ky. L.
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 175a. Rep. 547.
See : Weise v. Welsh, 33 N. J. ' See : Ante, § 590, et seq.
Eq. (3 Stew.) 431 ; * Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ;
Darlbiffton's Appropriation, 13 s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ;
Pa. St. 430 ; Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 111. 319 ;
Walker v. Dilworth, 3 U. S. (3 Meraman v. Caldwell, 8 B. Mon.
Dall.) 257 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 372. (Ky.) 32 ; s.c. 46 Am Dec. 537;
In massachnsetts, a tenant by the Central v. Copeland, 18 Md. 30o,
curtesy is entitled to, and liable 330 ; „^ ^-r -,-,,,. -^ ^ ,
to, the process of petition for Flagg v. Bean, 25 N. H. (5 Fost.)
Hutoiiii^sOTi's Case and Brad- Klotenbrock v. Cracraft, 36 Ohio
bury's Case, 4 Dane's Abr. 662. St. 584 ;
In Pennsylvania, it is questionable Briggs v. Titus, 13 R. I. 136 ;
whether he can maintain a writ Gillespie v. Worford, 2 Cold.
of partition (Tenn.) 633.
Walker «. Diilworth, 3 U. S. (3 'Briggs r Titus 13 R. I. 136
Dall ■)357 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 373. « See : Hitz v. Metropolitan Bank,
« Riker ^. Darke, 4Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) lU U. S. 733; bk. 38 L. ed. 577.
41
042 SUBSEQUENT DIVORCE. [Book III.
the estate which he holds, that is, his life interest therein ; ^
and if in such a conveyance the wife joins only to release
her right of dower, nothing passes from her to the gran-
tee.^ If the husband conveys his curtesy and afterwards
joins with his wife in the conveyance of the entire estate,
such joint conveyance will carry the wife's remainder
only, and not affect the former conveyance.^ A convey-
ance by the husband of his estate by the curtesy in fraud
of creditors will be void, the same as a similar convey-
ance by a tenant in fee ; * and a voluntary settlement by
the husband of such an estate upon his wife and children
will be void as to creditors injuriously affected ; ^ but
where the husband is indebted to the wife, he may con-
vey his inchoate interest as tenant by the curtesy in her
lands to a trustee for the benefit of such wife and her
children, and his indebtedness to her will constitute a
valuable consideration for the conveyance, although he
is indebted at the same time to others.*^
Sec. 787. Same— Same— Effect of subsequent divorce.-
Where a husband conveys his estate by the curtesy
initiate in his wife's lands, for a good and valuable con-
sideration, and subsequently is divorced from her for
causes arising after the sale was made, and which did
not affect the validity of the original marriage contract,
such divorce will not affect the vendee's interest in the
estate.''
' Flagg V. Bean, 25 N. H. (5 Fost.) In case of such conveyance the
49 ; statute of limitations does not
Meraman v. Caldwell, 8 B. Mon. commence to run against the
(Ky.) 32 ; s.c. 46 Am. Dec. 537. heirs of the wife until the
« Flagg V. Bean,25 N.H. (5 Fost.) 49. death of the husband.
Thus it is said in the case of Meraman v. Caldwell, 8 B. Mon.
Klotenbrock v. Cracraft, 36 (Ky.) 32 ; s.c. 46 Am. Dec. 537.
Ohio St. 584, that, where the « Shortall v. Hinckley, 81 111. 219.
husband becomes seized of an * Stehman v. Huber, 21 Pa. St. 260.
estate by the curtesy, and ' Wiokes v. Clarke, 8 Paige Ch.
during the life of his wife as- (N. Y.) 161 -.
sumes to convey the fee of the Van Duzerij. Van Duzer, 6 Paige
land, and put his grantee in Ch. (N. Y.) 366; s.c. 31 Am.
possession, the conveyance of Dec. 257.
the husband is a valid transfer « Ilitz v. Metropolitan Bank, 111
to the extent of his estate, and U. S. 722; bk. 28 L. ed. 577.
if he survives her, the .statute of 'Gillespie v. Worford, 2 Cold.
limitations does not commence (Tenn.) 632.
to run against her heirs until As to effect on husband's breach
the termination of his life es- of marital contract on his right
tate. of curtesy, see : Ante, § 776.
Chap. XVII. §§ 788-7900 DAMAGES TO REVERSION. 043
Sec. 788. Same— 9. Suits with reference to.— An estate
by curtesy having the incidents of a conventional life
estate/ a tenant by curtesy may maintain and def^rid
actions relating thereto ; ^ thus he may recover the sanje
in an action of ejectment,^ and he may defend suits
brought by the heirs of his wife to eject him therefrom.*
In all actions or suits relating to or affecting the estate
by curtesy, the wife is not a necessary party and need not
be joined.^
Sec. 789. Same— Same— Damages to reversion.— The right
of a tenant by the curtesy to maintain and defend actions
in regard to the estate is limited to his individual interest
therein ; ^ consequently a tenant by curtesy of a reversion,
expectant upon the determination of an estate in dower,
cannot maintain trespass de bonis for trees or other
things severed and removed by the doweress ; the property
in the trees severed and removed belongs to the owner of
the inheritance, by whom the action for damages must be
brought.''
Sec. 790. Duties of tenant by curtesy.- After what has
already been said in this chapter regarding the nature and
character of an estate by the curtesy, it is scarcely neces-
' Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 111.219, Muldowney r. Moms & E. R. Co. ,
227 • 43 Hun (N. Y.) 444 ;
Rice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 850, 354; HaU v. Hall, 32 Ohio St. 184.
Miller v. Bledsoe, 61 ]Mo. 96, 105. In Alabamsr— Trespass to try title—
See : Ante, % 578, et seq. A plaintiff, claiming as tenant
' See : Ante, § 768. by the curtesy, may recover
In the case of Muldowney v. possession of the premises, in
Morris & Essex R. R. Co., 43 Alabama, in the common form
Hun (N. Y.) 444, a railroad of an action of trespass to try
company fox several years oc- title.
cupied land in which A had an Rochon v. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.)
outstanding estate of curtesy. 609.
After A and the railroad com- ■* Grout v. Townsend, 2 Hill (N. Y.)
pany first learned of the exist- 554.
ence of A's estate, A brought '^ Shortall v. Hinckley, 31 111. 219,
an action to compel payment 337.
to him of his just proportion of « The writ of right at common law,
the rents and profits. The or as recognized by statute in
court held, that he was entitled Alabama, does not he m favor
to the relief sought. of a tenant by the curtesy.
3 Lecatt V Merchants' Insurance Lecatt v. Merchants' Insurance
Co., 16 Ala. 177 ; c.c. 50 Am. Co., 16 Ala. 177; s.c. 50 Am.
Dec 169 • Dec. 169.
Rochon V. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.) ■" Mathews v. Bennett, 20 N. H. 31.
609;
64-i DtJTIES— BARRING CURTESY. [Book III.
sary to add that tenants by curtesy hold their estates
subject to the duties, limitations, and obligations which
attach to those of ordinary tenants for life, which have
already been fully discussed.^ Thus, at common law,
the tenant by the curtesy shall be attendant on the lord
paramount for the services due in respect of the lands
that he holds by his title ; ^ and at the present day a
man who is tenant by the curtesy of an estate charged
with the payment of a sum of money is bound to keep
down the interest ; and on his failure to do so, the person
entitled to the inheritance can compel him to keep down
the interest, the same as he could any other tenant for
life.3
Section III. — Barking Cuktesy.
Sec. 791. Barring curtesy — By agreement of parties.
Sec. 793. Same — By attainder of wife.
Sec. 793. Same — By divesture of wife on breach of covenant.
Sec. 794. Same — By judicial proceedings under statute.
Sec. 795. Same — By consent of husband to wife's will.
Sec. 796. Same — By statute of limitations.
Sec. 797. Same — By statutory enactment.
Sec. 798. Same — By husband's conveyance.
Sec. 799. Same — Same — In lands purchased with proceeds.
Sec. 800. Same — By fine and recovery.
Sec. 801. Same — By conveyance by wife during coverture.
Sec. 802. Same — By settlement in trust.
Sec. 803. Same — By instrument creating equitable estate.
Sec. 804. Same — Same — Provisions excluding curtesy.
Sec. 805. Same — By separate use for- wife.
Sec. 806. Same — Not by deed or will of grantor.
Sec. 807. Same— Not by will of wife.
Sec. 808. Same— Not by decree enjoining husband.
Sec. 809. Same — Not by attainder of wife after issue.
Sec. 810. Same — Not by ante-nuptial deed.
Sec. 811. Same — Not by ante-nuptial gift.
Sec. 812. Same— Not by abandonment of possession to co-tenant in
common.
Sec. 813. Forfeiture— By alienage.
Sec. 814. Same— By decree of divorce.
Sec. 815. Same— Same— 1. Decree of nullity.
Sec. 816. Same — Same — 3. Decree nisi.
Sec. 817. Same — Same — 3. Decree a vinculo.
'See: Ante, bk. III., o. XVI., « Paine's Case, 8 Rep. 86a ;
section II. , " Duties Incident to 3 Inst. 302.
Life Estates." » 1 Atk. 606.
Chap. XVII. § 791.] BARRING— BY AGREEMENT.
645
Sec. 818. Same— Same— Same— At suit of wife.
Sec. 819. Same — Same— Same — At suit of husband.
Sec. 820. Same— Same— Same— Rights of third parties.
Sec. 821. Same— Same — 4. Decree a meiisa.
Sec. 822. Same— By adultery.
Sec. 823. Same — By abandonment of wife.
Sec. 824. Same— By failure to provide.
Sec. 825. Same— By bigamy.
Sec. 826. Same — By wrongful alienation.
Sec. 827. Same— By attainder of husband of treason or felony.
Section T91. Barring curtesy— By agreement of parties.-
The right of the husband to an estate by the curtesy in
his wife's estates of inheritance may be barred in several
ways, and among others by a voluntary agreement of
both parties/ enforcible in equity,^ made either before or
See : Charles v. Charles, 8 Gratt.
(Va.) 486 ; s.c. 56 Am. Dec. 155 ;
Rochon V. Lecatte, 2 Stew. (Ala.)
429;
Mason v. Deese, 30 Ga. 308.
See : Parsons v. Ely, 45 III. 233 ;
Hutchins v. Dixon, 11 Md. 29 ;
Townsend ■;;. Mathews, 10 Md.
251;
"Waters v. Tazewell, 9 Md. 291 ;
Jones V. Brown, 1 Md. Ch. 191 ;
Lawrence v. Bartlett, 84 Mass.
(2 Allen) 36 ;
Williams v. Claiborne, 15 Miss.
(7 Smed. & M.) 488 ;
GUdden v. Blodgett, 38 N. H. 74;
DeBarantev. Gott, 6 Barb. (N. Y.)
349;
Matter of Leefe, 4 Ed. Ch. (N. Y.)
395*
Hook's V. Lee, 7 Ired. (N. C.) Eq.
83;
McBride v. WiUiams, 4 Jones
(N. C.) Eq. 268;
Tillinghast v. Coggshall, 7 R. I.
383;
Baskins v. Giles, 1 Rich. (S. C.)
Eq. 815;
Eidson v. Fontain, 9 Gratt. (Va.)
286;
Hume V. Hor, 5 Gratt. (Va.)
874;
Robinson v. Brock, 1 Hen. & M.
(Va.) 213;
Pickett V. Chilton, 5 Munf. (Va.)
467.
The provision of a marriage settle-
ment, that the wife's property
"never be subject to the con-
trol, contracts, or liabiUties of
the husband," excludes the
husband as well after the death
of the wife as during her life.
Mason v. Deese, 80 Ga. 308;
Waters v. Tazewell, 9 Md. 291.
' See: Wormley v. Wormley, 98
111. 544, 553 ;
Sims V. Rickets, 35 Ind. 181, 192;
s.c. 9 Am. Rep. 679;
McCampbeU v. McCampbeU, 2
Lea (Tenn.) 661, 664;
Moore v. Page, 111 U. S. ; bk.
28 L. ed. ;
Murray v. Glasse, 23 L. J. Ch.
126,127.
Constrning marriage settlements. —
In construing and enforcing
marriage settlements, the court
win interpret them liberally,
free from restraint of technical
rules, so aa to carry out the
presumed intention of the par-
ties.
See: May v. May, 7 Ela. 207;
Strafcton c.Rogers,ll La.Ann.380;
Hutchins v. Dixon, 11 Md. 29;
Williams v. Claiborne, 1 Smed. &
M. Ch. (Miss.) 355;
Dominick v. Michael, 4 Sand. Ch.
(N. Y.) 374;
Hooks V. Lee, 8 Ired. (N. C.) Eq.
157;
Gause v. Hale, 2 Ired. (N. C.) Eq.
241;
Dupree v. McDonald, 4 Desau.
(S. C.) L. 209;
Smith V. Maxwell, 1 Hill Ch.
(S. C.) Eq. 101;
Gaillard v. Parcher, 1 McM.
(S. C.) Ch. 358;
Fabb V. Archer, 8 Hen. & M. (Va.)
399.
640
AGREEMENT OF PARTIES.
[Book III.
after marriage. At common law all contracts between
a husband and wife after marriage are void for want of
proper parties,^ and the inability of the wife to contract,^
Same — Made in foreign stat3. —
A marriage settlement made
in another state by parties
residing there at the time will
be construed by the laws of the
state where made.
Laifitte v. Lawton, 25 Ga. 305;
Sherrod v. Calleghan, 9 La. Ann.
510;
CarroU v. Renich, 15 Miss. (7
Smed. & M.) 798 ;
Deoouch V. Savitier, 3 Johns. Oh.
(N. Y.) 190;
Soheferling v. Huffman, 4 Ohio
St. 341.
A proper consideration for such
voluntary agreement must be
shown as a foundation to suis-
port it.
See : Post, p. 648, footnote 4.
Same — Massachusetts doctrine. —
Thus it is said by the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts
in tho case of "Whitney v.
Closson, 138 Mass. 49 ; s.c. 19
Cent. L. J. 449, that although
the laws of a state confer
upon maiTied women the free-
dom of contract possessed by
femes sole, an agreement be-
tween husband and wife upon
valuable consideration, by
which each agrees to make no
claim upon the estate of the
other in case of death, is not
binding.
The wife's identity heing merged in
the personality of her husband,
they together constituted but
one person.
WeUs v.Caywood,3 Colo.487,491;
Hoker v. Boggs, 63 lU. 161 ;
Barnett v. Harshbarger, 105 Ind.
410; s.c. 5 N. E. Rep. 718;
Haas V. Shaw, 91 Ind. 384; s.c.
46 Am. Rep. 607;
Long V. Kinney, 49 Ind. 233, 238;
O'FarraUv. Simplot, 4 Iowa 381,
389;
Trader v. Lowe, 45 Md. 1, 14 ;
Potter V. Wakefield, 146 Mass.
25, 27 ;
"Woodward v. Spurr, 141 Mass.
383, 384 ;
Kneil v. Egleston, 140 Mass. 302;
s.c. 4. N. E. Rep. 573 ;
"Whitney v. Closson, 138 Mass.49;
Fowle V. Torrey, 135 Mass. 87 ;
Bassett ■!;. Bassett, 113 Mass. 99 ;
Ingham v. "White, 86 Mass. (4
Allen) 412 ;
Lord V. Parker, 85 Mass. (3 Allen)
137;
Burdenot). Amperse, 14 Mich. 91,
93;
Frissell v. Rozier, 19 Mo. 448, 449 ;
"Winebrinner v. "Weisiger, 3 T. B.
Mon. (Ky.) 32, 34 ;
Aultman v. Obermeyer, 6 Neb.
260, 263 ;
Patterson v. Patterson, 45 N. H.
164;
People V. Palmer, 109 N. Y. 110,
118; s.c. 16 N. E. Rep. 529 ;
Bartles v. Nunan, 93 N. Y. 152,
160 ;
Meeker v. "Wright, 76 N. Y. 363,
270 ;
Winans v. Peebles, 33 N. Y. 433 ;
White t. Wager, 35 N. Y. 338 ;
Chambovet v. Cagney, 35 N. Y.
Super. Ct. (J. & S.) 474 ;
Corn Exchange Ins. Co. v. Bab-
cock, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 331 ;
Kelso V. Tabor, 53 Barb. (N. Y.)
125;
Savage v. O'Neil, 42 Barb. (N. Y.)
374;
Simmons v. McElwain, 26 Barb.
(N. Y.) 419, 430 ;
Voorhees v. Presbyterian Church
of Amsterdam, 17 Barb. (N. Y.)
103;
Dempsey v. Tylee, 3 Duer (N. Y.)
73;
Johnson «. Rogers, 35 Hun (N. Y.)
367;
Shepard v. Shepard, 7 Johns. Ch.
(N. Y.) 57;
Barron v. Barron, 24 Vt. 375,398;
Firebrass v. Pennant, 2 "Wils.
234.
The intention of the Legislature to
change the rule of the com-
mon law in the passage of
statutes aflfeoting the status of
married women will not be
presumed from doubtful pro-
visions ; the presumption is
that no such change was in-
tended, unless the statute is ex-
plicit and clear in the direction.
People V. Palmer, 109 N. Y. 110.
5 Gebb V. Rose, 40 Md. 387, 393 ;
Burton v. Marshall, 4 Gill (Md.)
487, 498.
Chap. XVII. § 791.] BAR BY AGREEMENT.
64i
and want of power to convey ; ^ but courts of equity have
always recognized both the duality of the husband and
wife, 2 and the capacity of the latter to contract, ^ and give
effect to contracts by the husband with her without the
intervention of a trustee,* if the intervention of a third
' Stone V. Gazzam, 46 Ala. 369,
273, 275 ;
Frierson v. Frierson, 21 Ala. 549,
555 *
Pillow r. Wade, 31 Ark. 678 ;
Dibble v. Hutton, 1 Day (Conn.)
221 :
Hoker v. Boggs, 63 111. 161 ;
Scarborough v. Watkins, 9 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 540; s.c. 50 Am.
Dec. 528 ;
Johnson v. StiUings, 53 Me. 427 ;
Allen r. Hooper, 50 Me. 371, 374 ;
Martin v. Martin, 1 Me. (1 Greenl.)
394, 398 ;
Preston v. Fyer, 38 Md. 231, 325 ;
Roby V. Phelon, 118 Mass. 541 ;
Jenne v. Marble, 37 Mich. 319,
333;
Frissell v. Rozier, 19 Mo. 448 ;
Aultman v. Obermeyer, 6 Neb.
260, 264 ;
Patterson v. Patterson, 45 N. H.
164, 166 ;
White V. Wager, 25 N. Y. 338,
333'
Fowler V. Treboin, 16 Ohio St.
493, 497 ;
Johnston v. Johnston, 31 Pa. St.
450, 453; s.c. 1 Grant Cas. (Pa.)
468 ;
Barron v. Barron, 34 Vt. 375,
398 ;
Sweat V. Hall, 8 Vt. 187, 189 ;
Putnam v. Bicknell, 18 Wis. 333,
335;
Wallingsfordu Allen, 85 U. S. (10
Pet.) 583, 593; bk. 9 L. ed. ;
Beard v. Beard, 3 Atk. 73.
« Morrison •;;. Tliistle, 67 Mo. 596,
600;
Livingston v. Livingston,3 Johns.
Ch. (N. Y.) 539.
Barron v. Barron, 34 Vt. 375,
398 ;
Arundell v. Phipps, 10 Ves. 144,
149 ;
Cannel v. Buckel, 2 Pr. Wms.
243,244;
Pybus V. Smith, 4 Brown Ch.
485.
By the civil law the fiction of the
merge of the wife's identity
in the personality of the hus-
band was unknown ; husband
and wife were treated as dis-
tinct persons capable of con-
tracting, in a limited sense,
with each other, and the wife
could contract with other per-
sons and liave separate debts
and interests.
Livingston v. Livingston, 2 Jolin.
Ch. (N. Y.) 539 ;
Arundell v. Phipps, 10 Ves. 144 ;
1 Burge Col. & For. L. 206, 263.
3 See : Price v. Bingham, 7 Har. &
J. (Md.) 296, 318.
She may even sell her separate estate
to her husband for a valuable con-
sideration, and the sale will be
upheld in eqiiity.
Talhnger v. Mandeville, 113 N.
Y. 437, 433 ; s.c. 21 N. E. Rep.
125;
Boyd V. De La Montagnie, 73 N.
Y. 498 ;
Hunt V. Johnson, 44 N. Y. 27 ;
Winans v. Peebles, 32 N. Y. 423 ;
White V. Wager, 25 N. Y. 328.
■>Sims V. Rickets, 35 Ind. 181,
191 ; s.c. 9 Am. Rep. 679 ;
Jones V. Clifton, 101 U. S. 225, 329:
bk. 35 L. ed. 908.
See : Deming v. Williams, 26
Conn. 326 ;
Edwards v. Sheridan, 24 Conn.
165;
Hawley v. Burgess, 28 Conn. 284 ;
Winton i\ Barnum, 19 Conn. 171;
The Fourth Ecclesiastical Society
V. Mather, 15 Conn. 587 ;
Morgan v. Thames Bank, 14 Conn.
99;
Cornwall v. Hoyt, 7 Conn. 430 ;
Fitch 'V. Ayer. 2 Conn. 143 ;
Ward V. Grotty. 4 Met. (Ky.) 50 ;
Gains r. Poor, 3 Met. (Ky.) 503 ;
Stockett V. Holliday, 9 Md. 480 ;
Bowie V. Stonestreet, 6 Md. 418 :
Whitten r. Whitten, 57 Mass. (■!
Cush.) 191 ;
Adams i\ Brackett, 46 Mass. {'>
Met.) 380 ;
Phelps V. Phelps, 37 Mass. (30
Pick.) 556 ;
Stanwood v. Stanwood, 17 Mass.
57;
648
BY ATTAINDER OF WIFE.
[Book III,
party would have made the transaction a valid one.^ To
entitle a contract between husband and wife to be en-
forced in equity, it must be fairly made,^ equitable,^ and
based upon a proper consideration.*
Sec. T92. Same—Ey attainder of wife.— At common law
the attainder of the wife before the birth of issue would
defeat the estate of the husband by the curtesy/ and a
subsequent pardon of the wife would not entitle the hus-
band to claim curtesy, except as to an estate of inher-
itance subsequently acquired by the wife ; ® but the at-
tainder of the wife subsequent to the birth of issue would
not deprive the husband of his right to curtesy.'''
Sec. 793. Same— By divesture of wife on breach of cov-
enant.—The husband will be barred of a right to curtesy in
the estates of inheritance of his wife by the divesture of
the wife's estate on breach of condition in the deed creat-
ing the estate, on which breach the grantor or his heirs
enter ; because in such cases the donor resumes his prior
Wilder v. Brooks, 10 Min. 50 ;
Simmons v. McElwain, 36 Barb.
(N. Y.Hig, 420;
Shepard v. Shepard, 7 Johns. Ch.
(N. Y.) 57 ;
Neufville v. Thompson, 3 Ed. Ch.
■ (N. Y.) 93 ;
Livingston v. Livingston, 3 John.
Ch. (N. Y.) 337 ;
Williams v. Latourette, 1 Barb.
(N. Y.) 9 ;
Wood V. Warden, 30 Ohio 518 ;
Huber v. Huber, 10 Ohio 371 ;
Jones V. Obenchain, 10 Gratt.
(Va.) 259 ;
WaUingsford v. Allen, 35 U. S.
(10 Pet.) 583 ; bk. 9 L. ed. ;
Sexton V. Wheaton, 21 U. S. (8
Wheat.) 229 ; bk! 5 L. ed. ;
Lucas V. Lucas, 1 Atk. 270 ;
More V. Freeman, Bunb. 205 ;
Walter v. Hodge, 2 Swanst. 97 ;
Battersbee v. Fanington, 1
■Swanst. 106 ;
Freemantle v. Bankes, 5 Ves. 79.
' Huber v. Huber, 10 Ohio 371 ;
Barron v. Barron, 24 Vt. (1 Deane)
375, 398 ;
More V. Freeman, Bunb. 205.
' Helms V. Franciscus, 2 Bland's
Ch. (Md.) 544, 546 ; s.c. 30 Am.
Dec. 402.
sjenne v. Marble, 37 Mich. 319,
323.
See : Morrison v. Thistle, 07 Mo.
596, 600.
■■ Loomis V. Brush, 36 Mich. 40,
46.
Contract for separation. — A husband
and wife have an inviolable
right to the aid, comfort, and
society of each other, and can-
not enter into an agreement
between themselves for a separ-
ation which will be enforced in
common law or equity, in the
absence of statutory provisions.
Helms V. Franciscus, 2 Bland's
Ch. (Md.) 544; s.c. 20 Am.
Dec. 403 ;
Whitney v. Classon, 138 Mass.
49; s.c. 19 Cent. L. J. 449,
and note ;
Head v. Head, 3 Atk. 550 ;
Westmeath v. Westmeath, Cond.
Ch. 60 ;
Warrali v. Jacob, 3 Merv. 368.
^ Gillespie v. Worford, 1 Co. Litt.
(19th ed.) 40a ;
2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 351a ;
4 Hawk. PI. Cr. 785.
' Gate V. Wiseman, Dyer 140b ;
3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 393.
■• See : Post, § 809.
Chap. XVII. § 794.] BY JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. (]-10
estate, and the derivative estate by the curtesy falls with
the estate of the wife, of which it was derived ; but until
such entry by the grantor or his heirs, the husband's in-
terests attach. A distinction is to be made between a
case in which the estate of the wife is determined by
entry, or proceedings instituted upon the breach of a
condition contained in the deed, and one in which a
limited fee is determined in accordance with the provis-
ions of the instrument creating it. In the latter case, on
the determination of the wife's estate, the husband's in-
terests exist, notwithstanding the expiration of the fee to
which it is attached.^ This distinction is recognized by
Lord Mansfield in Buckworth v. Thirkell,^ where it was
held that curtesy attached to an estate given a wife and
her heirs, but in case she died before the age of twenty-
one, and without issue, then over, the wife having had
issue, who died before her, and then died under the age
of twenty-one. There is some conflict in the decisions
upon this question, but it is thought that the true dis-
tinction rests on the circumstances, that in the case of an
entry for a condition broken destroys the estate, but in
case of the determination of the estate in accordance with
the terms of the instrument creating it, a new estate
arises by the limitation, which is to be postponed by the
prior rights of the previous estate, one of which is the
estate by curtesy.^
Sec. 794. Same — By judicial proceedings under statute. —
The right of a husband to curtesy in the land of his wife
may be barred by judicial proceedings under the statute
in an action where he is a party, as where the land is
ordered to be sold free from the curtesy, and the interest
on the proceeds to be given to the husband ; * but if the hus-
band is not made a party to the proceedings in which the
adjudication is made in reference to him and his estate,
his curtesy will not be barred.^ It is thought that where
' 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 241a, Butler's Prest. Ab., tit. 384.
note, 170. '' Jacques v. Ennis, 25 N. J. Eq. (10
2 3 Bos. & P. 632, note. C. E. Gr.) 403.
8 Boothby v. Vernon, 9 Md. 147 ; » Id.
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 33 ;
050 BY WILL OF WIFE WHEN. [Book IIL
property subject to a tenancy by the curtesy is ordered
by a court to be sold, that the proceeds of the sale will
take the place of the land and be subject to the burden of
the curtesy ; but if these proceeds are reinvested by the
husband as guardian, and the title to the land taken to
himself as guardian of his children, that his right to curt-
esy will thereby be barred.^
Sec. Y95. Same— By consent of husband to wife's will.—
At common law a married woman was incapable of
making a will, but in most if not all of the states this
rule has been changed by statute. Under these statutes
a married woman cannot by her will, as a general rule,
bar her husband's right to an estate by the curtesy ^
in her real property, unless he gives his assent by joining
her iu the instrument, or gives his written consent there-
to ; in either of which cases the instrument will have that
effect, the joinder serving as a relinquishment of his in-
terest in favor of the donee. ^ But it is thought that in
case the husband is insolvent at the time of giving his
assent to the will of his wife, it will be inoperative as to
persons injuriously affected thereby ; because it will have
the nature of a voluntary conveyance of his interest in
his wife's real estate, and for that reason be fraudulent
' Bogy V. Roberts, 48 Ark. 17 ; s.c. Finch v. Finch, 15 Ves, 50 ; s.c.
3 Am. St. Rep. 311 ; 3 S. W. 10 Rev. Rep. 13.
Rep. 186 ; ^Bee: Post, § 807.
Kemp V. Cossart, 47 Ark. 63 ; ' See : George v. Bussing, 15 B.
Robirison v. Robinson, 45 Ark. Mon. (Ky.) 563 ;
481 ; Burke v. Colbert, 144 Mass. 160,
Milner v. Freeman, 40 Ark. 63. 161 ;
Advancement is presumed from the Burroughs v. Nutting, 105 Mass.
purchase of land by a father in 328 ;
the name of his children, and Silsby v. Bullock, 93 Mass. (10
the equitable as well as legal Allen) 94 ;
estate vests in them. McBride's Estate, 81 Pa. St. 803.
Bogy V. Roberts, 48 Ark. 17 ; Consent of court.— Under some
s.c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 311 ; 3 S. statutes giving to married wo-
W. Rep. 186 ; men power to dispose of their
Kemp V. Cossart, 47 Ark. 62 ; real property by will, she may
Robinson v. Robinson, 45 Ark. do so by applying to a court
481 ; and securing such power, in
Milner v. Freeman, 40 Ark. 63 ; case of the sickness, msanity,
Finch V. Finch, 15 Ves. 50; s.c. or absence from the state of the
10 Rev. Rep. 12 ; husband, or for other good
Grey v. Grey, 2 Swanst. 594. • cause shown, as under the
Same— Eebuttal.— This presump- Mass. Gen. Stat., c. 108, § 3.
tion as to advancement may See : Staples v. Brown, 95 Mass.
be rebutted ; but does not give (18 Allen) 64.
way to slight circumstances.
Chap. XVII. §§ 796-798.] BY CONVEYANCE. 651
and void as to existing creditors.^ Where the husband
has given his consent to the will of his wife devising lier
real estate, and thereby rendering it valid, he may re-
voke such assent any time before tlie probate of the will.^
Sec. T96. Same— By statute of limitations.— The right of
the husband to an estate by the curtesy may be barred
by the statute of limitations.^ Thus it has been held that
a husband will not be heard to assert his right as tenant
by the curtesy to the lands of his deceased wife after a
delay of twelve years, wholly unexplained, even though
during that time he claimed the lands and received the
rents as guardian of his infant child.*
Sec. 197. Same— By statutory enactment.— The husband's
estate by curtesy initiate in the lands of his wife is only
an inchoate interest, and does not become a vested right
until after the death of the wife ; ® it may therefore be
taken away or impaired by legislative enactment.®
Sec. 798. Same— By husband's conveyance.- We have
already seen'' that a husband has power to convey or
> Silsby V. Bullock, 95 Mass. (10 Barn. & Aid. 474 ; s.c. 5 Eng.
Allen) 94, 96. C. L. 375.
* Greorge r. Bussing, 15 B. Mon. (Ity.) ■• Owens v. Dunn, 85 Tenn. (1 Pick.)
558, 563 ; 131 ; s.c. 2 8. W. Rep. 39.
Silsby V. BuUock, 95 Mass. (10 " Hill v. Chambers, 30 Midi. 433,
Allen) 94, 96. 427 ;
The Supreme Court of Indiana Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.)
say in the case of Roach v. 599.
White, 94 Ind. 510, that a hus- « Strong v. Clem, 13 Ind. 37, 41 ;
band's consent to his wife's Hill v. Chambers, 30 Mich. 422,
devise of her real estate to her 437 ;
child by a former marriage Hathon v. Lyon, 2 Mich. 93, 95 ;
estops him from claiming title Thurber v. Townsend, 32 N. Y.
to one-third of the premises 517; „„ „ , ,^r
ffiven him by Ind. Rev. St. Billings v. Baker, 28 Barb. (N.
1881 §2485. Y.) 843, 346;
3 Shortall S.Hinckley,81 lU. 319,337; Matter of Winne, 1 Lans. (N Y )
Owenso). Dunn, 85 Tenn. (1 Pick.) 508; s.c. 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 31,
131 • s.c. 3 S. W. Rep. 39 ; 36 ;
Atkvn's Lessee v. Horde, 1 Burr. Denny v. McCabe, 35 Ohio St.
60 576, 580 ;
See :' Carter v. Cantrell, 16 Ark. MelUnger v. Bausman, 45 Pa. St.
254 . 533, 539 ;
Neal V. Robertson, 3 Dana (Ky.) Sharpless t; Borough of West-
. gg . Chester, 1 Grant (Pa.) 257. 260 ;
Thompson v. Green, 4 Ohio St. Alexander v. Alexanders 7 S E.
niQ. Rep. 355 ; s.c. 1 L.R. A. 131 ;
Weisinger v. Mui-phy, 2 Head Kingsley v. Smith, 14 V/is. 360,
(Tenn ) 674 ; 365 ;
Doe d. Wright v. Plumptre, 3 i See : Ante, § 786.
g52 BY FINE AND RECOVERY. [Book III.
lease his estate in the lands of his wife, and he may of
course release it to any one where he does not thereby
impair the rights of third persons.^ Such a release of the
estate by curtesy is effected by joining with his wife in
a deed of conveyance,^ because such joinder acts as a
relinquishment in favor of the grantee.^ Such joint
deed may convey the interest of the husband as a tenant
by the curtesy, although ineffective to convey the wife's
interest, because the certificate of acknowledgment is
defective in that she was not examined separate and
apart from her husband, as the statute requires.* But to
bar the curtesy the husband's joinder in the deed must
be in the manner prescribed by law.^
Sec. 799. Same— Same— in land purchased with proceeds.—
A husband who is tenant by the curtesy initiate joining
with his wife in the conveyance of her lands, and per-
mitting the proceeds thereof to be invested in property
in trust for her and her children by a former husband,
thereby bars all his right to curtesy in the land thus ac-
quired ; ^ and it has been held that where a husband, as
guardian of his children, sells his interest in the land of
which he is tenant by the curtesy, and invests the pro-
ceeds of the sale in other lands, taking the title in his
children, his right of curtesy is thereby barred.^
Sec. 800. Same— By jlne and recovery.— After the vesting
' See : Watson v. Watson, 13 Conn. for the land, after the death of
83, 86. the wife, until after the hus-
= Haines v. Ellis, 24 Pa. St. 253. band's death.
See : Carpenter v. Davis, 73 111. Jackson v. Hodges, 2 Tenn. Ch.
14 ; 276.
Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776 ; ^ Thus where the husband's joinder
Jacques v. Ennis, 25 N. J. Eq. in the conveyance was not evi-
(10 C. E. Gr.) 402 ; denoed by a deed, it was held
Gilmore v. Gilmore, 7 Oreg. 374 that the curtesy was not barred,
Houck V. Ritfcer, 76 Pa. St. 280. and that no estoppel would
' McBride's Estate, 81 Pa. St. 303. arise against the husband by
* Mettler v. Miller, 129 111. 630 ; s.c. reason of the factthat the wife,
23 N. W. Rep. 529 ; ivith his consent, took in part
Jackson v. Hodges, 2 Tenn. Ch. payment for the land a promis-
, ^'°- sory note made by her husband
A conveyance nncler a power of at- to a third person.
tarney by husband and wife of Houck v. Ritter, 76 Pa. St. 280.
all tlie right, title, and interest « Carpenter v. Davis, 72 111. 116.
of the husband and wife in ' Bogy v. Roberts, 48 Ark. 17 ; s.c.
land, will pass the estate by 3 Am. St. Rep. 311 ; 2 S. W.
curtesy of the husband, and the Rep. 186.
children of the wife cannot sue
Chap. XVII. §§ 801, 802.] BY SETTLEMENT IN TRUST. G53
of the husband's estate by curtesy initiate, it may be
defeated by a recovery of the wife's lands in an action
against the husband and wife, or by a vaUd fine levied,'
or recovery suffered by the husband and wife.^
Sec. 801. Same— By conveyance by wife during coverture—
Most if not all of the states have passed statutes enabling
women to hold property free from marital rights, and
to deal with the same as though they were /ernes sole, and
under these statutes the common-law right of curtesy still
exists, subject, however, to be defeated by the convey-
ance to a third person ; should she die without exercis-
ing her right during life, the husband's common-law
right to curtesy will attach.^
Sec. 802. Same— By settlement in trust.— The separate
property of the wife may be so settled upon her by
statute,* or by deed,^ or devise,® that the husband's estate
by the curtesy may never arise, or where it does arise,
may be defeasible by deed, duly executed by the wife
before death,'' or by will;^ and it has been said that a
secret settlement made by an intended wife on the eve of
her marriage, and without the knowledge of her future
husband, conveying her property to her separate use for
life, with remainder to her children born, and to be born,
is valid ; ® but the better opinion is thought to be that
' As to fine, see : Ante, % 530, et seq. * Tong v. Marvin, 15 Mich. 60, 70,
- As to common recovery, see : 73 ;
Ante, S 533. Porch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C.
8 Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 280 ; E. Gr.) 204, 208.
Thurber v. Townsend, 22 N. Y. See : Post, bk. III., c. VII., sec-
517 ; tion IV.
Clark V. Clark, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) ' Hutchins v. Dixon, 11 Md. 29, 37.
581. ° Id.
In some of these statutes, as for ' See : Pool v. Blakie, 58 lU. 495,502;
instance the New York statute, Porch v. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C.
the tenancy by the curtesy E. Gr.) 204, 208.
vests only where the land re- « Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, 791 ;
mains undisposed of by a deed Stokes v. McKibbin, 13 Pa. St.
or by will, and a devise of the 267, 269.
lands, as well as a conveyance, ' Anonymous, 34 Ala. 430 ; s.c. 73
will therefore defeat the ten- Am. Dec. 461;
anoy Taylor v. Pugh, 1 Hare ; s.c.
See : Ryder v. Hulse, 24' N. Y. 23 Eng. Ch. 608.
373 . In Anonymous, 34 Ala. 430 ; s.c.
Burke v. Valentine, 52 Barb. (N. 73 Am. Dec. 461, at the time of
Y ) 412 ; the settlement the woman was
Scott V. Guernsey, 60 Barb. (N. pregnant by her intended hus-
Y.) 163.
band.
654
BY EQUITABLE ESTATE.
[Book III.
such a settlement in fraud pf the husband's rights may-
be avoided by him/ except in those cases where the hus-
band is apprised before the marriage of the disposition
which his intended wife has made respecting her prop-
erty.^
Sec. 803. Same — By instrument creating equitable es-
tate.—Where such is the intention of the parties, a deed
or devise giving an equitable estate may be so drawn as
to exclude the husband's right to estate by the curtesy ; ^
and the husband will be excluded from such estates
wherever there is a manifest intention to exclude him.*
Sec. 804. Same — Same — Provisions excluding curtesy. — In
order that a husband may be excluded from his estate
by the curtesy in the trust estate of his wife, the inten-
tion of the parties must be manifest,* and the words of
exclusion plain ; it is not enough that the estate is granted
to the wife for her sole and separate use," even though the
In the case of Lowry v. Steel, 4
Ohio, 170, where a woman,
in contemplation of marriage,
granted a term of seventy-five
years of her estate to a trustee,
in trust for her own use dui-ing
the contemplated coverture, her
husband was held to be entitled
to the estate as tenant by the
curtesy.
' See : Tucker v. Andrews, 13 Me.
24;
Baker v. Jordan, 73 N. C. 145 ;
England v. Dowes. 3 Beav. 533 ;
2 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 174.
' See : Cheshire v. Payne, 16 B.
Mon. (Ky.) 618 ;
Cole V. O'Neil, 3 Md. Ch. 174 ;
Terry v. Hopkins, 1 Hill (S. C.)
L. 19 ;
Fletcher v. Ashley, 8 Gratt. (Va.)
184, 332,-607.
' See : Rigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. St.
361;
Stokes V. MoKibbin, 18 Pa. St.
267;
Cockran v. O'Hem, 4 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 95 ;
Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Cald. (Tenn.)
641;
Hearle v. Greenback, 3 Atk. 716 ;
Roberts v. Dixwell, 1 Atk. 606 ;
Bennet v. Davis, 3 Pr. Wms. 810.
Compare: Morgan v. Morgan, 3
Madd. 208.
" Bennet v. Davis, 2. Pr. Wms. 816.
* Tremmel v. Kleiboldt, 6 Mo. App.
83, 549.
" Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.)
138;
Gushing v. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. (3
Stew.) 689 ;
MuUaney v. MuUaney, 4 N. J. Eq.
(8 H. W. Gr.) 16, 18 ; s.c. 81
Am. Dec. 288 ;
Stewart v. Stewart, 7 Johns. Ch.
(N. Y.) 229 ;
Dubs V. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149 ;
Cockran ?). O'Hem, 4 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 95.
A fit'aer gave land in trust for his
daughter, to be at her disposi-
tion, the trust to cease on the
death of her husband, and the
legal title to vest in the daugh-
ter ; the daughter died before
her husband, and the court held
that the latter was entitled to
curtesy.
Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.)
188.
Where a testator devised in trust
for his daughter, and her heirs,
to her and their sole and sepa-
rate use, ' ' free from the control
of any husband tp whom she
Chap. XVII. § 804.] PROVISIONS EXCLUDING CURTESY. G55
instrument creating the trust is executed by a husband, or
an intended husband, for the benefit of his wife or in-
tended wife.^ Every presumption is in favor of curtesy
as a natural incident of a wife's estate, either legal or
equitable, and for this reason the intent to exclude curt-
esy must clearly appear.^ The mere expression that the
purpose of a trust is a promotion of the interest of a
married woman and her children, separate and apart
from that of her husband, following a trust for the sole
and separate use of the wife and her children, is not
sufficient to destroy the husband's estate by the curtesy ; ^
neither is a devise to a married woman in tail, with a
provision that on her death without issue, the executors
may be married, and without
any power of her or her hus-
band aliening or disposing of
the estate," the daughter being
unmarried, and not contem-
plating any particular marriage
at the time, it was held that
this provision did not bar curt-
esy in her subsequent husband.
Dubs V. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149.
Where a trust was created for the
sole, separate, and peculiar use,
benefit,and disposal of the wife,
stipulating that ' ' the same or
any part thereof shall not in
any wise be subject or liable to
the disposal, intermeddling,
control, engagement, debts, or
incumbrances of the husband,''
and that "it is the intention
and meaning of these presents
that nothing herein contained
shall be taken and treated,
either in law or in equity, to
pass any title, claim or charge
whatsoever " in the husband, —
the court held that the intent
to exclude the husband's estate
by the curtesy was sufficiently
clear.
Cookran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts & S.
rPa.) 05.
' Rochon V. Lecatt, 3 Stew. (Ala.)
439 ;
Gushing v. Blake, 39 N. J. Eq. (3
Stew.) 399, affirmed 30 N. J.
Eq. (3 Stew.) 689.
Compare: "Pennsylvania doc-
trine," below.
Curtesy should T)e favored rather
than otherwise where a gift is
made by the husband to the
wife for her benefit ; and it is
thought that there is nothing
unreasonable in a provision of
law, that under such circum-
stances the husband should at
the death of liis wife, without
having disposed of the prop-
ci-ty, have the same right to an
estate by the curtesy he would
have had if the property had
been a gift from some one else,
or had been purchased with her
own mone}'.
Gushing v. Blake, 39 N. J. Eq. (3
Stew.) 399, affirmed 30 N. J.
Eq. (3 Stew.) 689 :
Frazier v. Highto«'er, 3 Heisk.
(Tenn.) 94.
Same — Peimsylvauia doctrine. —
Chief Justice Gibson says in
Stokes V. McKibbin, 13 Pa. St.
367, that the moving cause of a
settlement for the benefit of a
wife is generally to protect her
and her issues from extravagan-
cies and necessities of the hus-
band, and that the presump-
tion is especially strong that
such was the motive where the
husband himself puts his estate
in trust for his wife, and that
this furnishes an additional
argument that the intent was
to exclude the estate by the
curtesy.
See, to same effect : Rigler v.
Cloud, 14 Pa. St. 301.
« Jones V. Brown, 1 Md. Ch. 191 ;
Tremmel v. Kleiboldt, 6 Mo. App.
549.
3 Ege V. Medlar, 83 Pa. St. 86.
65G SEPARATE USE FOR WIFE. [Book III.
shall sell the land for the benefit of the testator's
nephew.-' And the reservation by the wife of the rents
and profits to her estate to her sole and separate use
durmg her life does not amount to an expression of an
intention on her part to exclude her husband from curtesy
therein after her death.^ The giving of a power of sale
to the wife is not such an expression of intention to bar
the husband's curtesy as to destroy it ; ^ so also a settle-
ment in chancery, by which a trust is created for the
wife, her heirs and assigns, giving her the control and
possession of the property, with a power of appointment,
does not destroy the husband's curtesy, where the wife
dies without exercising the power.*
Sec. 805. Same— By separate use for wife. — Where the
wife is entitled to sole and separate use of her estate,, not
only as regards the income, but also as regards the corpus,
free and clear of the control of her husband and without
being subject to his debts, liabilities, or engagements, any
conveyance or devise of her estate by the wife will bar
the husband's right of curtesy.^
Sec. 806. Same— Not by deed or will of grantor.— A hus-
band's right to an estate by the curtesy in the lands of his
wife is so inherent in all legal estates that it cannot be
barred by any words of restraint or limitation of the
devisor or grantor of the estate,** because the incidents of
an estate do not depend upon the intention of it ; they are
1 Hay V. Mayer, 8 Watts (Pa.) 303. ster, L. R. 3 Eq. 367 ;
- Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. Bennet v. Davis, 3 Pr. Wms. 316.
I- 383. Express words are nscessary in
See : Pitt v. Jackson, 3 Bro. C. C. some states to out off tlie hus-
51; band's curtesy.
Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 348 ; See : Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea
Bennet v. Davis, 3 Pr. Wms. 316. (Tenn.) 710.
"The execution of the power con- « Mullaney v. Mullaney, 4 N J.
ferred, however, may have Eq. (3 H. W. Gr.) 16, 18 ; s.c.
that effect. 31 Am. Dec. 238 ;
Ege V. Medlar, 83 Pa. St. 86. Rank v. Rank, 130 Pa. St. 191 ,;
'• Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Cold. (Tenn.) s.c. 13 Atl. Rep. 827; 12 Cent.
641.
Rep. 434 ; 21 W. N. C. 397 ;
5 Monroe v. Van Meter, 100 III. Johnson v. Fritz, 44 Pa! St. 449 ;
„ ^^^ ' •„, , . Thornton's Exrs. v. Kreeps, 37
Pool V. Blakie, 53 111. 495 ; Pa. St. 391;
Stokes V. McKibbin, 13 Pa. St. Buchanan v. Shiffer, 3 Yeates
^ 367 ; (Pa,) 374 ;
Cooper V. MacDonald, 7 Ch. Div. Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408 ;
388, overrulmg Moore v. Web- DeHart v. Dean, 2 McA. D. C. 60.
Chap. XVII. §§ 807, 808.] NOT BY WIFE'S WILL. 65T
engrafted on it by law, and generally, at least, without
any regard to the intention of the grantor, and even in
disregard of it.^ Thus it has been held that an estate by
the curtesy is not barred by a deed of land to a daughter
" and her heirs and assigns, exclusively of her husband." ^
Sec. sot. Same— Not by will of wife.— We have already
seen^ that at common law a wife could not dispose of her
property by will. In many of the states, however,
statutes have been passed enabling married women to
dispose of their property, real and personal, by last will
and testament, in the same manner as if they were un-
married ; but such statutes do not enable the wife to
deprive the husband of his right as tenant by the curtesy,''
and even where the will is made with the consent and
approval of the husband.^ The failure of the husband to
renounce a provision for him in his wife's will does not
bar his right to curtesy, but bars his right to a distribu-
tive share.^
Sec. 808. Same — Not by decree enjoining husband.— A
decree made during the wife's lifetime, enjoining the
husband from intermeddling with an estate of which the
sole control is vested in the wife, will not bar the hus-
band's right to curtesy in the property.^
' Thornton's Exrs. v. KJreeps, 37 to give validity to a will
Pa. St. 391. executed by the wife, or to
« Rank v. Bank, 120 Pa. St. 191 ; affect its operation, except as
S.C. 13 Atl. Rep. 837 ; 12 Cent. it may deprive him of his right
Rep. 434 ; 31 W. N. C. 397. as tenant by the curtesy.
3 See • Ante, § 795. Burke v. Colbert, 144 Mass. 160 ;
••Roach V. White, 94 Ind. 510; s.c. 10 N. E. Rep. 753; 3 N.
Middleton v. Stewart, 47 N. J. Eng. Rep. 788 ;
Eq (3 Dick.) 293 ; s.c. 20 Atl. Burroughs v. Nutting, 105 Mass.
Rep. 846 ; 14 N. J. L. J. 15 ; 238 ;
Hall V. HaU, 32 Ohio St. 184 ; Silsby v. Bullock, 92 Mass. (10
Me Teacle's, 133 Pa. St. 533 ; s.c. Allen) 94.
19 Atl. Rep. 274 ; 35 W. N. C. Same — Indiana doctrine. ^A hus-
3'79_ ' band's consent to his wife's de-
' Roach' I). White, 94 Ind. 510; vise of her real estate to her child
Middleton v. Stewart, 47 N. J. by a former marriage estops
Eq. (2 Dick.) 293; s.c. 30 Atl. him from claiming title to one-
Rep. 846 ; 14 N. J. L. J. 15. third of the premises given him
"Cunningham v. Cunningham, 30 by Ind. Rev. St. 1881, § 2485.
W. Va. 599 ; s.c. 5 S. E. Rep. 139. Roach v. White, 94 Ind. 510.
Husl)and's consent to wife's will— ' Rochon v. Lecatt, 2 Stew. (Ala.
Massaclmsetts' doctrine. — Thehus- 429.
band's consent is not necessary
42
658 NOT BY ANTE-NUPTIAL ACT. [Book III.
Sec. 809. Same— Not by attainder of wife after issue.— We
have already seen that at common, law the attainder of
the wife before the birth of issue would defeat the estate
of the husband by the curtesy ; ^ but after the estate has
become initiate by the birth of issue, it will not be barred
hj the attainder of the wife, or any other thing or act of
the wife that works a forfeiture of the estate.^
Sec. 810. Same — Not by ante-nuptial deed.— We have
already seen that a conveyance made by the wife prior to
marriage, in fraud of the husband's marital rights, may
be avoided by him,^ except in those cases where he has
notice of the disposition.* Thus where a woman, on the
eve of her marriage, without the knowledge or consent
of her contemplated Jiusband, conveyed her property,^
without consideration,* it was held to be a fraud upon
the rights of the husband and void as to him.'^
Sec. 811. Same— Not by ante-nuptial gift.— The hus-
band's right to curtesy in his wife's estate of inheritance
will not be barred by a gift of her lands by the wife
before marriage ; because at common law, a party
having contracted with another to marry, cannot give
away his or her property without the consent of the
other party to themarriage contract,^ it being in deroga-
tion of the marital rights and just expectations of such
other pai'ty.* Notice to one party to a marriage con-
' See : Ante, § 793. (2 Stock.) 543 ;
^ Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. Spencer i;. Spencer, 3 Jones (N.C.)
793 ; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; Eq. 404.
Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776. "Robinson v. Buck, 71 Pa. St. 386.
=iSee: Ante, §803. 'The fact that the grantee after-
^ Chandler v. Hollmgsworth, 8 wards bequeathed a legacy to
Del. Ch. 99 ; the wife, whioli she, with
Welch V. Chandler, 13 B. Mon. the assent of her husband, re-
(Ky. ) 420 ; ceived was held not to estop him
Hobbs V. Blandford, 7 T. B. Mon. from claiming his curtesy in
(Ky.) 469 ; the land after his wife's death.
Williams V. Carle, 10 N. J. Eq. Robinson v. Buck, 71 Pa. St. 386.
(2 Stock.) 543 , 8 Freeman v. Hartman, 45 111. 57 ;
Spencer v. Spencer, 3 Jones (N. s.c. 93 Am. Dec. 193 ;
C.) Eq. 404 ; Boston v. Gillespie, 5 Jones(N. C.)
Eobmson v. Buck, 71 Pa. St. 386. Eq. 358 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 437.
' See : Chandler v. Hollingsworth, See : Freeman v. Dunn, 45 111. 61.
3 Del. Ch. 99 ; » Freeman v. Hartman, 45 111. 57 ;
Hobbs r;. Blandford, 7 T. B. Mon. s.c. 93 Am. Deo. 193 ;
^J^7-^ '^^ ' Tucker v. Andrews, 13 Me. 134,
Williams V. Carle, 10 N. J. Eq. 135 ;
Chap. XVII. §§ 812, 813.] FORFEITUEE-BY ALIENAGE. G59
tract that the other has given away property after
entering into the contract, but before marriage, will not
hinder the injured party from insisting on the invalidity
of the gift.^ There is an exception to the rule, however,
in the case of a gift made by a woman to her children
by a former husband, on the eve of her marriage,
when her second husband knew of the gift before the
marriage ; and this is true even though she was indebted
at the time when the gift was made, if he was cognizant
of that fact, and there was no fraudulent concealment
by her.^
Sec. 812. Same — Not by abaiidoiiinent of possession to co-
tenant in common.— A husband occupying p2?emises as a
tenant by the curtesy does not lose his estate by abandon-
ing the possession of the land to a co-tenant in common.
Thus where a tenant by the curtesy of an undivided
portion of land abandoned the land for more than forty
years, leaving it in the possession of another tenant in
common, whose occupancy was not an ouster ; this was
held not to be a forfeiture of the estate, and that the
reversioner of such undivided portion had no right of
entry upon the tenant in possession, during the life of
the tenant by the curtesy.^
Sec. 813. Porfeiture— By alienage.— At common law the
alienage of the husband was an insuperable bar to his
right of curtesy in his wife's estates of inheritance.* So
strict was this rule that where an alien husband made
his preliminary declaration of his intention to become a
citizen before the death of his wife, and completed his
naturalization after her death, he was not entitled to an
Logan V. Simmons, 3 Ired. (N. C.) 23 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 76.
Eq. 487 ; ' Poston v. Gillespie, 5 Jones (N. C.)
England v. Downs, 3 Beav. 533 ; Eq. 358 ; s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 437.
Strathmore v. Bowes, 1 Ves. Jr. ' McClure v. Miller, 1 Bail. (S. C.)
23 ; s.c. 1 Rev. Rep. 76. Eq. 107 ; s.c. 21 Am. Dec. 532.
The doctrine of the common law was " Withani v. Perkins, 2 Me. (3
that the burthens to which a Greenl.) 400.
husband isUableare a consider- ■> Foss v. Crisp, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.)
ation for his marital rights, 131 ;
upon which therefore fraud Reese v. Waters, 4 Watts & b.
may be committed. (Pa.) 145.
Strathmore v. Bowes, 1 Ves. Jr. See : Post, § 884.
ggO FORFEITURE— BY DIVORCE. [Book III.
estate by the curjiesy.^ The reason for this is the fact
that the law will do nothing in vain, and therefore it
will not cast an estate upon one who cannot by law hold
it,^ But the former rule as to disability because of
alienage has been largely done away with by statute in
this country.^
Sec. 814. Same— 3y decree of divorce.— The tendency of
a decree of divorce is to destroy the relations of the
husband and wife, and all interests growing out of such
relation. Such a decree may be either a decree declar-
ing the alleged marriage to be null, that is a nuUage
decree ; a temporary decree granted in some jurisdic-
tions, that is a decree nisi ; a decree a vinculo matri-
monii, which has the effect of dissolving absolutely the
bonds of matrimony ; or a decree a mensa et thoro,
which has the effect of separating the parties from bed
and board merely. Each of these decrees has a different
effect upon the relations of the parties and their property
rights.*
Sec. 816. Same— Same— 1. Decree of nullity.— A decree of
nullity is a judicial declaration that no marriage exists ;
it is not, properly speaking, a decree of divorce, and does
not make an alleged marriage void, but declares that it
was void from the beginning.^ If the pretended mar-
riage is a nullity, no rights ever arose under it, and the
woman will be entitled to her property as a single
individual, the same as though no relation whatever had
existed.^
■ Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) Powell v. PoweU, 18 Kan. 371 ;
131. Succession of Mine-viUe, 15 La.
* Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) Arva. 343 ;
131 ; Chase v. Chase, 55 Me. 21 ;
Wilber v. Tobey, 33 Mass. (16 Lincoln v. Lincoln, 6 Robt. (N.
Pick.) 177, 179. Y.) 535 ;
Compare : Lumb v. Jenkins, 100 Wightman v. Wightman, 4 John.
Mass. 537 ; Ch. (N. Y.) 343 ;
Ross V. Ross, 139 Mass. 843, 359. Smith v. Morehead, 6 Jones (N.
' See : Post, bk. III., c. XVII., sec- C.) Eq. 360.
tion V. 6 Cage v. Acton, 1 Ld. Raymo id,
* See : 65 Am. Dec. 365, note. 515.
' See : Rawdon v. Rawdon, 38 Ala. See : 65 Am. Dec. 355, note.
565 ; Third persons misled by the sup-
Brown V. Westbrook, 37 Ga. 103 ; posed relation will probably not
Chap. XVII. §§ 816, 817.] DIVORCE A VINCULO.
661
Sec. 816. Same— Same— 2. Decree nisi.— Where a decree
nisi is granted and is afterwards made absolute, it has
the effect of a decree of divorce, and has full virtue both
as to the status of the parties and as to their property-
rights.^
Sec. 817. Same— Same—S. A vinculo.— A divorce a vin-
culo matrimonii of itself destroys not only the husband's
estate during coverture,^ but also terminates his estate
by curtesy initiate,^ and destroys the relation the hus-
be debarred of their rights by
the decree.
See : Perry v. Meddowcraft, 10
Beav. 122 ;
Clews V. Bathurst, 2 Stra. 960 ;
DeCoster r. ViUa, 2 Stra. 961 ;
Harrison v. Southampton, 17 Eng.
L. & Eq. 364.
See : 6o Am. Dec. 355, note.
Thougli a marriage be ipso facto
void, yet it is proper that there
should be a judicial decision to
that effect by some court of
competent jurisdiction.
Wightmanv. Wightman, 4 John.
Ch. (N. Y.) 343, 345 ;
Ex parte Turing, 1 Ves. & B. 140.
See : Moors v. Moors, 121 Mass.
233;
Ansey v. Ansey, 45 L. J. Mat.
Cas. 56 ;
Eavencroft v. Ravencroft, 41 L.
J. Mat. Cas. 28 ;
Hulsey v. Hulsey, 41 L. J. Mat.
Cas. 19 ;
Whitmore v. Whitmore, 35 L. J.
Mat. Cas. 52 ;
Harding v. Harding, 34 L. J.
Mat. Cas. 9 ;
Stoate V. Stoate, 32 L. J. Mat.
Cas. 120 ;
Bolton V. Bolton, 31 L. J. Mat.
Cas. 115 ;
Fowler v. Fowler, 31 L. J. Mat.
Cas. 31 ;
Master v. Master, 31 L. J. Mat.
Cas. 7 ;
Boody V. Boody, 30 L. J. Mat.
Cas. 95 ;
Alexander v. Alexander, L. R. 2
P. & D. 691 ;
Deming v. Deming, L. R. 1 P.
& D. 531 :
Noble V. Noble, L. R. 1 P. & D.
691 ;
Walton V. Walton, L. R. 1 P. &
D. 227.
See : 65 Am. Dec. 355, note.
2 Howey v. Goings, 13 111. 95, 108 ;
s.c. 54 Am. Dec. 427 ;
Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.)
599, 602, 604.
' Boy km v. Rain, 28 Ala. 332, 343 ;
s.c. 65 Am. Dec. 349 ;
Wheeler v. Hotchkiss, 10 Conn.
225, 230 ;
Townsend v. GriflSn, 4 Har. (Del.)
440,442;
Emmert v. Hays, 89 lU. 11, 18 ;
Clark V. Lott, 11 111. 105, 114 ;
Doe r. Brown, 5 Blackf. (Ind.)
309, 310 ;
Hays V. Sanderson, 7 Bush (Ky.)
489, 490 ;
Oldliam V. Henderson, 5 Dana
(Ky.) 254. 256 ;
Barber v. Root, 10 Mass. 260, 271 ;
Clark V. Slaughter, 38 Miss. 64,
68;
Gould V. Crow, 57 Mo. 200, 204 ;
Renwick v. Renwick, 10 Paige
Ch. (N. Y.) 430, 424 ;
Sackett v. Giles, 3 Barb. Ch. (N.
Y.) 204 ;
Schoch's Appeal, 33 Pa. St. 351,
355 *
Burt V. Hulburt, 16 Vt. 292 ;
Mattocks V. Stearns, 9 Vt. 326,
336;
Gould V. Webster, 1 Tyl. (Vt.)
409, 415.
Compare : Gillespie v. Worford,
2 Cold. (Tenn.) 632, 639.
Subsequently acquired lands. — A di-
vorced husband is not entitled
to a tenancy by tlie curtesy in
lands acquired by his wife after
the dissolution of the marriage.
Schultz V. Moll, 10 N. Y. Supp.
703.
Foreign divorces — Massachusetts dot-
trine. — As to foreign divorces,
it is well settled in Massachu-
setts that a decree of divorce
663
DIVOECE AT SUIT OF WIFE.
[Book III.
band and wife have the same as if it was dissolved by
death/ and restores the wife to her former status and
makes her a feme sole,^ and restores her realty to her
absolutely" and entire ;* and all realty belonging to her
held by the husband after such decree of divorce is held
by him as a trustee.^
Sec. 818. Same— Same— Same— At suit of -wife.— In some
of the states, a dissolution of the marriage by decree of
court at the suit of the wife for the fault of the husband
will take away the husband's estate by curtesy, because
the husband by his violation of the marriage contract
forfeits all equitable right to the wife's property ; even
when the property belonged to her before the separation,
and has not been reduced into actual possession by the
husband ; and it will be restored to her by a court of
equity.®
rendered in another state, in
which the legal domicile of the
parties is at the time, and ac-
cording to its laws, even for a
cause which is not a ground of
divorce by the Massachusetts
statutes, and although their
marriage took place while they
were domiciled in Massachu-
setts, is valid there and con-
clusive in a suit concerning the
husband's interest or the wife's
dower in lands of that common-
wealth.
See : Eoss v. Eoss, 129 Mass. 343,
348, 359 ;
Sewall V. Sewall, 133 Mass. 156 ;
Burlen v. Shannon, 115 Mass.
438;
Hood V. Hood, 110 Mass. 463 ;
Hood V. Hood, 93 Mass. (11 Allen)
196;
Clark V. Clark, 63 Mass. (8 Cush.)
385;
Barber v. Eoot, 10 Mass. 360.
' Clarke v. Lott, 11 III. 105 ;
WhitseU V. Mills, 6 Ind. 329 ;
McCreary v. McCrearv, 5 Iowa
333;
Hays V. Sanderson, 7 Bush (Ky.)
489,490;
Webster v. Webster, 58 Me. 189 ;
Barber v. Eoot, 10 Mass. 360, 271 ;
Hunt V. Thompson, 61 Mo. 148 ;
People V. Hovey, 5 Barb. (N. Y.)
117;
Hull V. Hull, 2 Strobh. (N. C.)
Eq. 174 ;
Miltimore v. Miltimore, 40 Pa. St.
151;
Estate of Kentzinger, 2 Ashm.
(Pa.) 265 ;
Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Vai)
599.
2 Piper V. May, 51 Ind. 283.
^ Wheeler v. Hotchkiss, 10 Conn.
225, 235 ;
Hays V. Sanderson, 7 Bush (Ky.)
489, 490.
■• Wheeler ■;;. Hotchkiss, 10 Conn.
225, 335 ;
Howey v. Goings, 13 111. 95 ; s.c.
54 Am. Dec. 437 ;
Doe V. Brown, 5 Blackf. (Ind.)
309;
Barber v. Eoot, 10 Mass. 260, 271 ;
Eenwick v. Eenwick, 10 Paige
,Ch. (N. Y.) 430,434;
Branford v. Branford, 4 Oreg. 30;
Flowry v. Beeker, 2 Pa. St. 470 ;
Estate of Eentzing, 3 Ashm. (Pa.)
455;
Byrne v. Byrne, 3 Tex. 366 ;
Gould V. Webster, 1 Tyl. (Vt.)
314, 409 ;
Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.)
599.
^ Sohoch's Estate, 33 Pa. St. 351.
" Eenwick v. Eenwick, 10 Paige
Ch. (N. Y.) 430, 434 ;
Holmes v. Hoknes, 4 Barb. (N. Y.)
295, 397.
Chap. XVII. §§ 819-821.] DIVORCE A MENSA. 663
Sec. 819. Same — Same — Same — At suit of husband. —
Where a husband obtains an absolute divorce from his
wife for a cause other than adultery, he has no interest
in the divorced wife's land as tenant by the curtesy,
because she becomes entitled to the immediate possession
of all her realty the same as if he were dead.^ In some
of the states, however, it is provided by statute that a
divorce a vinculo for the adultery of the wife does not
affect the husband's right to curtesy in her estate of
inheritance.^
Sec. 820. Same— Same— Same— Bights of third persons.—
The destruction of the husband's estate by the curtesy
by decree of divorce a vinculo, at the suit of the wife,
destroys all his interest in her property ; ^ and all sub-
sequent assignments by him will convey no greater or
better rights in and to such property than he himself
has.* If the wife's lands have been improperly assigned
by the husband, the decree of divorce will restore the
same to her ; ^ but it is thought that such a decree will
not be allowed to affect the interests of third parties
which were acquired in good faith of the husband's estate
by the curtesy. Thus it was held in Gillespie v. Worford,*
that a divorce for a cause arising after marriage and not
affecting its validity, would not divest the husband's
curtesy in the hands of a hona fide purchaser prior to the
decree of the divorce.
Sec. 821. Same— Same— 4. A mensa.— A decree of divorce
a mensa et thoro does not dissolve the marriage, although
it separates the parties and establishes separate interests
between them ;'' therefore, in the absence of statutory
provisions, such a decree of divorce will not destroy the
estate by curtesy of the husband in the wife's realty.^
' Moran v. Somes, 28 N. E. Rep. 489, 490.
153. Compare: McConnell i'. Wen-
See : Ante, § 817. rich, 16 Pa. St. 365, 371.
" Neb. Comp. Stat. 1881, c. 35, § 24. ' Kriger v. Day, 19 Mass. (3 Pick.)
See : Mass. Pub. Stat. , c. 146, § 24. 316.
» See : Ante, § 817. ' 2 Cold. (Tenn.) 633.
■• Boykin v. Rain, 28 Ala. 833, 343 ; ■" Dean v. Richmond, 32 Mass. (5
s.c. 65 Am. Dec. 349 ; Pick.) 461, 465.
Starr v. Pease, 8 Conn. 541, 545 ; " Roohon i: Lecatt, 2 Stew. (Ala.)
Hays V. Sanderson, 7 Bush (Ky.) 439 ;
664 FORFEITURE BY ADULTERY. [BOOK III.
In the absence of statutory enactment, or a provision to
that effect in the decree, it will not restore to the wife the
interest in her real estate,-^
Sec. 822. Same— By adultery.— At common law the hus-
band's estate by the curtesy is not forfeited by adultery
on the part of the husband.^ The husband's estate in
the lands of his wife differs in this respect from the estate
of the wife in the lands of her husband. The reason for
this difference is the fact that the statute of Westminster
11.^ expressly ordained the forfeiture of dower on the
adultery of the Wife, but did not make such misconduct
on the part of the husband work a forfeiture of his
curtesy.^ This rule of the common law has been altered
by statutes in several states of the Union so as to make
adultery on the part of the husband work a forfeiture of
his curtesy.^
Sec. 823. Same— By abandonment of wife.— At common
law the husband does not forfeit his right to curtesy in the
lands of his wife by abandoning her and living in adultery
with another woman ; '^ but by statutes in many of the
states curtesy is lost by willful desertion of the wife,''
Smoot V. Leoatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.) Barber v. Root, 10 Mass. 260 ;
590 ; Teague v. Downs, 69 N. C. 280 ;
Clark V. Clark, 6 Watts & S. Long v. Graeber, 64 N. C. 431.
(Pa.) 85. 6 Smoot v. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.)
' Dean v. Richmond, 22 Mass. (5 590 ;
Pick.) 461 ; Sidney v. Sidney, 3 Pr. Wms.
Holmes v. Hobnes, 2 Barb. (N. 276.
Y.) 297 ; See : Ante, § 822.
Meehan v. Meehan, 2 Barb. (N. ' In Pennsylvania wiUfiil desertion of
Y.) 377. the wife by the husband for a
* Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; year or more preceding her
s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; death deprives him of his right
Smoot V. Lecatt, 1 Stew. (Ala.) of curtesy under act of May
590 ; 4th, 1855.
Sidney v. Sidney, 3 Pr. Wms. Bealor v. Hahn, 117 Pa. St. 109 ;
2'!'6 ; . s.c. 11 Atl. Rap. 770 : 9 Cent.
Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. & Rep. 599 ; 20 W. N. C. 19.5 ;
P. 652, note ; Rees v. Waters, 9 Watts (Pa.) 90.
2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 241a, Butler's Same— In ITew York the same prin-
note 170 ; ciple prevails.
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 341 ; See : Dumond v. Magee, 4 John.
3 Prest. Abb., tit. 384. (N. Y.) 318.
^ 13 Edw. I., c. 134. Same—" Guilty intent," in willful
"Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793; and malicious desertion, is man-
s.c. 48 Am. Deo. 76, 81. ifest when, without cause or
<• Kreiger v. Day, 19 Mass. (2 Pick.) consent, the husband with-
316 ; draws from tlie residence.
Chap. XVII. §§ 824-826.] FORFEITURE— BIGAMY. 665
unless the desertion be justified by the same cause that
would support a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii,
or a mensa et thoro.
Sec. 82-t. Same— By failure to provide.— In some of the
states, by statutory provision, if a husband wilfully
neglects or refuses to provide for his wife for a year or
more previous to her death, he thereby forfeits his right
to an estate by the curtesy in her lands. ^
Sec. S-25. Same— By bigamy.— In some of the states it
has been provided by statute that the estate of the hus-
band by curtesy in the lands of his wife shall be forfeited
on the commission of bigamy.^
Sec. 826. Same— By wrongful alienation. — At common
law a husband forfeited his estate by the curtesy in his
wife's land by wrongful alienation, tending to the dis-
herison of the reversioner or remainderman ; ^ but to
have this effect the conveyance m.ust be a tortious one, as
making a feoffment, levying a fine, importing a grant in
fee, suffering a common recovery, joining the mise in a
writ of right, and the like.* Although this rule is still
enforced in this country in regard to feoffments,^ where-
ever they still obtain, unchanged by statute, yet merely
leasing or conveying in fee will not have that effect ;
such conveyance will not carry a greater interest than
the tenant possesses.^
Bealor v. Hahn, 117 Pa. St. 169 ; ' It has been held that even a feoff-
s.c. 11 Atl. Rep. 776 ; 9 Cent. ment by the husband during
Rep. 599 ; 20 W. N. C. 195 ; the life of the wife will not
McClurg's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 366 ; work a forfeiture, but will give
Ingersoll v. IngersoU, 49 Pa. St. the feoffee an estate for the life
349. of the husband.
' Such, for instance, as under the Pemberton v. Hicks, 1 Binn.
Pennsylvania act of May 4th, (Pa.) 1.
1855, § 5 ; P. L. 431. " See : Boy kin u. Rain, 28 Ala. 332 ;
' See : Md" Rev. Code 1878, art. 72, s.o. 65 Am. Deo. 349 ;
S 103, p. 807. Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 79 ;
' Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 46 ;
B.C. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ; Junction Railroad v. Harris, 9
French V. Rollins, 21 Me. (8 Shep.) Ind. 184 ;
373 . Butterfield v. Beall, 3 Ind. 203 ;
2 Inst' 309 ; Meraman's Heirs v. Caldwell's
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 84. Heirs, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 82 ; s.c.
4 Id. 46 Am. Dec. 537 ;
666 FORFEITURE BY TREASON. [Book III.
Sec. 827. Same— By attainder of husband of treason or
felony.— At common law a tenant by the curtesy forfeited
his estate by felony or attainder of treason ; ^ on such
attainder of felony or treason, however, the estate was
not forfeited to the commonwealth, but passed to the
wife and her heirs discharged of the curtesy. ^
Section IV. — Curtesy under Statute.
Sec. 828. Statutes— Generally.
Sec. 829. Same — Construction of statutes. '
Sec. 830. Same — Married women's acts.
Sec. 831. Same— Effect of statutes — On curtesy initiate.
Sec. 833. Same — Same — On curtesy consummate.
Section 828. statutes— Generally.— Thp husband's estate
by the curtesy in the lands of his wife has been very much
modified by statute in this country. This has been done
principally by the increase of the power over and manage-
ment of their property given to married women. The
husband's estate by the curtesy in the statutes of some
of the states is expressly given, ^ and by implication in
French v. RoUins, 21 Me. (8 Shep.) 4 Kent Com. (13th ed. ) 84.
372 ; This law is now obsolete, and a
Dennett v. Dennett, 40 N. H. conveyance in fee, by a tenant
505 ; by the curtesy, though by in-
Flagg V. Bean, 25 N. H. (4 Fost.) denture duly recorded, and
49 ; with a covenant of special war-
Grout V. Townsend, 2 HiU (N. Y.) ranty, is not a forfeiture of the
554 ; estate.
Johnson v. Bradley, 9 Ired. (N. M'Kee's Lessee v. Pfout, 3 U. S.
C.) 363 ; (3 Dall.) 486 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 690.
Pemberton v. Hicks, 1 Binn. See : Dennett v. Dennett, 40 N.
(Pa.) 1 ; H. 505 ;
M'Kee's Lessee v. Pfout, 8 U. S. Miller v. Miller, 1 Meigs (Tenn.)
(3 DaU.) 486 ; bk. 1 L. ed. 690 ; 184.
Munnerbyn v. Munnerbyn, 3 ' Foster v. Marshall, 32 N. H. (2
Brev. (S. C.) 2 ; • Fost.) 491 ;
Miller v. Miller, 1 Meigs (Tenn.) Pemberton's Lessee ■!;. Hicks, 4 U.
484. S. (4 Dall.) 168 ; bk. 1 L. ed.
Compare: French v. Rollins, 21 785 ; s.c. 1 Binn. (Pa.) 1.
Me. (8 Shep.) 372 ; ' Pemberton's Lessee v. Hicks, 4
Koltenbrock v. Craoraft, 36 Ohio U. S. (4 Dall.) 168 ; bk. 1 L. ed.
St. 584. 785.
The common-law rule was that such ^ Kentucky Rev. Stat. 1871, p. 537,
a conveyance would forfeit the § 1 ;
tenant's estate. • Maine Rev. Stat. 1871, p. 758, S
French V.Rollins, 31 Me. (8 Shep.) 15; > i- > o
„373 : Massachusetts Gen. Stats., c. 108,
Koltenbrock v. Cracraft, 36 Ohio § 310, p. 538 ;
oT^*'.^^otA Michigan Rev. Stats. 1882, §g
2 Inst. 309; 5770,5783:
Chap. XVH. § 828.] CURTESY UNDER STATUTE.
667
others ;^ in some states curtesy is expressly abolished,^
and abrogated by implication in others ; * in some of the
states curtesy is incidentally mentioned as existing/
while in others no mention is made of it at all ; ^ and in
some of the states the husband's estate by the curtesy
never existed.® Where the estate by the curtesj'' is
expressly given by statute, it is sometimes simply
declaratory of the common law, as in West Virginia ; "
but it is more often expressly modified and made a differ-
ent estate, as by requiring that birth of issue shall not
Nebraska Comp. L. 1881, pp. 215,
355 ;
New Hampshire Gen. L. 1878,
pp. 435, 475 ;
North Carohna Bat. Rev. 1873,
pp. 530, 531, 592 ; .
Ohio Rev. Stat. 1880, §§ 3853,
3198, 4176, 4177 ;
Oregon Gen. L., c. 64, § 3, p.
788;
Vermont Rev. L. 1880, §§ 3329,
2330;
West Virginia Rev. Stat. 1879,
pp. 20, 35, § 15, p. 556, §§17, 18.
' Colorado, where the wife may not
leave away from lier husband
more than one-half of her
estate without his consent in
writing. Colorado Gen. L., c.
64, § 4, p. 614.
Florida, where the husband takes
an heir's share. Thomp. Dig,
Fla. L., div. II.,tit. V., c 1,
Greorgia, where the wife leaves
children. Ga. Code 1873, c.
3, art. 1, § 3448.
2 California Civil Code 1881, § 173 ;
Florida Dig. 1881, p. 471 ;
Illinois Rev. Stat. 1880, c. 41, § 1,
p. 425 ;
Indiana Rev. Stat. 1881, § 3482 ;
Iowa Rev. Code 1880, i^ 2440 ;
Shields v. Keys, 24 Iowa 298 ;
Kansas Comp. L. 1881. §§ 21, 29 ;
Minnesota Act 1875, c. 40, § 5 ;
Stats. 1878, c. 46, § 3 ;
Mississippi Rev. Code 1880, c. 42,
8 1170, p. 339 ;
Nevada Comp. L. 1873, § 157.
8 As in Michigan, Tong v. Mar-
vin, 14 Mich. 60.
See : Brow v. Clarke, 44 Mich.
309.
4 Connecticut Gen. Stat. 1875, p.
392, § 28 ;
Delaware Rev. Code 1874, p. 478,
§ 1, pp, 479, 484 ;
Maryland Rev. Code 1878, p. 397,
§ 2, p. 412, §8 59, 60, p. 807, § 103.
New Jersey Rev. Stat. 1877, p.
638, § 9, p. 639, § 14, p. 298, § 6,
p. 1335, § 2 ;
New York, 4 N. Y. Rev. Stats.
(8th ed.), p. 3466, § 30 ; 1 Rev.
Stat. Codes & L. 860, § 30 :
Pennsylvania Pni- Dig. 1876, p.
1007, § 18, p. 1008, § 33 ;
Rhode Island Pub. Stats. 1883,
p. 424, § 14, p. 471, § 3, p. 190,
g Q .
Tennessee Rev. Stat. 1873, §§
3486, 3363.
' As in Alabama, Arkansas, Colo-
rado, Georgia, Minnesota, Mis-
souri, and South Carolina.
6 In Louisiana the principles of the
common law are not recog-
nized, neither do the principles
of the civil law of Rome fur-
nish the basis of their jurispru-
dence. They have a system of
jurisprudence peculiar to them-
selves, adopted by their stat-
utes, which embody much of
the civil law, some of the prin-
ciples of the common law, and,
in a few instances, the statutoiy
provisions of other states. This
system may be called the civil
law of Louisiana, and is pecu-
liar to that state.
Parsons v. Bedford, 38 U. S. (3
Pet.) 433, 450 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 733,
738.
In Texas the common law is de-
clared by statute to be in force,
but community of property pre-
vails and curtesy is unknown.
Tex. Rev. Stat. 1873, § 3128.
' See : Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W.
Va. 455.
668 CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES. [Book iH.
be necessary to the vesting of the estate ; '■ by requiring
that the wife shall leave children ; ^ by requiring that
the wife shall die seized ; ^ by requiring that the wife
shall die intestate ; * by providing for forfeiture of the
estate for desertion ^ or bigamy ; ^ by providing that where
the wife sha;ll die leaving" issue by a former husband,
to whom the estate might descend, that such issue
shall hold it discharged of the curtesy of the husband.'^
Where the husband's estate by the curtesy is expressly
abolished by statute another estate is usually given in
place of it, as in Illinois^ and lowa,^ where the husband
has dower like the wife, or in Indiana, ^° where the hus-
band takes an estate in fee-simple of one-third of the
lands possessed by his wife at the time of her death ; and
in Maine, where the husband takes a life estate in one-
third of his wife's lands where she leaves issue, and a life
estate in one-half of her lands where there is no issue."
Sec. 829. Same — Construction of statutes. — We have
already seen ^ that the common-law estate by the curtesy
is not to be considered as abolished except by the express
language of the Legislature. Where estate by the curt-
esy is not expressly given or abolished by the statute it
exists as a part of the common law,^^ in all those states
' Michigan, 3 Comp. L. 1857, c. 90, § 103, p. 807.
§ 30, p. 856 ; Comp. L. 1871, o. See : Ante, g 825.
151, J 30. oMich. Rev. Stat. 1882, 8 5770 ;
See : Hill v. Chambers, 30 Mich. Miss. Code 1871, c. 23, §§ 1786,
422 ; 1787 ;
Hathon v. Lyon, 2 Mich. 93 ; Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776 ;
Ohio Rev. Stat. 1880, § 4176, p. Neb. Comp. Stat. 1881. c. 23, §
1046; 29, p. 215;
Oregon Gen. L. 1873, § 30, p. Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Neb. 520 ; s.c.
588. 1 N. W. Rep. 571 ;
« Georgia Code 1873, c. 3, art. 1, Ohio Rev. Stat. 1880, § 2329 ;
§ 2484. Tilden v. Barker, 40 Ohio St. 411 ;
» Ky. Rev. Stat., art. 4, c. 47, p. 22 ; Denney v. McCabe, 35 Ohio St.
Miss. Code 1871, c. 33, §§ 1786, 576.
1^87 ; See : Hershizer v. Florence, 39
W. Va. Rev. Stat. 1879, § 15, p. Ohio St. 516, 528 ;
502 ; Wis. Rev. Stats. 1878, c. 98, 8 2180,
Wis. Rev. Stat. 1878, c. 98, p. 628.
§ 2180, p. 638. 8 111. Rev. Stat. 1880, p. 435, § 1.
« Ala. Code 1876, tit. 5, c. 1, » la. Rev. Stat. 1880, ^3440.
§ 3714 ; 10 lad. Rev. Stat. 188i', 8 3485.
Wis. Rev. Stat. 1876, § 2180. " Me. Rev. Stat. 1871, tit. 9, c. 108,
» Minn. Rev. Stat. 1878, p. 565. § 15, p. 758.
See : Ante, § 823. 'a See : Ante, 8 713.
•Md. Rev. Code 1878, art. 72, " Reaume v.Chambers,23Mo.86,51;
Chap. XVII. § 830.] MARRIED WOMEN'S ACTS. 669
where the common law obtaics.^ The general tendency,
however, even in the married women's acts,^ is not to
aboUsh the estate by curtesy. In some of the states
the estate is expressly preserved by statute, in others it
is preserved by construction, while in others still the stat-
utes have the effect to destroy curtesy initiate,^ without
depriving the husband of his right to the estate by curt-
esy consummate in his wife's lands after her death.
Sec. 830. Same — Married women's acts. — The statutes
passed by the various states for the more effectual pro-
tection of married women, giving them exclusive control
and ownership of their property, and providing that they
shall hold the same to their sole and separate use, and
not subject to the disposal of their husbands, nor be liable
for their debts, do not affect the common-law rights
of the husband as tenant by the curtesy.* These acts,
while they may exclude the husband from any control
over the wife's separate property during her life, leave
to him the right of curtesy in so much of his wife's
estates of inheritance as remains undisposed of by deed
and unbequeathed.^ Where the statute gives the wife
Denney v. McCabe, 35 Ohio St. Ross v. Adams, 28 N. J. L. (4
576, 578. Dutch.) 160 ;
' The common law never was in Johnson v. Cummings, 16 N. J.
force in Louisiana (Pearson v. Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 97 : s.c. 84 Am.
Bedford, 38 U. S. (3 Pet.) 483, Dec. 143.
450 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 732, 738), and = Neelly v. Lancaster, 47 Ark. 175 ;
it is questionable whether it s.c. 58 Am. Rep. 752 ;
ever was in Iowa. Bozarth v. Largent, 138 111.95;
O'FerraU v. Simplot, 4 Iowa 381, s.c. 21 N. E. Rep. 218 ;
391. Martin v. Robson, 65 111. 129 ; s.c.
In Texas the common law is de- 16 Am. Rep. 578 ;
clared to be in force, but com- Armstrong v. Wilson, 60 111. 226 ;
mimity of property prevails. Freeman v. Dunn, 45 111. 61 ;
See : Tek. Rev. Stat. 1873, § 3128. Freeman v. Hartman, 45 111. 57 ;
■ See : Post, § 830. s.c. 93 Am. Deo. 193 ;
' Naylor v. Field, 29 N. J. L. (5 Cole v. Van Riper, 44 111. 58 ;
Dutch.) 289, 393 ; Luntz v. Greve, 103 Ind. 173 ;
Ross V. Adams, 38 N. J. L. (4 Keyte v. Perry, 25 Mo. App. 394 ;
Dutch.) 160 ; Forbes v. Sweesy, 8 Neb. 530 ;
Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (3 C. s.c. 1 N. W. Rep. 571 ;
E. Gr.) 204 ; Prall v. Smith, 31 N. J. L. (3 Vr.)
Johnson t;. Cummings, 16 N. J. ^244; „„ „ t t. ..
Eg. a C. E. Gr.) 97 ; s.c. 84 Cushmg v. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq. (4
Am Deo 142 ; Stew.) 697 ;
Breeding v. Davis, 77 Va. 639 ; Naylor v. Field, 29 N. J. Eq. (5
s.c. 46 Am. Rep. 740. Dutch.) 387 ;
'Naylor v. Field, 39 N. J. L. (5 Ross v. Adams, 23 N. J. L. (4
Dutch.) 287 ; Dutch.) 160 ;
670
EFFECT OF STATUTE.
[Book III.
power to alienate her property either by deed or by will,
the husband has an estate by the curtesy subject to be
defeated by such alienation.^
Sec. 831. Same— Effect of statute— On curtesy initiate.—
A husband's estate by the curtesy does not become a
vested interest until consummated by the death of the
wife.^ Prior to that time his estate is merely initiate,^
and simply a contingent and not a vested estate/ con-
sisting simply of a status, which is never a vested right,^
and for that reason may be modified or entirely destroyed
by statute at any time before it becomes consummate by
the death of the wife.^ But in the absence of any refer-
Breeding v. Davis, 77 Va. 639 ;
S.C. 46 Am. Rep. 740 ;
KLagsley ». Smith, 14 Wis. 360.
' Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, 791 ;
Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (8 C.
E. Gr.) 204, 208.
' Wheeler v. Hotchkiss, 10 Conn,
325, 330 ;
Hill V. CJiambers, 30 Mich. 432,
427;
Matter of Winne, 2 Lans. (N. Y.)
21, 24 ;
Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.)
599, 606 ;
Jones V. Davies, 7 Hurl. & N.
507, 508.
' Rice V. Hoffman, 85 Md. 344, 850.
See : Ante, § 715.
■" Porter v. Porter, 27 Gratt. (Va.)
599, 606.
= See : Levins v. Sleator, 2 Greene
(Iowa) 604, 609 ;
Reiff V. Horst, 55 Md. 42.
" See : Duncan v. Terre Haute, 85
Ind. 108 ;
Strong V. Clem, 13 Ind. 37, 41 ;
s.c. 74 Am. Dec. 300 ;
HiU .V. Chambers, 30 Mich. 422,
427:
Hathon v. Lyon, 2 Mich. 93, 95 ;
Thurber v. Townsend, 22 N. Y.
517;
Billings V. Baker, 15 How. Pr.
(N. Y.) 525, aff'd28 Barb. (N.
Y.) 348, 346 :
Matter of Winne, 3 Lans. (N. Y.)
21, 26 ;
Denny v. McCabe, 35 Ohio St.
576, 580 ;
Mellinger v. Bausman, 45 Pa. St.
533, 529 ;
Sharpless v. West, 1 Grant (Pa.)
357, 360 ;
Porch V. Fries, 18 N. J. Eq. (8 C.
E. Gr.) 204 ;
Belford v. Crane, 16 N. J. Eq. (1
C. E. Gr.) 373 ; s.c. 84 Am. Dec.
155 '
Bertie's v. Nunan, 93 N. Y. 153,
160 ; s.c. 44 Am. Rep. 361 ;
Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y 280 ;
Barnes v. Underwood, 47 N. Y.
851;
Ransom v. Nichols, 22 N. Y. 110 ;
Burke v. Valentine, 5 Abb. Pr.
(N. Y.) N. S. 164 ; s.c. 53 Barb.
(N. Y.) 413, aff'd by Court of
Appeals, 6 Alb. L. J. 167 ;
Vallance v. Bausch, 8 Abb. Pr.
(N. Y.) 638 : s.c. 28 Barb. (N.
Y.) 633 ; 17 How. Pr. (N. Y.)
243 *
'v. Clark, 34 Barb. (N. Y.)
V. Colvin, 17 Barb. (N. Y.)
Clark
581
Smith
157
Hurd V. Cass, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 366
Jaycox V. Collins, 36 How. Pr
(N. Y.) 496, 497 ;
Leach v. Leach, 31 Hun (N. Y.)
381, 382 ;
Zimmerman v. Schoenfeldt, 3
Hun (N. Y.) 693 ;
Matter of Winne, 3 Lans. (N. Y.)
31 ; s.c. 1 Id. 508 ;
Beamish v. Hoyt, 3 Robt. (N. Y.)
• 307 ;
Morris v. Morris, 94 N. C. 618 ;
Houston V. Brown, 7 Jones (N.
C.) L. 161 ;
Leggett V. McClelland, 39 Ohio
St. 634 ;
Bruner v. Briggs, 89 Ohio St. 478;
Houck V. Ritter, 76 Pa. St. 380 ;
Brone's Admr. v. Bockover, 84
Va. 434; s.c. 4 S. E. Rep. 745 ;
Chap. XVII. § 831.1 CURTESY INITIATE.
671
ence specifically in the statute to existing rights or con-
ditions, it will be applied only to those rights and con-
ditions which arise after its enactment,^ because all stat-
utes are presumptively prospective, and affect only inter-
ests arising after their passage ; ^ but they are sometimes
given retroactive force ; ^ such as statutes which go to
form existing rights and are in furtherance of an existing
remedy, by curing defects and by adding to existing
obligations, when just, reasonable, and conducive to the
good welfare, even though they may in some degree
infringe upon vested rights.*
Kingsley v. Smith, 14 Wis. 360,
365.
' Porter v. Bowers, 55 Md. 313, 215.
' See : Aldridge v. Tuscumbia, C. &
D Ry. Co., 2 Stew. & P. (Ala.)
199; s.c. 23 Am. Dec. 307;
Plumb V. Sawyer, 21 Comi 351,
355 •
Re TuUer, 79 lU. 99 ;
Noel V. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37, 55 ;
Knowlton v. Redenbaugh, 40
Iowa 114 ;
Cumberland v. Wasliington
County Court, 10 Bush (Ky.)
564;
Thornton v. McGrath, 1 Duv.
(Ky.) 349 ;
Rogers v. Greenbush, 58 Me. 390 ;
Herbert v. Gray, 38 Md. 529 ;
Williams v. Johnson, 30 Md. 500 ;
Clark V. Baltimore, 29 Md. 377 ;
Hopkins V. Frye, 3 Gill (Md.)
369, 365 ;
Medford v. Learned, 16 Mass.
315;
Harrison v. Metz, 17 Mich. 377 ;
Garrett v. Beaumont, 24 Miss.
377;
Brown v. Wilcox, 32 Miss. (14
Smed. & M.) 137 ;
State V. Ferguson, 62 Mo. 77 ;
State V. Auditor, 41 Mo. 13, 35 ;
Colony V. Dublin, 33 N. H. 432 ;
Baldwin v. Newark, 38 N. J. L.
(9 Vr.) 158 ;
Drake v. Gihnore, 53 N. Y. 389 ;
Norris v. Beyea, 13 N. Y. 373 ;
Bay V. Gage, 36 Barb. (N. Y.)
447 •
Sayre'^u. Wisner, 8 Wend. (N. Y.)
661;
Dash V. Von Kleeok, 7 John.
(N. Y.) 477 ;
Merwin v. Ballard, 66 N. C. 398 ;
Allhyer V. State, 10 Ohio St. 588 ;
Haley v. City of Phlladelpliia, 68
Pa. St. 45: s.c. 8 Am. Rep.153 ;
Price V. Mott, 52 Pa. St. 315 ;
Tyson v. School Directors, 51 Pa.
St. 9 -,
Clawson v. Hutchinson, 11 S. C.
323;
Graham v. Graham, 13 Rich. (S.
C ) 377 '
Sturgis ■u.'HuII, 48 Vt. 302 ;
State V. Atwood, 11 Wis. 433 ;
Marsh v. Higgins, 9 Mon. & G.
(C. B.) 551, 567 ; s.c. 67 Eng. C.
L. 551 ;
Moon V. Durden, 3 Exoh. 22, 41.
3 Curtis V. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9 ;
Town of DanviUe v. Pace, 35
Gratt. (Va.) 1; s.c. 18 Am.
Rep. 663.
^ Oriental Bank v. Freeze, 18 Me.
109;
Rich V. Flanders, 39 N. H. 304 ;
Syracuse City Bank v. Davis, 16
Barb. (N. Y.) 188 ;
Schenly v. Commonwealth, 36
Pa. St. 29 ;
Bleakney v. Farmers & Mechan-
ics' Bank, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.)
64;
Tate V. Stoolitzfoos, 16 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 35 ;
Underwood v. LUly, 10 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 101 ;
BeU V. Perkins, Peck. (Tenn.)
361, 366 ;
Townsend v. Townsend, Peck.
(Tenn.) 1 ;
Langdon v. Strong, 2 Vt. 334 ;
Town of Danville v. Pace, 37
Gratt. (Va.) 1 ; s.c. 18 Am. Rep.
663;
Watson V. Mercer, 33 U. S. (8
Pet.) 88 ; bk. 8 L. ed. 876 ;
Wilkinson v. Leland, 27 U. S. (3
Pet.) 637 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 542.
672 WHO MAY HOLD BY CURTESY. [Book IH.
Sec. 832. Same — Same — On curtesy consummate.— The
estate of a husband by curtesy becomes consummate on
the death of the wife, is a vested interest, and cannot be
modified or taken away by statutory enactments. Such
an estate is regarded as an estate acquired by descent, ^
and, Hke estates by descent, is to be determined by the
law existing at the time of . the wife's death.
Section V. — Who may be Tenants by the Cuetesy.
Sec. 833. Tenants by the curtesy — Generally.
Sec. 884. Same — ^Alienage.
Sec. 835. Same — Same — Naturalization.
Sec. 836. Same — Attainder of treason or felony.
Section 833. Tenants by the curtesy— Generally. — At
common-law, as a general rule, all persons are capable of
holding freehold estates ; ^ the principal exception to this
rule being the disability arising from alienage,^ and at-
tainder of treason or felony.* As to who may be tenant
by the curtesy, it is sufficient to observe that any one
who may hold a freehold estate may acquire an estate
by the curtesy.
Sec. 834. Same— Alienage.— At common law an alien
cannot take or hold an estate in lands by operation of
law,^ although he may by act of the parties, or by pur-
chase or devise,'' and hold it against all the world until
1 See : Watson t;. Watson, 13 Conn. ^ See : Apthorp v. Backus, Kirby
83, 86 ; (Conn.) 407 ; s.c. 1 Am. Dec.
Eice V. Hoffman, 35 Md. 344, 850 ; 36 ;
Brown v. Clark, 44 Mich. 309, Judd v. Lawrence, 55 Mass. (1
311 ; s.c. 6 N. W. Eep. 679 ; Cush.) 581, 534 j
Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776, Slater v. Nason, 33 Mass. (15
790. Pick.) 345, 349 ;
* See : Bancroft v. Consen, 95 Mass. Fox v. Southack, 13 Mass. 143 ;
(13 Allen) 50 ; Montgomery v. Dorion, 7 ISI . H.
Harmon v. James, 15 Miss. (7 475 ;
Smed. & M.) Ill ; s.c. 45 Am. Jackson ex d. Smith v. Adams, 7
Dec. 390 ; Wend. (N. Y.) 367 ;
Huss V. Stephens, 53 Pa. St. 383 ; Fairfax v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.-
Hileman v. Bouslaugh, 13 Pa. S. (7 Cr.) 603 ; bk. 3 L. ed.
St. 344 ; s.c. 58 Am. Dec. 474 ; Compare : Lumb v. Jenkins, 100
1 Bl. Com. 466 ; Mass. 537.
1 Co. Litt. a9th ed.) 3. « See : Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100
s See : Ante, § 813 ; Mass. 561, 574 ;
Post, § 834. Fox V. Southack, 13 Mass. 143 ;
iSee: Ante, §§ 793, 837; Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 13
Post, g 836. N. Y. 376 ; ■
Chap. XVII. § 835.] NATURALIZATION.
673
office found. 1 Consequently, at common law, an alien
cannot be' a tenant by the curtesy.^ The law will not
do a useless or vain thing, ^ and therefore will not give
to the husband an estate which he cannot hold.'* The
rule of the common law has been changed by stfltute in
most, if not all, the states. v
Sec. 835. Same — Same — Naturalization.— The disability
of alienage is removed by naturalization, because this
makes the alien a citizen. But to enable an alien to hold
lands by the curtesy the naturalization must be complete,
because he does not become a citizen until actually or
completely naturalized.^ We have already seen that
where an alien husband makes the preliminary declara-
tion of his intention to become a citizen before the
death of his wife, and completes his naturalization after
her death, that he is not entitled to an interest in her
Do3 ex d. Governeur's Heirs v.
Robertson, 34 U. S. fll Wheat.)
333; bk. 6 L. ed. 488;
Orr V. Hodgson, 17 U. S. (4
Wheat.) 453, 460 ; bk. 4 L. ed.
613, 615 ;
Craig V. Radford, 16 U. S. (3
Wheat.) 594, 597 ; bk. 4 L. ed.
467;
Craig V. Leslie, 16 U. S. (3
Wheat.) 563, 589 ; bk. 4 L. ed.
460, 466 ;
Martin. Heir of Fairfax v. Hun-
ter's Lessee, 14 U. S. (1 Wheat.)
304 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 97 ;
' Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's
Lessee, 11 U. S. (7 Cr.) 603,
630 ; bk. 3 L. ed. 453, 463 ;
Knight V. Duplessis,,3 Ves. 360 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 3 ;
PoweU on Dev. 315.
See : Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass.
561, 574 ;
Judd V. Lawrence, 55 Mass. (1
Gush.) 531, 534 ;
Waughi;. Riley, 49 Mass. (8 Met.)
390;
Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.)
131, 134 ;
Wilbur V. Tobey, 33 Mass. (16
Pick.) 177. 179, 180 ;
Fox V. Southack, 13 Mass. 142,
143;
Storer v. Batson, 8 Mass. 431 ;
Sheafife v. O'Neil, 1 Mass. 256 ;
Goodrich v. Russell, 43 N. Y. 177 ;
43
Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 13
N. Y. 376 ;
Jackson ex d. Smith v. Adams, 7
Wend. (N. Y.) 867, 368 ;
Doe ex d. Governeur's Heirs v.
Robertson, 24 U. S. (11 Wheat.)
333 ; bk. 6 L. ed. 488 ;
Craig V. Radford, 16 U. S. (3
Wheat.) 594 ; bk. 4 L. ed. 467 ;
Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's
Lessee, 11 U. S. (7 Cr.) 602, 603 ;
bk. 3 L. ed. 453 ;
2 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 54, 61.
5 Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.)
131;
Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y.
280, 385 ;
Copeland v. Sauls, 1 Jones (N.
C.) L. 70 ;
Reese v. Waters, 4 Watts & S.
(Pa.) 145.
See ; Ante, § 813.
Compare : Mussey v. Pierre, 24
Me. 559 ;
Doe ex d. Miller v. Rogers, 1
Car. & K. 390 ; s.c. 47 Eng. C.
L. 390 ;
Calvin's Case, 7 Co. 354.
' Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (30 Pick.)
131 134 '
Slater v. 'Nason, 33 Mass. (15
Pick.) 345, 349.
^Id.
See : Ante, § 813.
' Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (30 Pick.)
131, 177.
674 FELONY AND TREASON. [Book III.
land as a tenant by the curtesy.^ The reason for this is
the fact that the naturalization does not relate back so
as to remove the disability from the time of filing the
preliminary declaration.^
Sec. 836. Same— Attainder of treason or felony.— At com-
mon law, persons attainted of treason or felony cannot be
tenants by the curtesy ; for, being extra legem positi,
they are become incapable of deriving any benefit from
the law ; and, by consequence, of this in particular,
which intended to give the inheritance only to those
who were capable of holding it during their lives. ^ The
matter is regulated by statute in this country.
Section VI. — ^What PKOPBiRTY Subject to Curtesy.
Sec. 837. Ancient rule.
Sec. 838. At common law.
Sec. 839. In estates-tail.
Sec. 840. Same — On failure of issue.
Sec. 841. Same — In this country.
Sec. 842. In separate estate — At common la\r. ^
Sec. 843. Same— Under statute.
Sec. 844. In equitable estates of inheritance.
Sec. 845. Same — Intention of grantor.
Sec. 846. In estate of former husband.
Sec. 847. In lands recovered.
Sec. 848. In lands deed to which is taken in wife's name.
Sec. 849. In lands of which wife seized by direct gift.
Sec. 850. In lands conveyed to wife by husband.
Sec. 851. In lands conveyed to trustee — By husband.
Sec. 853. Same— By the wife.
Sec. 853. Same— By third person.
Sec. 854. Same— Same— Express exclusion of husband.
Sec. 855. In lands held by guardian.
Sec. 85G. In wild lands.
Sec. 857. In lands cast by descent.
Sec. 858. In lands devised in trust.
Sec. 859. In lands of beneficiary under wiU.
Sec. 860. In mortgaged estate.
Sec. 861. In trust estate.
Sec. 863. In fee with conditional limitation.
Sec. 863. In fees determinable.
' ^ee : Ante % 813. 1 Cruise Eeal Prop. (4th ed.) 145,
« Foss V. Crisp, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) § 28.
3-D ^^l'J^^'_. See: ^nfe, §§ 792, 837.
3 Bro. Ab. Ciurtesy, 15 ;
Chap. XVII. §§ 837, 838.] PROPERTY SUBJECT TO. 675
Sec. 864. In estate in remainder.
Sec. 865. In estate in reversion.
Sec. 866. In lands held in joint tenancy.
Sec. 867. In estates in coparcenary.
Sec. 868. In merged estates.
Sec. 869. In money when.
Sec. 870. In incorporeal hereditaments.
Section 837. Ancient rule.— It appears from Glanville^
that the right to curtesy was originally confined to the
maritagmm^ of the wife. But the right was afterwards
extended, so that when Bracton wrote the right attached
to all lands whereof the wife was seized, whether she
acquired them by inheritance, or as a maritagium, or by
donation,^ and Littleton's description of curtesy extends
to all estates in fee-simple.*
Sec. 838. At common law. -At common law, the husband
was entitled to curtesy in all the real estate of which the
wife died seized, whether such estate was separate estate
or not,^ whether seized in fee-simple or fee-tail in posses-
sion ;^ and this is the general rule in the United States.'^
In order that curtesy may attach, the estate of the wife
must be a freehold of inheritance ; ^ but it applies to qual-
ified as well as absolute estates in fee.^ The estate must
also be an estate in possession, because there can be no
curtesy in an estate in reversion expectant on a life inter-
est or other estate of freehold. -"^ If a woman, tenant in
' Glanv,, lib. 7, c. 18. Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W. Va.
' As to maritagivm, see : Ante, § 455.
273. In Kentucky, a husband never act-
' Bract. 437b, 8a. ually seized of land of the wife,
■• 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29a, et seq. during coverture, has no in-
= See : Winkler v. Winkler, 18 W. terest whatever in it after her
Va. 455. death.
« Barker v. Barker, 3 Sim. 249 ; Petty v. MaUer, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.)
2 Bl. Com. 126 ; 591.
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 39a, et seq. ; ' MuUany v. MuUany, 4 N. J. Eq.
Id. 40a, et seq. (3 H. W. Gr.) 16 ; s.c. 31 Am.
' See : Nesbitt v. Trindle, 64 Ind. Dec. 338 ;
183 ; Simmons v. Gooding, 5 Ired. (N.
Matter of Creiger, 1 Barb. Ch. C.) Eq. 838 ;
(N. Y.) 59G ; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. Sumner v. Partridge, 3 Atk. 47 ;
416 ; Mildway's Case, 6 Co. 40 ;
Buchanan v. Duncan, 40 Pa. St. Boothby v. Vernon, 9 Mod. 147.
83 • " Paine's Case, 8 Co. 34 ;
Dubs V. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149 ; 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 33.
Beirne v. Beirne, 33 W. Va. 663 ; ''- 3 Bl. Cora. 137 ;
s c 11 S. E. Rep. 46 : Watk. Desc. f4th ed.) Ill, 131.
See : Post, % '888.
676 ESTATES-TAIL— FAILURE OF ISSUE. [BOOK III.
tail after possibility of issue extinct, takes a husband, has
issue, and the fee-simple descends upon her, the husband
will be entitled to curtesy ; because, by the descent of the
fee, the estate-tail after possibility was merged, and the
wife became tenant in fee-simple executed.^
Sec. 839. In estates-tail.— Conditional fees^ were subject
to curtesy before the statute De Donis,^ and when that
statute converted them into estates-tail,* the husbands
were allowed to be tenants by the curtesy in estates-tail
also.
Where lands were given, before the statute De Bonis,
to a man and a woman, and the heirs of their bodies to
be begotten, the course of descent was, in some degree,
changed by their having issue ; for then the lands became
descendible to all the heirs of the donee's body, and also
liable to the curtesy of a second husband. To prevent
this, it was enacted by the statute De Donis that where
lands were given in this manner, a second husband should
not be tenant by the curtesy.^
Sec. 840. Same— On failure of issue.— It was formerly
doubted whether a man could be tenant by the curtesy of
an estate-tail, after failure of issue capable of inheriting
the estate, which in fact determined the estate-tail, and
the donor's right to the reversion accrued ; but it is now
well established that in a case of this kind the husband has
an estate by the curtesy.^ Thus at common law, if lands
were given to a woman and the heirs of her body, and
she took a husband and had issue, and the issue died, and
the wife then died without issue, whereby the inheritance
of the land reverted to the donor, the estate of the wife
' Bro. Ab. Estate, 25. of his deceased wife, held by
« See : Ante, bk. III., c. X., § 431, her in fee-taU.
Giddings v. Cox, 31 Vt. 607.
' See : Ante, % 456. Littleton's description of curtesy
* See : Ante, bk. III., c. XIII., § 453, is confined to women seized as
e^ seg. heirs in special tail. There can
= Paine's Case, 8 Co. 85b ; be no doubt, however, but that
2 Inst. 336. the husband of a woman donee
In Vermont, since the passage of in special tail would be also
the act of October 31, 1823, a entitled to curtesy.
husband does not become ten- 1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 146.
ant by the curtesy of the land « 1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 146.
Chap. XVII. § 842.] SEPARATE ESTATE— COMMON LAW. 077
was determined by the failure of issue, and yet the hus-
band was entitled to curtesy ; for that was tacitly implied
in the gift. The estate by the curtesy was not derived
merely out of the estate of the wife, but was given to the
husband by the privilege and benefit of the law ; for, as
soon as the husband had issue, his title became initiate,
and could not afterwards be defeated by the death of the
issue, which, being the act of God, ought not to turn to
his prejudice.^
Sec. Sil. Same— In this country.— In this country estate
by the curtesy is an incident so inseparably annexed to
estates-tail that it cannot be restricted by any proviso or
condition whatever, in those states where an estate-tail
is still recognized,^ and it has not been otherwise provided
by statute. The matter is now regulated by statute in
most, if not all, of the states. Thus, in Vermont, there
has been no curtesy in an estate-tail since the passage of
the act of October 31, 1823, which, by expressly men-
tioning curtesy in estates in fee-simple, excluded the
ordinary common-law rule ; ^ and the fact that the stat-
ute converts the estate-tail into a fee-simple in the hands
of the issuing tail does not entitle the husband of the
wife in tail to curtesy, because the change in the charac-
ter of the estate does not take place during coverture,
and while the wife still was seized.*
Sec. 842. In separate estate— At common law.— At com-
mon law the husband's curtesy is one of the legal inci-
dents of the wife's estate of inheritance, and he will not
be excluded from rights in property springing from the
marital relation except by words that leave no doubt of
the intention of the parties to deprive him of such rights,*
and therefore the husband will be tenant by the curtesy
UCruiseEealProp.(4thed.) 163,163; ^St. 208;
Paine's Case, 8 Eep. 34 ; Ege v. Medlar 82 Pa. St 86 ;
1 Inst 30a. Stokes v. McKibben, 13 Pa. St.
'trnst^S^^^'"' Bate v. HeiskeU, 1 Coldw.
3 Giddings v'. Cox, 31 Vt. 607. (Tenn.) 6g ; ,^ „ ■ i
4 Wavnes iJ Bourn, 43 Vt. 686. Trazer v. Hightower, 12 Heisk.
» Cu&v. Blake 30 N. J. Eq. (3 (Tenn.) 94 ;
a+i^-^fisq- Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.)
T^n^Td rCTOKer, 80 N. Y. 15 ; 710 ; s.o. 31 Am. Eep. 660 ;
Hardy^. Va^&ngen, 7 Ohio Burnet v. Davis, 3 Pr. Wms. 316.
678
SEPARATE ESTATE— STATUTE.
[Book III.
in his wife's separate estate, notwithstanding the fact
that he is cut off from any participation in the rents and
profits during coverture.^
Sec. 843. Same— Under statute.— Estate by curtesy in the
separate estate of the wife remains in the husband, unim-
paired by statutes for the better securing of property of
married women, which declare that she shall hold the prop-
erty to her sole and separate use, and that it shall not be
subject to the disposal of her husband, nor be liable for
his debts.^
' Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Kv.)
138;
Comer v. Chamberlain. 88 Mass.
(6 Allen) 166 ;
Tremmel v. Kleiboldt, 75 Mo.
325, affirmed 6 Mo. App. 549 ;
Cushing V. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq.
(8 Stew.) 689 ;
Johnson v. Cummins, 16 N. J.
Eq. (1 C. E. Gr.) 97 ; s.c. 84
Am. Dec. 143 ;
' Johnson v. Fritz, 44 Pa. St. 449 ;
Dubs V. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149 ;
Wightman v. Pettis, 39 Pa. St.
380, 383 ; ■
Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. 1.
388;
Stovall V. Austin, 16 Lea (Tenn.)
700;
Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710 ;
s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 660 ;
Steadman v. Pulling, 3 Atk. 433 ;
De Hart v. Dean, 3 McA. 60 ;
Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 348.
Compare : Post, § 873.
The contrary doctrine, however, is
held in some of the oases.
Thus in Beecher v. Hicks, 5 Lea
(Tenn.) 307, where land was
conveyed to a married woman
for her sole and separate use,
and to her children, and she
died leaving children, it was
held that the husband took no
estate of curtesy. In Haight v
Hall, 74 Wis. 153 ; s.c. 43 N.
W. Rep. 109 ; 8 L. R. A. 857, it
was held that a deed to a mar-
ried woman, '"to her sole and
separate use and free from the
interference or control of her
said husband or any husband,
and her heirs and assigns, to her
and their only proper use and
benefit forever," must be held
to defeat a right to curtesy in
the premises on the grantee's
death, where by the statute of
the state a married woman
could hold real estate as if un-
married ; since the restriction
in the grant can have no force
whatever given to it unless the
intention was to exclude the
estate by the curtesy.
See, also : Post, g§ 878, 874.
Words which simply create a separate
estate in the wife during cov-
erture, or which merely deprive
the husband of any right to
make the estate responsible for
his debts, or to control it dur-
ing coverture, will not be suffi-
cient to deprive him of the
right of curtesy.
Jones V. Brown, 1 Md. Ch. 191 ;
Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 380 ;
Matter of Winne, 3 Lans. (N. Y.)
31, 508 ;
Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710 ;
s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 660 ;
Sayers v.Wall, 36 Gratt.(Va.)354.
Same — Provisions that do not ex-
clude.— Thus a deed to a mar-
ried woman, habendum " to
her, her heirs and assigns, to
her and their sole use, benefit,
and behoof," will not exclude
the husband's curtesy.
De Hart v. Dean, 2 McA. D. C.
CO ; s.c. 1 S. & B. 369.
And where a testator devises real
estate to his daughters for their
sole and separate use, to pass
at their death directly to their
children, the daughters' hus-
bands are entitled to curtesy.
Stovall V. Austin, 16 Lea (Tenn.)
700.
' Johnson v. Cummins, 16 N. J. Eq.
Chap. XVII. § 844.] EQUITABLE ESTATES.
679
Sec. 844. In equitable estates of inheritance.— Originally
curtesy could not be claimed in an estate of which the wife
had a cestui que use ; but now a husband is entitled to
curtesy in the wife's equitable estates of inheritance, if the
requisites of such a title in legal estates existed.^ And this
is true even in those equitable estates which are granted
to the sole and separate use of the wife ^ where not dis-
■ (1 C. E. Gr.) 97 ; s.o. 84 Am.
Dec. 143.
See : Gushing v. Blake, 30 N. J.
Eq. (3 Stew.) 697 ;
Belford v. Crane, 16 N. J. Eq. (1
C. E. Gr.) 273; s.c. 84 Am.
Dec. 155 ;
Johnson v. Fritz, 44 Pa. St. 449.
A contrary opinion was held in the
construction of a New York
married women's statute in
Billings V. Baker, 28 Barb. (N.
Y.) 348 ; but the decided weight
of authority in that state is ad-
verse to the decision in Billings
V. Baker, supra, and in accord-
ance with the views expressed
in tbe text.
Vallance v. Bausch, 28 Barb. (N.
Y.) 633 ;
Clark V. Clark, 34 Barb. (N. Y.)
581;
Smith V. Colvin, 17 Barb. (N. Y.)
157;
Hurd V. Cass, 9 Barb. (N. Y.)
366.
The Ijetter opinion is said in John-
son V. Cummins, 16 N. J. Eq.
(1 C. E. Gr.) 97 : s.c. 84 Am.
Deo. 142, to be that the estate
remains in the husband unaf-
fected by the statute. This is
in accordance with the clearly
expressed opinion of Mr. Jus-
tice Vredenburgh, and seems
to be the necessary result of
the opinion of the chief justice
in Naylor v. Field, 29 N. J. L.
(5 Dutch.) 287, and Ross v.
Adams, 38 N. J. L. (4 Dutch.)
160.
I Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.)
138;
Rawlings v. Adams, 7 Md. 54 ;
Dugan V. Gittings, 3 GiU (Md.)
138 ; s.c. 43 Am. Deo. 306 ;
Houghton V. Hapgood, 30 Mass.
(13 Pick.) 154 ;
Taylor v. Smith, 54 Miss. 50 ;
Rabb V. Griffin. 26 Miss. 597 ;
Baker v. Nail, 59 Mo. 368 v
Alexander v. Warrance, 17 Mo.
338;
Cushing V. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq.
(3 Stew.) 689 ;
Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill(N. Y.) 183 ;
Dunscomb v. Dunscorab, 1 John.
Ch. (N. Y.) 508 ; s.o. 7 Am. Dec.
504;
Forbes v. Smith, 5 Ired. (N. C.)
Eq. 369 ; s.c. 49 Am. Dec. 452 ;
Sentill V. Robeson, 3 Jones (N. C.)
Eq. 510 ;
Gilmore v. Burch, 7 Greg. 874;
s.c. 33 Am. Rep. 710 ;
Dubs V. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149 ;
Clepper v. Livergood, 5 Watts
(Pa.) 113 ;
Shoemaker v. Walker, 3 Serg. &
R. (Pa.) 554 ;
Nightingale v. Hidden, 7 R. I.
115;
Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. I.
383;
Withers v. Jenkins, 14 S. C. 597 ;
Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710;
s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 660 ;
Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 641 ;
Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.)
503, 508 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 241 ;
Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Bro. C.
C. 497, 499 ;
Cooper V. Macdonald, L. R. Ch.
Div. 288 ; s.c. 23 Moak's Eng.
Rep. 581 ;
Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408 ;
Tremmel v. Kleiboldt, 75 Mo.
325 ; s.c. 6 Mo. App. 549 ;
Watts V. Ball, 1 Pr. Wms. 109 ;
Robinson v. Codman, 1 Sumn.
C. C. 138 ;
Sweetapple v. Bindon, 2 Vern.
586;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 81.
< Sentill V. Robeson, 2 Jones (N. C.)
Eq. 510 ;
Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710;
s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 660 ;
Nightingale v. Hidden,7 R.I.115;
Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. I.
383.
680
INTENTION OF GRANTOR.
[Book III.
posed of by deed or by will ; ^ but the equitable estate must
be a beveral one, or else held under a tenancy in common,
and must not be one of which the wife was seized or pos-
sessed jointly with any other person or persons.^ Actual
possession of the estate, or the receipt of rents, issue, and
profits, by the wife, or possession by her trustee for her
benefit, is considered as such seisin of the equitable estate
as is equivalent to legal seisin and sufficient to support
the right of curtesy.^ The husband will not be entitled
to curtesy in a mere equitable right ; * thus the husbaijd
is not entitled to curtesy in the pre-emption rights of the
wife in public lands of the United States.^
Sec. 845. Same— intention of grantor.— The husband will
not be entitled to curtesy, however, in an equitable estate
of the wife, where it is manifest from the deed of the
grantor that it was the intention to exclude the husband
from such equitable estate ; ° but it has been held that a
husband is entitled to curtesy in lands conveyed to trustees
Compare : Moore v. Webster, L.
R. 23 Eq. 367 ;
Appleton V. Rowley, L. R. 8 Eq.
139, and cases cited in note 2.
' Cooper V. Macdonald, L. R. 7 Ch.
Div. 288; s.c. 23 Moak's Eng.
Rep. 581.
Compare : Post, § 878.
^ 3 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 183a.
See: Post, §% 866,881.
' RawUngs v. Adams, 7 Md. 54 ;
Houghton V. Hapgood, 30 Mass.
(13 Pick.) 154 ;
Alexander v. Warrance, 17 Mo.
238;
Cushing V. Blake, 30 N. J. Eq.
(3 Stew.) 689 ;
Dunscombu. Dunscomb, 1 Johns.
Ch. (N. Y.)508 ; s.c. 7 Am. Dec.
504;
Forbes v. Smith, 5 Ired. (N. C.)
Eq. 369 ; s.c. 49 Am. Dec. 433 ;
SentUI V. Robeson, 2 Jones (N. C.)
Eq. 510 ;
Clepper v. Livergood, 5 "Watts
(Pa.) 113 ;
Nightingale v. Hidden, 7 R. I.
115;
TilUnghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. I.
383;
Carters. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710 ;
s.c. 31 Am. Dec. 660 ;
Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.)
503 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 339 ;
Robinson v. Codman, 1 Sumn. C.
C. 138.
^ In estate in ectnity.— Thus it is said
in Sentill v. Robeson, 3 Jones
(N. C.) Eq. 510, that " a husband
is entitled to curtesy in trust
or other equitable estates of his
wife. This means an express
trust — one by the consent of the
parties so as to give an estate
in equity as distinguished from
a right in equity."
' McDaniel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 455-
465.
See : Post, § 879.
* Monroe v. Van Meter, 100 111. 347 ;
Pool V. Blakie, 53 lU. 495, 500 ;
aark V. Clark, 34 Barb. (N. Y.)
582 •
Rigler tJ. Cloud, 14 Pa. St. 361 ;
Stokes V. McKibben, 13 Pa. St.
207;
Carter v. Dale, 3 Lea (Tenn.) 710 ;
s.c. 31 Am. Rep. 660 ;
Hearle v. Greenback, 3 Atk. 716 ;
Bennett v. Davis, 3 Pr. Wms.
316.
Chap. XVII. §§ 846-848.] IN LANDS RECOVERED. G81
for the wife's separate use by a deed expressly excluding
her husband from any control.^
Sec. 846. In estate of former husband.— We have already
seen ^ that where a wife dies leaving children by a de-
ceased husband, also another husband, and children by
him, surviving her, this husband shall take as tenant by
the curtesy so much of the real estate left by the wife as
may be inherited by the children begotten by him.^
Sec. 847. in lands recovered.— Where, by a decree of a
court of equity, a deed from a woman to her affianced
husband, which was procured by the latter through undue
influence, is annulled after marriage, the husband's right
to tenancy by curtesy re-attaches.* Where a husband
and wife attempted to bar an estate-tail of the latter by
process provided by statute, and the wife died before the
transaction was properly completed, the consideration of
the conveyance being merely nominal, it was held that,
whether the act was a mere nullity, or whether an equi-
table estate in fee resulted, the husband was entitled to
his curtesy.^
Sec. 848. Inlands deed to which is taken in wife's name.—
The husband will be entitled to an estate by the curtesy
in lands of which the wife becomes seized during coverture
by deed in her own name, and as her own property,
either on purchase by her husband, or by a parent ; ^ be-
cause such purchase is deemed prima facie, as inteaded
to be a settlement or provision for the wife by the hus-
band,'^ or as an advancement ® by the parent.
' Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts & S. 453, 454 ; s.c. 56 Am. Dec. 733 ;
(Pa ) 95 ; s.c.' 39 Am. Dec. 60. Beed v. Eeed, 52 N. Y. 650 ;
» See • Ante § 756. Phillips v. Wooster, 36 N. Y. 413 ;
■" Kingsley v. Smith, 14 Wis. 360 ; Borst v. Spelman, 4 N. Y. 384.
Paiie's Case, 8 Co. 34b. ' Mutual Fire Ins. Co. r. Deale, 18
* Gilmore v. Burch, 7 Oreg. 374 ; Md. 26 ; s.o. 79 Am^ Dec. 673 ;
s c 33 Am Rep. 710. Curtis v. Fox, 47 N. Y. 299.
^ Pierc; u Hakes,^23 Pa. St. (11 See : Groflf v. Eohrer, 35 Md. 337.
Har ) 231 ^^^ •
Mutual' Fire Ins. Co. v. Deale, 18 Reed i;. Keed 53 N. Y 651 ;
Md. 36 : s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 673 ; Phillips v. Wooster, 36 N. Y. 412 ;
Curtis V Fox 47 N. Y. 299. Borst v. Spelman, 4 N. Y. 384.
See : Schindel v. Schindel, 12 Md. « Mutual Fire Ins Co. v. Deale 18
108 121 ; s.o. lb. 294, 312 ; Md. 26 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 673,
Wright V. Wright, 2 Md. 429, 675.
682 LANDS CONVEYED TO WIFE. [Book III.
Sec. 849. Inlands of which wife seized by direct gift.— A
married woman may become seized of lands by direct
gift as well as by purchase in her own name and as her
own property, and in such lands the husband will be en-
titled to an estate by the curtesy where all the requisites
of such an estate exist.-'
Sec. 850. In lands conveyed to wife by husband.— Where
a husband conveys land to his wife without the interven-
tion of a trustee, such conveyance not being in fraud of ex-
isting creditors, will be valid in equity,^ and the husband
will be entitled to an estate by the curtesy in such lands,^
even though the wife may never have been actually pos-
sessed of the lands.* In Virginia, however, a contrary
doctrine seems to prevail. Thus it is said in the case of
Sayer v. Wall,^ that a conveyance from a husband to his
wife, though invalid at law, is good in equity, and, being
absolute, vests in her a separate estate, thereby defeating
his right of curtesy. And it is said by the same court in
the case of Dugger v. Dugger,^ that a separate estate
created by the husband for his wife, whether directly or
through a trustee, presumptively excludes the husband
from tenancy by the curtesy.'''
Sec. 861. In lands conveyed to trustee— By husband.— A
husband wiU be entitled to an estate by the curtesy in
lands which he has conveyed to a trustee for the sole and
separate use and benefit of his wife and her heirs, ^ where
See : Gilbert v. Gilbert, 3 Abb. Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill CN Y )
Dec. (N. Y.) 256 ; 183 ^ ''
Farrell v. Lloyd, 69 Pa. St. 339 ; * Adair v. Lott, 3 Hill (N Y ) 183
Dennet v. Bennet, 10 Ch. Div. = 26 Gratt. (Va.) 354
474 ; s.c. 27 Moak's Eng. Rep. ■> 84 Va. 130 ; s.c. 4 S. E. Eep. 171.
a-i ' <.-u o- , ., „ T. ''&ee: Irvine v. Greever, 33 Gratt.
Sidmouth V. Sidmoutli, 3 Beav. (Va.) 419 ;
,447; „ ^ „ 3 Miner's Inst. 353(318).
In^re De Verne, 3 DeG. J. & S. Also : Eigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. St.
' '^'^M^^^?'''^ ^P^i- '"■ ^^^^^' 1^ ' ^ee": Soltau v. Soltau, 93 Mo. 307;
Md. 36 ; s.c. 79 Am. Dec. 673, s.c. 6 S. W. Eep. 95 ; 13 West.
o , ■ ■. , „ , . , Rep. 115 ;
Schmdelv.Schmdel 13Md. 108 Tremmel v. Kleiboldt, 75 Mo.
1^1 ; s.c. lb. 394, 313 ; 255 off'a- so fi Mn Ar.r. ^/LQ ■
Wright.. Wright 3Md.453; s.c. Cush^f.^ BlakS N^^j.' Eq
56 Am. Dec. 733. (3 Stew.) 399 ; ^
See : Sayer v. Wall, 26 Gratt. (Va.) Ege v. Medlar, 82 Pa. St. 86 •
3 RobL%. Chapman. 59 N. H. 41 ; "'"(^enn.Tef ^"°"''' '' ^'''''
CHAP. XVII. § 853.] LANDS CONVEYED TO TRUSTEE.
683'
the conveyance contains a power (1) in the wife of appoint-
ment, or to dispose of the property by deed or will, and
she dies without exercising such power ; ^ or (2) in the
trustee to permit the wife, her heirs and assigns, to have
the occupation, possession, and enjoyment of the property,
and to receive the rents.^ In Pennsylvania ^ and Vir-
ginia,* however, a husband who has conveyed land to
another in trust for his wife is not entitled, on her death,
to a tenancy by the curtesy in the trust estate.
Sec. 852. Same— By the wife.— Where a wife, in a deed
by her and her husband, conveys her real estate to a
trustee, reserving for her benefit the rents and profits of
her estate to her sole and separate use during her life,
this does not amount to an expression of an intent on
her part to exclude her husband ^ from curtesy therein
at her death.®
Sec. 853. Same— By third party.— Where lands are con-
veyed by a third person to a trustee for the sole and
Conveyance in contemplation of mar-
riage.— In the case of Cushing
V. Blake, 29 N. J. Eq. (2 Stew.)
399, a man, in contemplation of
marriage, conveyed lands to B,
in trust, for the sole and separ-
ate benefit of his intended wife ;
and, upon the further trust, to
convey to such persons as she
might, during her life, appoint,
either by deed or will ; and,
upon failure thereof, to her
heirs at law forever. The hus-
band, together with one child
of the marriage, survived his
wife, who died without appoint-
ment. The court held that the
estate of the wife was an equi-
table f ee-simple,in which A was
entitled to curtesy.
' Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.)
641;
Frazerw. Hightower, IS Heisk.
(Tenn.) 94.
8 Rigler v. Cloud. 14 Pa. St. 361.
'' Duggerw. Dugger, 84 Va. 130 ; s.c.
4 S. E. Rep. 171 ;
Sawyer v. Wall, 26 Gratt. (Va.)
354.
5 See : Ante, § 845.
" Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 R. I.
383.
' Jones V. Brown, 1 Md. Ch. 191 ;
Soltau V. Soltau, 93 Mo. 307 ; s.c.
6 S. W. Rep. 95 ; 12 West. Rep.
115;
Trommel v. Kleiboldt, 75 Mo. 255,
afif'g 6 Mo. App. 549 ;
Cushing V. Blake, 29 N. J. Eq.
(3 Stew.) 399 ;
Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 641 ;
Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408.
See : Clark v. Clark, 34 Barb. (N.
Y.) 582 ;
Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts &
S. (Pa.) 95 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec.
60.
By decree in chancery. — In the case
of Baker v. Heiskell, 1 Coldw.
(Tenn.) 641, the wife derived
her equitable estate with the
power to dispose thereof from
a decree of the Court of Chan-
cery.
In the case of Soltau v. Soltau, 93
Mo. 307 ; s.c. 6 S. W. Rep. 95 ;
12 West. Rep. 115, a husband
conveyed to a trustee for the
use of his wife, and the wife
devised the land to her children,
the court held that the husband
was entitled to curtesy in the
estate.
684 EXCLUSION OF HUSBAND. [BOOK III.
separate use of a married woman and her heirs, her hus-
band will, on surviving her, and the other requisites
of curtesy existing,^ be entitled to an estate by the
curtesy in such lands, in the same manner as if the estate
were a legal one,^ because in this respect equity follows
the law.^ But the right of the husband to curtesy in the
equitable estate of inheritance of his wife after her death
will depend largely upon the wording of the instrument
creating the estate, and the intention of the parties exe-
cuting the same. The trust itself only requires that the
husband should be excluded from control or interference
during the lifetime of the wife, and to deprive him of his
estate by curtesy there must be a manifest intention on
the part of the person settling the estate that he shall be
excluded from all interest whatsoever.*
Sec. 854:. Same— Same— Express exclusion of husband.—
Where lands are devised or deeded to the wife for her
separate and exclusive use, with a clear and distinct ex-
pression that the husband is not to have a life estate or
other interest, but the same to be for the wife and her
heirs, a court of chancery will bar the husband of his
curtesy.^ Lord Habdwicke,- in the case of Hearlev . Green-
' See : Ante, §§ 718-760. Moore v. Webster, L. E. 8 Eq.
^ Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 139.
183 ; But it may now be regarded as
Robert v. Chapman, 59 N. H. 41 ; settled in England that where
Ege V. Medlar, 82 Pa. St. 86 ; a married woman has an equi-
Tillinghast v. Coggeshall, 7 E. I. table estate of inheritance to her
383 ; separate use, and does not dis-
Nightingale v. Hidden, 7 E. I. pose of it by will or deed, her
115- husband will be entitled to curt-
In English decisions there is a con- esy.
flict of opinion as to the hus- See : Cooper v. Macdonald, 7 Ch.
band's right to curtesy in an Div. 288 ; s.c. 23 Moak's Eng.
estate belonging to the wife for Eep. 581.
her separate use. ^ See : Eobinson v. Codman, 1
See : Hearle v. Greenback, 3 Atk. Sumn. C. C. 121, 128.
695, 715, 716 ; s.c. 1 Ves. Sr. * Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408.
398 ; 5 Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts & S.
Eoberts v. Dixwell, 1 Atk. 607 ; (Pa.) 95 ; s.c. 39 Am. Eeo. 60 ;
Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408 ; Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. Ch.
FoUett V. Tyrer, 14 Sim. 125 ; 245 ;
Eager v. Furnivall, 17 Ch. Div. Bennet v. Davis, 2 Pr. Wms. 316 ;
115 ; Hearle v. Greenback, 3 Atk. 716 ;
Cooper V. Macdonald, 7 Ch. Div. s.c. 1 Ves. Sr. 298.
288 ; s.c. 23 Moak's Eng. Rep. See : Ege v. Medlar, 82 Pa. St.
581 ; 89 ;
Appleton V. Rowley, L. R. 8 Eq. Page's Estate, 76 Pa. St. 87 ;
139 ; Johnson v. Fi-itz, 44 Pa. St. 449 ;
Chap. XVII. §§ 855, 856.] IN WILD LANDS. 085
back/ puts the reason for this rule on two grounds : (1)
want of seisin in the wife, or rather in the husband ; and
(2) on the intention of the devisor. He observes that to
make the husband tenant by the curtesy, the wife must
have the inheritance, and there must be Hkewise a seisin
in deed in the wife during coverture. It was true she
had the inheritance, but then the father, whose estate it
was, has made the daughter a feme sole, and has given
the profits to her separate use ; therefore, what seisin, he
asks, could the husband have during the coverture ?
He could neither come at the possession nor the profit.
In the subsequent case of Morgan v. Morgan,^ Hearle v.
Greenback ^ is much shaken if not overruled as to the
first ground, as to seisin, taken by Lord Hardwicke. It
is thought to be in conflict with Eoberts v. Dixwell,*
where the same judge said that a devise to her separate
use would not bar the husband, because there was a sort
of seisin in the wife ; and in Pitt v. Jackson,® where it
seems to have been held that the receipt of rents and
profits is a sufficient seisin in the wife ; and also in
De Grey v. Richardson,^ where it would appear as if
no seisin in the wife is necessary to entitle the husband
to be tenant by the curtesy.^
Sec. 855. in lands held by guardian.— The Supreme
Court of Kentucky have held, in the case of Phillips
V. Phillips,* that a husband is entitled to curtesy in the
land of his wife, held by her mother as her guardian
to her use.
Sec. 856. In wild lands.— The other necessary incidents
Dubs V. Dubs, 33 Pa. St. 149 ; husband ; for what seisin could
Rigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. St. 363. the husband have, as the court
• 3 Atlr. 716 ; s.c. 1 Ves. Sr. 298. say, during the coverture, when
2 5 Madd Ch. 345. ^^ could come at neither the
3 3 Atk. 716 ; s.c. 1 Ves. Sr. 398. possession nor the profits, for
4 ^ ^tk! 606. ^^^ husband cannot be tenant
" 3 Bro' Ch. 51. ^J ^^^ curtesy, unless he can
6 3 ji^^]j' 409. ' show seisin in himself in right
' It may be' observed that Eoberts of his wife.
V Dixwell is but a dictum, See : Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts
whereas in Hearle v. Greenback & S. (Pa.) 95 ; s.c. 39 Am. Dec.
the point is expressly ruled and 60.
in the latter case it is put not « 3 Duv. (Ky.) 549.
on seisin of the wife but of the
686 LANDS CAST BY DESCENT. [Book III.
existing,^ a husband is entitled to an estate by the curtesy
in wild, waste, and uncultivated lands, '^ of which the wife
dies seized in law, and which are not held adversely to
her,^ she being deemed seized in fact so as to entitle the
husband to his rights ; * for the right of possession of un-
cultivated land draws to it the possession where the land
is not held adversely, and is a sufficient seisin to support
the husband's right to curtesy.^
Sec. 857. in lands east by descent.— A husband is entitled
to an interest, as tenant by the curtesy, in real estate that
descended to his wife during coverture. ® Thus w here upon
the death of an intestate, the title to his land becomes
vested in his only daughter and heir, subject to the dower
of his widow, which dower is never assigned to her, if
such daughter subsequently marries and has a child, the
widow's quarantine right will not prevent the husband
of such daughter, upon her death, from taking an estate
by the curtesy.'^
Sec. 858. In lands devised in trust.— In some of the states
' See : Ante, 8 718, et seq. mortgaged the property, a levy
' See : Ante, § 743. was made on his life estate in
'Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; it, and a sequestrator appointed,
B.C. 48 Am. Deo. 76 ; who paid one-third of the rents
Malone V. McLaurin,40Miss. 161 ; and profits to the widow. The
B.C. 90 Am. Dec. 320 ; defendant's wife did not eur-
McCorry v. King's Heirs, 3 vive the widow. The court
Humph. (Tenn.) 267; s.c. 39 held that the defendant was not
Am. Dec. 165. entitled to curtesy.
* Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ; In the Matter of Cifegier, an in-
s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76. fant, reported in 1 Barb. Ch.
^ Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 161 ; (N. Y.) 598 ; s.c. 45 Am. Deo.
s.c. 90 Am. Dec. 320. 416, A died intestate, leaving
"Griswold v. Penniman, 2 Com. real estate, and a widow en-
564 ; titled to dower therein, and five
Mettler v. MiUer, 129 111. 630 ; s.c. sons and one daughter, his only
23 N. W. Eep. 529 ; heirs at law, and in the lifetime
Proctor V. Newhall, 17 Mass. of A's widow, B, one of the
SI ; sons, died, leaving a widow and
Eabb V. Griffin, 26 Miss. 579 ; infant child, and C, the daugh-
Matter of Cregier, 1 Barb. Ch. ter, died, leaving a husband
(N. Y.) 598; s.c. 45 Am. Dec. and one infant child by him.
^^416 ; The court held that A's widow
Hitner v. Ege, 23 Pa. St. 305 ; was entitled to dower in the
Hyde v. Barney, 17 Vt. 380 ; s.c. whole estate, and that B's
44 Am. Dec. 385. widow was entitled to dower.
In the case of Hitner v. Ege, 33 and C's husband to curtesy, in
Pa. St. 305, the wife of the de- only one-sixth each of the re-
fendant was heir in fee to real maining two-thirds.
estate subject to the dower of ' Mettler v. Miller, 139 111. 630 ; s.c.
her mother. The defendant 33 N. E. Rep. 539.
Chap. XVII. § 859.] LANDS DEVISED IN TRUST.
68Y
the husband is entitled to curtesy in the wife's trust es-
tate.i Thus in Payne v. Payne,^ a testatrix devised lands
in trust to the use of her daughter, to her separate use,
to be disposed of as she might think proper ; and after
the death of her daughter's husband, A directed that the
trust should terminate, and the daughter's title become
absolute. The daughter died before her husband, leaving
three children ; and it was held that the husband was
tenant by the curtesy of the devised premises, whether the
trust was determined or not by the death of the bene-
ficiary.
Sec. 859. In lands ofbeneflciary under will.— Where lands
are devised to a feme covert in fee, the testator cannot de-
prive her husband of his estate by the curtesy by any
words of restraint or limitation in his will ; ^ and this is
true even where lands are devised in trust, to be held for
the separate use of a woman free from the control of any
future husband, and without the power of alienation, or
of anticipation of the income.* And where the wife holds
lands as beneficiary under a will, with power of appoint-
ment, the trust to terminate upon the husband's death,
he will be tenant by the curtesy, if he survives her, and
' Others hold that he is not entitled estate to his daughter, " to her,
to curtesy in an estate devised her heirs and assigns, forever,"
to the vpLfe's sole and separate but if she should die without
use. issue, his whole estate was to be
See : McCuUoch v. Vallentine, 24 sold by his executors, and the
Neb. 215 ; s.c. 38 N. W. Rep. money arising therefrom, after
854 ; his widow's decease, to be
Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts & S. equally divided among liis
(Pa.) 95 ; s.c. 39 Am. Deo. 60. brothers' and sisters' sons. The
Compare: Post, bk. III., c. daughter married, and had
XVII., section VII. issue that died during her life.
' 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 188. Her husband was held entitled
' Mullany v. Mullany, 4 N. J. Eq. to her estate as tenant by the
(8 H. W. Gr.) 8 ; s.c. 31 Am. curtesy.
Dec. 238. Buchanan v. Sheffer, 2 Yeates
See : Buchanan v. Duncan, 40 Pa. 374.
gt. 82 ; Under a similar state of facts
Dubs V. bubs, 31 Pa. St. 149 ; same doctrine was held in
Buchanan v. Shefifer, 2 Yeates Crumley v. Deake, 8 Baxt.
(Pa ) 374 • (Tenn.) 361.
Crumley v. Deake, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.) * Dubs v. Dubs, 31 Pa. St. 149.
3gl . See : Burke v. Valentine, 53 Barb.
Bierne v. Bierne, 38 W. Va. 663 ; (N. Y.) 417 ;
s.c. 11 S. E. Rep. 46. Buohanan v. Duncan, 40 Pa. St.
Thus where a testator devised his 82.
688
IN MORTGAGED ESTATE.
[Book III.
she has made no appointment ; ^ but if she exercises the
power of appointment, the husband is barred of his right
to curtesy.^
Sec. 860. In mortgaged estate.— The interest of the mort-
gagor in the mortgaged premises being an estate of in-
heritance which may be devised or granted,^ and the mort-
gagor being merely a security for the payment of the
debt,* that is, being nothing more than a lien on the prop-
erty, the estate in the premises is in no way affected by
the existence of the mortgage before actual entry or fore-
closure ; ^ and until that time, as to all the world except
the mortgagee and those persons claiming under him, the
mortgagor retains the freehold interest which existed
prior to the execution of the mortgage, ''and consequently
' Payne v. Payne, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.)
138.
But it is said by the Supreme
Court of North CaroUna in the
case of Grove v. Trueblood, 96
N. C. 495 ; s.c. 1 S. E. Rep. 918,
that an estate settled' on a, feme
covert for life, with a power of
appointment at her death in fee,
does not give her such an estate
as will entitle the husband if
she fails to appoint.
' Pool V. Blakie, 53 111. 495, 500 ;
Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Gill & J.
(Md.) 395 ;
Stewart v. Ross, 50 Miss. 776.
In the case of Stewart v. Ross,
supra, it is said that " the in-
terest of the wife must be such
that the husband may have seis-
in in her right (Bacon Abr. ,
title Curtesy). If there be an
outstanding particular freehold
estate which does not fall into
the inheritance during covert-
ure, there is not such a seisin
and right of immediate posses-
sion as will support the estate
of curtesy. Redus v. Hayden,
43 Miss 614, 633, 636 ; Malone v.
McLaurin, 40 Miss. 163."
^ Chamberlain v. Thompson, 10
Conn. 243 ; s.c. 26 Am. Dec.
391;
Wilkins v. French, 20 Me. Ill ;
Wliite V. Whitney, 44 Mass. (8
Met.) 81 ;
Hitchcock V. Harrington, 6 John.
(N. Y.) 290, 295 : s.c. 5 Am.
Dec. 229, 331.
See : Mills v. Van Voorhis, 2 N.
Y. 416 ;
Roosevelt v. Fulton, 7 Cow. (N.
Y.) 71, 78 ;
Wilson V. Troup, 2 Cow. (N. Y.)
195, 231 :
Astor V. Hoyt, 5 Wend. (N. Y.)
608, 616 ;
Lane v. Shears, 1 Wend. (N. Y.)
433, 437.
^ See : Wiltsie on Mortg. Forec. (3d
ed.), § 836.
* White t).Rittenmeyer,80 Iowa 268;
Kortright v. Cady, 21 N. Y. 843.
See : Middletown Savings Bank
V. Bates, 11 Conn. 519, 523 ;
Johnson v. Watson, 87 lU. 535 ;
Hancock i>. Carlton, 7^ Mass. (6
Gray) 39 ;
Fay V. Cheney, 31 Mass. (14 Pick.)
899 ;
Lund V. Lund, 1 N. H. 39 ;
Shields v. Loyear, 34 N. J. L. (5
Vr.) 496 ;
Breese v. Bangs, 3 E. D. Smith
(N. Y.) 486 ;
Hemphill v. Ross, 66 N. C. 477 ;
Waterman v. Matteson, 4 R. I.
539, 545 ;
Hagar v. Brainerd, 44 Vt. 394 ;
Wood V. Trask, 7 Wis. 566 ;
Conrad v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 36 U.
S. (1 Pet.) 386 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 189.
' Cooper V. Davis, 15 Conn. 556 ;
Clark V. Beach, 6 Conn. 143 ;
Brown v. Snell, 6 Fla. 741 ;
Farnsworth v. City of Boston, 126
Mass. 3, 4 ;
Chap. XVII. §§ 861, 862.] IN TRUST ESTATE.
689
the estate will be subject to curtesy in the husband or
dower in the wife.^ It will be otherwise with the hus-
band of a mortgagee in fee, unless the equity of redemp-
tion has been barred by time.^
Sec. 861. Intrust estate.— By the common law, the hus-
band is entitled to curtesy in the trust estate of his wife,
in the same manner as he would be if it were a legal es-
tate.^ In some of the states, however, there is no tenancy
by the curtesy in an estate held in trust for the benefit
of a married woman as if she were a feme sole, and so
that the same shall not be in the power, or subject to the
debt, contract, or engagements of her husband, with the
remainder to her heirs or appointees.* Where the legal
estate is held by the wife as trustee, it will not be sub-
ject to curtesy.^
Sec. 862. In fees with conditional limitation.— The hus-
band is entitled to an estate by the curtesy in an estate
in fee that is subject to a conditional limitation,® even
Bradley v. Fuller, 40 Mass. (23
Pick.) 1 :
Orr V. Hadley, 36 N. H. 570, 578 ;
Brj'an v. Butts, 37 Barb. (N. Y.)
503, 505 ;
Childs V. Childs, 10 Ohio St. 343 ;
s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 513 ;
Asay V. Hoover, 5 Pa. St. 21 ; s.c.
45 Am. Deo. 713 ;
Doe ex d. Lyster v. Gold win, 2
Ad. & E. N. S. 143 ; s.c. 43 Eng.
C. L. 610 ;
Beamish v. Overseers, 24 L. J.
(N. S.) C. P. 7 ; s.c. 7 Eng. L.
& Eq. 485.
> Clark V. Beach, 6 Conn. 143 ;
Groton v. Roxborough, 6 Mass.
50;
Alexander v. Warrand, 17 Mo.
328;
Coles V. Coles, 15 John. (N. Y.)
819; s.c. 8 Am. Dec. 231;
Titus V. Nelson, 5 John. Ch. (N.Y.)
453;
Boothby v. Vernon, 9 Madd. 147.
•> Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 Pr. Wms.
334;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 33 ;
7 Vin. Abr. 156, pi. 23.
8 Phillips V. Worford, 3 Duv. (Ky.)
549;
44
Houghton V. Hapgood, 30 Mass.
(13 Pick.) 154 ;
Rabb V. Griffin, 36 Miss. 579 ;
Sentill V. Robinson, 2 Jones Eq.
(N. C.) 510 ;
Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.)
503, 508 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 239, 241 ;
Robinson v. Codman, 1 Sumn. C.
C. 128 ;
Casborne v. Inglis, 1 Atk. 603 ;
s.c. 3 Eq. Cor. Abr. 728 ;
Morgan v. Morgan, 5 Madd. 408 ;
Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 Pr. "Wms.
229, 234 ;
Watts V. Ball, 1 Pr. Wms. 108 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 39a, note 165 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 30, 31.
■■ Stokes «. McKibbin, 13 Pa. St. 367.
5 Welch V. Chandler, 13 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 420, 431 ;
Chew r. Commissioners of South-
wark, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160.
« Wells V. Thompson, 13 Ala. 793 ;
s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ;
Webb V. Lexington First Colored
Baptist Church (Ky.), 13 S. W.
Rep. 362 ; s.c. 11 Ky. L. Rep.
936;
Young V. Langbein, 14 N. Y.
Super. Ct. 151 ;
Thornton v. Krepp,37Pa.St. 391 ;
690
CONDITIONAL LIMITATION.
[Book III.
after the condition divesting tlie estate has happened.^
Thus where a woman is given, by will, an absolute estate
in land, subject only to be defeated upon her dying with-
out leaving issue or descendants, her husband is entitled
to curtesy upon her death if a child has been born to them.^
It has been said that an estate by the curtesy attaches to
an equitable conditional fee as in other estates of the wife,
but she must have been seized, and it must appear that
the instrument creating her estate does not clearly indi-
cate an intention to exclude the husband's estate of
curtesy.^
SbO. 863- In fees determinable.— The question as to the
right, of the husband to curtesy in the estate of his wife
as determined by limitation, or by an executory devise, is
one which has given rise to considerable discussion,* and
Odom V. Beverly, 32 S. C. 107 ;
s.c. 10 S. E. Rep. 835.
See : Hatfield v. Sneden, 64 N. Y.
280, 285 ;
Grout V. Townsend, 2 Hill (N. Y.)
554, aff'd 2 Den. (N. Y.) 386 ;
Evans v. Evans, 9 Pa. St. 190 ;
Wright V. Herron, 6 Rich. (S. C.)
Eq. 146 ;
Moody V. King. 2 Bing. 447 ; s.c.
9 Eng. C. L. 475 ;
Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. &
P. 652 ;
Taliaferro v. BurweU, 4 CaU (Va.)
321;
Smith V. Spencer, 5 DeG. M. &
G. 631 ;
2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 241a, But-
ler's note 170 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 33.
Compare : Weller v. Weller, 28
Barb. (N. Y.) 588, 589 ;
Doe r. Hutton, 3 Bos. & P. 653.
South CaroUna doctrine. — It was
questioned in the case of Wright
V. Herron, 6 Rich. (8. C.) Eq.
406, whether a husband is en-
titled to hold, as tenant by the
curtesy, land in which his wife
was seized of a fee conditional ;
but in the recent case of Odom
V. Beverly, 32 S. C. 107 ; s.c. 10
S. E. Rep. 835, the court say
that a grant of land to a daugh-
ter for life, and after her death
to the heirs of her body, creates
a conditional fee in the daugh-
ter ; and after her death, leav-
ing children, her husband is en-
titled to hold the land as tenant
by the curtesy.
' See ; Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala.
793 ; s.c. 48 Am. Dec. 76 ;
Thornton v. Krepp, 37 Pa. St. 391 ;
Crumley V. Deake, 8Baxt. (Tenn.)
361.
Thus where there was a devise to
three sisters, A, B, and C, and
the will contained a provision
that in case of the death of any
one without leaving issue, her
share should go to the others,
and C married and had a child
which died before its mother,
the court held that after C's
death her husband was entitled
to his curtesy.
Crumley v. Deake, 8 Baxt. (Tenn.)
361.
' Webb V. Lexington First Colored
Bap. Church (Ky.), 13 S. W.
Rep. 362 ; s.c. 11 Ky. L. Rep.
926;
Odom V. Beverly, 32 S. C. 107 ;
s.c. 10 S. E. Rep. 835.
» Withers v. Jenkms, 14 S. C. 597.
* Siscossion and criticism. — It is said
in Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y.
280, 284, that this question " has
been the subject of elaborate
discussions in the text-books,
and of criticism upon the case
of Buckworth v. Thirkell, de-
cided by Lord Mausfield, and
reported in 4 Dug. 323 ; s.c. 3
Bos. & P. 625, note ; Collect.
Chap. XVn. § 863.]. DETEEMINABLE FEB.
691
on which the courts are divided. It has been laid down
as a general proposition that " any circumstances which
would have defeated or determined the estate of the wife,
if living, will, of course, put an end to the estate by the
curtesy." ^ The prevailing rule in this country is that if
the estate of the wife is an estate of inheritance upon a
condition or upon limitation, determinable thereby, estates
which take effect and are deterrained according to the
rules of the common law, and limitations over, which
take effect as common-law estates, operate to defeat the
husband's right of curtesy.^ If, however, the estate be in
fee determinable upon the happening of some future
event, with the limitation over, by way of executory de-
vise or shifting use, the happening of the contingency will
not affect the husband's right to curtesy.^
Jur. 332, and upon that of
Moody V. King, 6 Bing. 447 ;
s.c. 9 Eng. C. L. 475, which
fully upholds it after it had been
spoken of as disappropriation
by Lord Alvanlet, in Doe v.
Hutton, 3 Bos. & P. 643, 651.
The discussion has been so full
and complete that it seems im-
possible to throw any additional
fight upon the views and vari-
ous arguments which have
been adduced upon it. * * *
It may be properly added that
the strong objection proposed
to this doctrine by its critics is
to the consequence which they
deem unreasonable, that an es-
tate determined according to
the terms of its creation should
by the incident of curtesy or
dower be prolonged. To this,
it seems to me a fair and com-
plete answer to say, as Lord
Coke says (in Paine's Case,
Coke R., part VIII., Eraser's
ed., p. 312, marg. 36a), in an-
swer to a similar difficulty as to
curtesy after an estate-tail de-
termined by the death of the
wife tenant in tail and of her
issue, ' the husband's estate
shall continue, for it is not de-
rived merely out of the estate
of the wife, but is created by
law,' 'by the privilege and
benefit of the law tacite an-
nexed to the gift.' This pos-
sible continuance of dower or
curtesy as an incident of the
estate created may well be
deemed to have been in the con-
templation of the testatrix, and
is not an unreasonable or un-
natural provision for the possi-
ble husband or wife of one
clothed with a fee-simple not
defeasible, except upon death
without cliildren living. The
only authority in this state in
conflict with this conclusion is
a decision at special term in
Weller v. Weller, 28 Barb. N.
Y. 588 , in a case of dower, which
was put upon the ground of the
criticism in Park on Dower,
upon Lord Mansfield's de-
cision."
' 1 Atk. Conv. 255.
•■' Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y, 380,
385.
■' Northcut V. Whipp, 12 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 65 ;
Hatfield v. Sneden, 54 N. Y. 380,
885;
Grout V. Townsend, 2 HiU (N.
Y.) 554 ;
Thornton v. Knapp, 37 Pa. St.
391;
Evans v. Evans. 9 Pa. St. 190 ;
Wright V. Herron, 6 Rich. (S. C.)
Eq. 406 ;
Moody V. King, 2 Bing. 447 ; s.c.
9 Eng. C. L. 475 ;
Buckworth v. Thirkell, 3 Bos. &
P. 652, note ;
692
ESTATE IN REMAINDER.
[Book III.
Sec. 864. In estate in remainder.— There being no curt-
esy in the wife's remainder expectant upon an estate of
freehold/ the husband of a woman entitled to a remainder
is not so seized during the life of the tenant for life as to
make him tenant by the curtesy initiate,^ and will not be
entitled to curtesy consummate where the wife dies before
the expiration of the life estate, and never had right to
the possession,^ because there can be no seisin in deed or
in law of a vested remainder limited upon a precedent
freehold estate,* but where a life estate and the immediate
reversion meet in the same person, the particular or less
estate is merged in the greater,^ and if such person be a
feme covert, the husband will be entitled to an estate as
tenant by the curtesy.® Thus where the tenant of a par-
ticular estate surrenders to the owner of a vested re-
mainder in tail, who is a married woman, the latter there-
Smith V. Spencer, 6 DeG. M. &
G. 631 ;
2 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 241a, Butler's
note 170 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 33.
See : Ante, § 862.
' See : Ellingsworth v. Cook, 8
Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 643 ;
Jackson ex d. Swartwout v. John-
son, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 74; s.c. 15
Am. Deo. 433, 437 ;
Adaiv V. Lott, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 183 ;
Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. C. C.
363;
De Gray v. Richardson, 3 Atk.
469:
Stoughton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 403.
■ Planters' Bank of Tennessee v.
Davis, 31 Ala. 636 ;
Mackey v. Proctor, 13 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 433 ;
Stewart v. Barclay, 3 Bush (Ky.)
550;
Shores v. Carley, 90 Mass. (8
Allen) 425 ;
Malone v. MoLaurin, 40 Miss.
160, 161 ;
Orford v. Benton, 36 N. H. 395 ;
Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
388 ;
Reed v. Reed, 3 Head (Tenn.) 49 ;
Prater v. Hoorer, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.)
544.
' Planters' Bank v. Davis, 31 Ala.
636;
Todd V. Oviatt, 58 Conn. 178 ; s.c.
7 L. R. A. 693 ;
Mackey v. Proctor, 12 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 433 ;
Adams v. Logan, 6 T. B. Mon.
(Ky.) 176 ;
Webster v. Ellsworth, 147 Mass.
602;
Brooks V. Everett, 95 Mass. (13
Allen) 457 ;
Shores v. Carley, 90 Mass. (8 Allen)
425;
Redus V. Hayden, 43 Miss. 633 ;
Orford v. Benton, 36 N. H. 395 ;
Fiskh 11. Eastman, 5 N. H. 340 ;
Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y.
543;
Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
388;
Adair
183;
Doe V. Rivers, 7 Durnf.
T. R ) 372
" Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. 543 ;
Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
401;
Green v. Putnam, 1 Barb. Ch.
(N. Y.) 500, 506 ;
Re Creiger, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.)
598.
' James v. Morey, 3 Cow. (N.
246 ; s.o. 14 Am. Dec. 475 ;
Roberts v. Jackson, 1 Wend.
Y.) 484 ;
2 Bl. Com. 177.
« Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N.
388;
Pierce v. Hakes, 23 Pa. St.
Har.) 331.
Lott, 8 Hill (N. Y.)
& E. (7
Y.)
(N.
Y.)
Chap. XVII. g 866.] REVERSION AND JOINT TENANCY. 693
by gains such an estate as will entitle her husband to
curtesy, even against the next remainderman.
Sec. 865. in estate in reversion.— Where the wife has a
reversionary interest merely, expectant upon an estate
for life,^ this will not be sufficient to entitle the husband
to an estate by the curtesy, ^ unless the estate for life is a
merely equitable interest,^ or the prior freehold deter-
mines during coverture ; * and this is true even though
the husband is the tenant of the prior freehold,^ but seisin
in law of a reversion by the wife during coverture gives
the husband curtesy in the lands.^
Sec. 866. In lands held injoint tenancy.— At common law,
to entitle the husband to curtesy, the estate of the wife,
whether legal or equitable, must be a legal one, and
must not be one of which the wife was seized or possessed
jointly with any other person or persons.^ But where
the husband and wife hold premises jointly, on the death
of the wife the husband becomes a tenant by the curtesy.^
' An outstanding term of years will
not have that effect.
Wier V. Humphries, 4 Ired. (N.
C.) Eq. 264, 379.
And this is true even if the term
be of great length.
Lessee of Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio
170.
See : De Gray v. Richardson, 3
Atk. 436.
Eeason for the rale. — The reason
for this is because the termor
is not properly possessed of the
land but of the term, the pos-
session of tenant of the land still
remaining in the wife.
Lessee of Lowiy v. Steele, 4 Ohio
170:
3 Bl. Com. 144.
' Jackson v. Johnson, 5 Cow. (N.
Y.) 75 ; s.c. 15 Am. Dec. 433 ;
Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170 ;
Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. C. C.
263.
' Adair v. Lott. 3 Hill (N. Y.) 182.
•• Planters' Bank v. Davis, 31 Ala.
626; „^ ,
Adams v. Logan, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.)
175 '
Shores v. Carley, 80 Mass. (8
Allen) 436;
Maloner. McLaurin,40Miss. 101 ;
Orford v. Benton, 36 N. H. 395 ;
Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y.
543;
Lowry v. Steele, 4 Ohio 170 ;
Hitner t'. Ege, 23 Pa. St. 305 ;
Clure V. Commissioners, 5 Rawle
(Pa.) 160 ;
Doe V. Scuddamore, 3 Bos. & P.
394;
Doe V. Rivers, 7 Durnf. & E. (7
T. R.) 273 ;
Plunket V. Holmes, 1 Lev. 11.
' See : Planters' Bank v. Davis, 81
Ala. 633 ;
Shores v. Carley, 90 Mass.(8 AUfen)
426;
Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 163 ;
Orford v. Benton, 38 N. H. 395 ;
Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y. 543 ;
Robertson v. Stevens, 1 Ired. (N.
C.) Eq. 347 ;
Hitner v. Ege, 23 Pa. St. 305 ;
Doe V. Rivers, 7 Durnf. & E. (7
qi T? \ 272 •
Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. C. C.
363.
« McKee v. Cuttle, 6 Mo. App. 416.
' 1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 30a, 37b ; 3
Id. 183a ;
Litt. §45.
8 Berry v. Hall (Ky.), 118 W. Rep.
474 ; s.c. 11 Ky. L. J. 30.
g94 MERGED ESTATES. [Bcox III.
The reason for the exception is that the possession of the
husband is the possession of the wife, and not an adverse
holding by the husband.^
Sec. 867. Estates in coparcenary.— A man may be ten-
ant by the curtesy of an estate in fee-simple, or in tail,
held in coparcenary, or in common with other persons,
where not required for the payment of debts and the ad-
justing of equitable claims.^
Sec. 868. In merged estates.— We have already seen that
an intervening estate of freehold has the effect to cut off
the husband's right to curtesy.^ But where a life estate
and the immediate reversion meet in the same person, the
particular estate is merged in the greater estate, and if
the two estates unite in a feme covert, her husband is
entitled to a life estate, as tenant by the curtesy.* Thus
where a married woman, who is tenant for life, becomes
also the reversioner in fee under a will, with an inter-
posed contingent remainder,^ her husband will be entitled
to curtesy ; and in Eobertson v. Stevens,^ when a testa-
tor devised his estate to his widow until such time as she
should raise a specified sum of money, and then devised
the entire estate to his daughter, subject to the previous
devise to the widow, the court held the husband of the
daughter entitled to an estate by the curtesy in the de-
vised estate.
Sec. 869. In money when.— The rule in equity is that
money agreed or directed to be laid out in the purchase of
' Berry v. Hall (Ky.), 118 W. Rep. table claims it will be other-
474 ; s.a 11 Ky. L. J. 30 ; wise.
Semmons v. McKay, 5 Barb. (Ky.) Willet v. Brown, 65 Mo. 138 ; s.c.
35. 27 Am. Rep. 365.
» Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. (N. ° See : Ante, §§ 864, 865.
Y.) 43 ; 4 Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
Buchan v. Sumner, 3 Barb. Ch. 388. ■
(N. Y.) 164. See : Doe v. Scudamore, 3 Bos.
See : Shearer v. Shearer, 98 Mass. & P. 394 ;
107 ; Kent v. Hartpoole, 3 Keble 731 ;
Campbell v. Campbell, 30 N. J. Plunket v. Holmes, 1 Leav. 11 ;
Eq. (3 Stew.) 415, 417 ; Boothby v. Vernon, 9 Mod. 147 ;
Uhler V. Semple, 30 N. J. Eq. s.c. 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 738.
(5 C. E. Gr.) 288. = See : Hooker v. Hooker, Cas.
Where land needed to pay partner- Temp. Hardw. 13.
ship debts or in adjusting equi- ^ 1 Ired. (N. C.) Eq. 347.
Chap. XVII. § 870.] INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS. G95
land shall be considered as land to all intents and purposes.
Upon this principle it is held that a man may be tenant
by the curtesy of money agreed or directed to ])e laid out
in the purchase of land.^ Thus where a testator devises
real estate to his daughter, and she marries, has a child,
and dies, previously to a sale of the lands by the execu-
tors, under a power contained in her father's will, the
husband is entitled to the interest of the money arising
from the sale during his life.^ And where lands belong-
ing to the wife, as tenant in common, are by order of
court sold in order to make partition, the husband is en-
titled to curtesy in the money accruing from such sale.^
It was said by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachu-
setts, in the case of Houghton v. Hapgood,* that where
an executor sells the land of a female heir under such
circumstances that she might confirm the sale and take
the money, or avoid it and take the land, and she pre-
ferred the money, her husband was held entitled to the
curtesy out of the money, she having died before it was
paid over ; but where the money derived from a sale of
her land was loaned out by the wife during her life, and
at her death divided equally between the husband and
the children, he was held to be estopped from claiming
curtesy in the land.^
Sec. 8Y0. in incorporeal hereditaments. — At common
law, some incorporeal hereditaments, such as advowsons,
tithes, commons, and rents, are liable to curtesy ; advow-
> Green v. Green, 1 Ohio 535 ; Rundle v. Allison, 34 N. Y. 180,
Clapper v. Livergood, 5 Watts 184
(Pa.) 115 : Gillet
Davis V. Mason, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 397
503, 508 ; bk. 7 L. ed. 24 ; Duffy
Fletcher v. Ashburner, 1 Bro. C. 593 ;
C 497 499 ■ White v. Parker, 8 Barb. (N. Y.)
Dod'son 'v. Hay, 3 Bro. C. C. 48, 73 ;
404 ; Hasler v. Easier, 1 Bradf . (N. Y.)
Sweet'apple v. Bindon, 2 Vern. 253;
t'. Van Rensselaer, 15 N. Y.
V. Duncan, 32 Barb. (N. Y.)
536 ;
Brown v. Rickets, 4 John. Ch.
3 Brest. Abst. 381. (N. Y.) 30o ;
2 Dunscomb v Dunscomb, 1 John. In re Thorp,Davies (3 Ware) 293 ;
Ch (N Y.) 508 ; s.c. 7 Am. Piatt v. OUver, 2 MoL. C. C. 313.
Deo. 504. ' Clepper v. Livergood, 5 Watts
See : Boynton v. Dyer, 35 Mass. (Pa.) 115.
fl8Pick)6- 1 30 Mass. (13 Pick.) 154.
King V. Talbot, 40 N. Y. 76, 95 ; ' Johnson v. Fritz, 44 Pa. St. 449.
QQQ PROPERTY NOT SUBJECT TO. [Book III.
sons and tithes have been abolished in this country if ever
adopted. The doctrine respecting the liability of rents to
curtesy will be hereafter fully treated under that title.
Section VII.-
—What Peopeety not Sttbject
Sbc.
871.
Introduction.
Sec.
872.
Estates not of inheritance.
Sec.
873.
Life estates.
Sec.
874.
Separate estate wlien.
Sec.
875.
Same— Will of grantor.
Sec.
876.
Same— With reservation.
Sec.
877.
Same— Settlement by husband.
Sec.
878.
Estates held as trustee.
Sec.
879.
Pre-emption claim.
Sec.
880.
Land £issigned for dower.
Sec.
881.
Estates held in joint tenancy.
Sec.
882.
Determinable fees.
Sec.
883.
In proceeds of land.
Sec.
884.
Lands of former husband.
Sec.
885.
Lands sold before marriage.
Sec.
886.
Adverse possession and bar of s
Sec.
887.
In lands mortgaged to wife.
Sec.
888.
In remainder and reversion.
Section 8T1. introduction.— Having stated the different
kinds of property which are liable to curtesy, it will now
be necessary to inquire what things are not subject to
this right. We have already seen that the estate of the
wife, to entitle the husband to curtesy, must be an estate
of inheritance in possession ; ^ consequently whether the
husband is entitled to hold as tenant by the curtesy or
not must be determined by the estate of which the wife
was seized during coverture.^
Sec 872. Estates not of inheritance.— An estate by the
curtesy being regarded as a continuation of the wife's
inheritance,^ it follows that an estate in lands less than
an estate of inheritance will not be subject to curtesy ;
for the reason that it is absolutely necessary that the
moment the husband takes as tenant by the curtesy, the
inheritance should descend from the wife to her child or
children.*
' See : Ante, § 723, et seq. ■> See : Sumner v. Partridge, 2 Atk.
' Haynes v. Bourne, 43 Vt. 686. 47 ;
1 See : Ante, § 764.
Chap. XVII. § 874.] LIFE ESTATE— SEPARATE ESTATE. G97
Sec. 873. Life estates.— Life estates being estates of
freehold and not of inheritance/ and the rule being that
a tenancy by the curtesy must come out of the inherit-
ance and not out of the freehold, ^ it necessarily follows
that there cannot be an estate by the curtesy in a life
estate.^ Thus it has been said that an estate settled on a
feme covert for life, with a power of appointment at her
death in fee, does not give to her such an estate as will
entitle her husband to curtesy on her failure to appoint ; *
and that a devise or conveyance of an estate to a woman
and the " heirs of her body " does not vest in her such an
estate as will entitle the husband to curtesy.^
Sec. 874. Separate estate when.— We have already seen
that both by common law ® and under statute " a husband
is entitled to an estate by the curtesy in the separate
estate of his wife, unless excluded therefrom by express
words. But a husband cannot be tenant by the curtesy
of real estate conveyed to the wife for her sole and sepa-
rate use, with power of disposal, after she has disposed of
it by will duly executed and attested.^ And some courts
hold that where real estate is limited to the use of a
woman, independently of her husband, and to be disposed
Roberts v. Dixwell, 1 Atk. 607 ; Sumner v. Partridge, 3 Atk.
Boothby v. Vernon, 9 Mod. 147 ; 47 ;
Barker v. Barker, 2 Sim. 249. Barker v. Barker, 2 Sim. 349.
' See : Ante, § 557, et seq. Will of wife — Gives no interest when.
2 See : Sumner v. Partridge, 2 Atk. —In Lamb v. Lamb, 14 N. Y.
47 ; Supp. 206 ; s.o. 37 N. Y. St. Rep.
Barker v. Barker, 3 Sim. 249. 699, it is said that a husband is
2 Phillips V. La Forge, 89 Mo. 72 ; not entitled by the will of his
s.c. 1 S. W. Rep. 220 ; 4 West. wife in his favor to any interest
Rep. 683 ; in land in which a life inter-
Burris «. Page, 12 Mo. 359 ; est only was devised to her by
Graves v. Trueblood, 96 N. C. her father, even though the fee
495. went to tlie latter's heirs at
See : Lamb v. Lamb, 14 N. Y. law.
Supp. 206 ; s.o. 37 N. Y. St. R. " See : Ante, § 842.
699 f ' See : Ante, § 843.
Haynes v. Bourne, 42 Vt. 686 ; » Pool v. Blakie, 53 III. 495, 500.
Sumner v Partridge, 3 Atk. 47 ; It is said in the case of Graves v.
Barker V. Barker, 3 Sim. 249. Trueblood, 96 N. C. 495, that
* Graves v. Trueblood, 96 N. C. an estate settled on a feme
495 covert for life, with a power of
Compare : Ante, § 844. appointment at her death in fee,
^ Burris v. Page, 13 Mo. 358 ; does not give her such an estate
Lamb v. Lamb, 14 N. Y. Supp. as will entitle the husband to
306 • B.C. 37 N. Y. St. R. 699 ; curtesy if she faUs to appoint.
60S RESERVATION DEFEATS CURTESY. IBOOK III.
of by deed or will as she may think fit, her husband can-
not be tenant by the curtesy.^
Sec. 875. Same— Will of grantor.— We have already seen
that where the manifest intention of the grantor is to cut off
the husband's estate by the curtesy, he will be excluded ; ^
consequently where the language of a will clearly showed
it to be the intention of the testator that his daughter's
husband should not acquire an estate by curtesy in
land devised to her, such intention will prevail.^ Thus it
is said, in the case of Haight v. Hall,* that a deed to a mar-
ried woman, "to her sole and separate use, and free from
the interference or control of her said husband, or any
husband, and her heirs and assigns, to her and their only
proper use and benefit forever," must be held to defeat a
right to curtesy in the premises on the grantee's death,
where, by the statutes of the state, a married woman
could hold real estate as if unmarried, as the restriction
in the grant can have no force whatever given to it un-
less the intention was to exclude the estate by the curtesy.
Sec. 876. Same— With reservation in.— A reservation in
the conveyance of lands to a married woman may operate
to defeat the husband's right to curtesy. Thus where
lands are conveyed during coverture to the separate use
of the wife in fee, and the deed reserves a life estate to the
grantor, the husband does not, on the death of the wife,
leaving the grantor, become tenant by the curtesy.^ And
it is said by the Supreme Court of Kentucky, in the case
of Yankeyy. Sweeney,® that where a father conveys land
to his daughter in consideration of love and affection, and
also of an agreement by the daughter to support him and
his wife during their lives, reserving a lien to secure such
support, he is entitled, upon the death of the daughter
leaving her husband, to the exclusive use and control of
' See : Beecher v. Hicks, 5 Lea " Monroe v. Van Meter, 100 111.
(Tenn.) 207 ; 347.
Burris v. Page, 12 Me. 358 ; See : Ante, § 845, and authorities
Haight V. Hall, 74 Wis. 152 ; s.c. cited.
42 N. W. Rep. 109 ; 3 L. A. R. ' 74 Wis. 152 ; s.c. 42 N. W. Rep.
,857 ; 109 ; 3 L. R. A. 857.
Moore v. Webster, L. R. 3 Eq. » Planters' Bank v. Davis, 31 Ala.
267. 626
■ See : Ante, § 845. <■ 85 Ky. 55 ; s.c. 2 S. W. Rep. 559.
Oh.vp. XVII. §§ 877, 878.] ESTATES HELD AS TRUSTEE. G99
the land during his life, and also to so much of the land
itself as is necessary to support him and his wife, as
against the husband's claim for curtesy, it appearing that
the husband and father are estranged and that the es-
trangement is likely to continue.
Sec. 877. Same — Settlement by husband. —We have
already seen that the general rule is that where a hus-
band settles lands upon his wife for her sole and separate
use, by conveying them to a trustee to hold for her bene-
fit, or that of her and her heirs, that he will be entitled
to curtesy therein. ^ A contrary doctrine, however, pre-
vails in Nebraska, 2 Pennsylvania,^ Virginia,* and per-
haps elsewhere, but the general rule^ has the better
reason as well as the weight of decision.
Sec. 878. Estates held as trustee.— The mere possession
of a legal estate, of which the \vife maybe seized as trus-
tee, will not suffice to make the husband tenant by the
curtesy, though she has the beneficial interest in the re-
version ; ^ and this is true, whether the trust be express
or implied by law from the wife's contract entered into
prior to her marriage.'^ Therefore where a woman held
a ground rent, in fee, in trust for another during his life,
and she afterwards married and died, and then the cestui
1 See : Ante, § 851. Stokes v. McKibbin, 13 Pa. St.
« In the case of McCulIoch v. Val- 267 ;
entine, 24 Neb. 215 ; s.o. 38 N. Bennet v. Davis, 2 Pr. Wms. 316.
W. Rep. 854, where the share » Rigler v. Cloud, 14 Pa. St. 361 ;
of a daughter was bequeathed Stokes v. McKibbin, 13 Pa. St.
to trustees for her benefit and 267 ;
her children, her husband to Cochran v. O'Hern, 4 Watts & S.
have no control over the same (Pa.) 95 ; s.c. 39 Am. Deo. 60.
whatever ; and the habendum ■* Dugger v. Dugger, 84 Va. 130 ;
clause of a deed of land pur- s.c. 4 S. E. Rep. 171 ;
chased therewith was: "To Irvine t'. Greever, 32 Graft. (Va.)
have and to hold said real es- 411, 419 ;
tate for the sole and separate Sayers v. Wall, 26 Gratt. (Va.)
use of said daughter for life, 354.
and thereafter for her chil- ' See : Ante, §§ 851-854.
dren," with the further clause " Chew v. Commissioners of South-
that the husband might occupy wark, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 160.
and control it for her during See : Welch v. Chambers, 13 B.
her life the court held that no Mon. (Ky.) 430, 431 ;
right of curtesy existed upon Sentill v. Robeson, 2 Jones (N. C.)
the wife's death. -Eq- 510.
PiHno- • Pool V. Blakie, 53 III. ' Welch v. Chambers, 13 B. Mon.
495;' (Ky.) 420, 431.
700 PRE-EMPTION CLAIM AND DOWER. [Book III.
que trust died, the husband was held not to be entitled to
the rent, as such tenant.^
Sec. 879. Pre-emption claim.— Until the title to public
lands has been duly transferred as provided by law, the
property therein remains in the government ; for this
reason a husband has been held not to be entitled to
curtesy in the pre-emption rights of his wife in public
lands of the United States.^
Sec. 880. Land assigned for dower.— A man cannot be
tenant by the curtesy of lands which are assigned to a
woman for her dower . The reason for this rule will be
given in the next title. ^ Thus where a woman on whom
lands descend endows her mother, afterwards marries, has
issue, and dies in the lifetime of her mother, her husband
will not be entitled to an estate by the curtesy in those
lands whereof the mother was endowed, because the
daughter's seisin was defeated by the endowment.*
Sec. 881. Estates held in joint tenancy. — We have already
seen that at common law, to entitle a husband to an estate
by the curtesy, whether the wife's estate be a legal or an
equitable one, there must be a several seisin ;^ conse-
quently estates in fee or in tail which are held in joint
tenancy are not subject to curtesy. The reason for this
rule will be given in that title.^
Sec. 882. Determinable fees.— We have already seen that
the courts are divided in opinion in regard to the right of
a husband to an estate by the curtesy in a determinable
fee. Any further discussion not being desirable, reference
is hereby made to the previous discussion and authorities.^
1 Chew V. Commissioners of South- the husband and wife hold
o ,. '^^^^' 5 Eawle (Pa.) 160. premises jointly. On the death
McDamel v. Grace, 15 Ark. 465. of the wife the husband be-
Stewart v. Barclay, 3 Bush (Ky.) comes a tenant by the curtesy,
^^^ ' and no right of action exists in
Reed v. Reed, 3 Head (Tenn. ) 491 ; the children to recover the land
, T. ^-P- '^5 Am. Dec. 777. until the estate by curtesy ter-
' Reed v. Reed, 3 Head (Tenn.) 491; minates.
s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 777. Berry v. Hall, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 80;
' See : Ante, § 866. s.c. 11 S. W. Rep. 474.
Exception to the rule.— The single ' See : Ante, % 863.
exception to this rule is where
Chap. XVII. §§ 883-885.] PROCEEDS OF LAND. 70I
Sec. 883. In proceeds of land.— We have already seen
that under certain conditions money is to be regarded as
land, and a husband will be entitled to curtesy therein, ^
such as where the estate is sold by order of court on par-
tition proceedings ; ^ but if the husband voluntarily con-
veys his interest in the curtesy, together with the title
to the estate, and invests the proceeds of such sale in other
lands and takes the title thereto in his children's name or
in his own as guardian, he will not be entitled to have
curtesy in the last purchased tract, for the reason that his
wife never was seized thereof.^
Sec. 884. Lands of former husband.— We have already
seen that the general rule is that a husband will be en-
titled to curtesy in so much of the estate of a former hus-
band of his wife or his child by her may by possibility
inherit ; * but to this general rule there are some excep-
tions, as under the Michigan^ and Ohio^ statutes. And
it has been held that where a husband and wife convey
the land of the wife, and the husband agrees to invest
the proceeds in land for the use of the children of the
wife by a former husband, the husband has no curtesy
in the land thus purchased, and if, in violation of his
agreement, he takes the title to himself, a court of equity
will enforce the trust in favor of his step-children, and
will require him to account for rents and profits, even
during the lifetime of the wife.'^
Sec. 885. Lands sold before marriage.— A husband does not
become tenant by the curtesy of lands of his wife sold prior
to marriage, where the full consideration was paid and pos-
session given, but no deed passed.^ And where a woman,
who occupied lands as tenant in tail, previous to her mar-
riage, xconveyed them, by lease and re-lease, to a trustee, to
the use of her husband for life, remainder to herself for
' See : Ante, % 869. ° See : Tilden i'. Barker, 40 Ohio St.
^Clepper v. Livergood, 5 Watts 411; ,^ ^ , „_ ^, . _,,
(Pa.) 115. Denny v. MoCabe, 35 Ohio St.
2 Boery v. Roijerts, 48 Ark. 17 ; s.c. 576. „„ „, ^ ,
3 Am. St. Rep. 311 ; 3 S. W. ' Carpenter v. Davis, 73 111. 14.
Rep 186 ' Welch v. Chandler, 13 B. Men.
4 See : Ante,'^ 756, 846. (Ky.) 430.
5 See : Hathon v. Lyon, 3 Mich. 93.
Y02
LANDS MORTGAGED TO WIFE. [Book III.
life, remainder to the first and other sons of the marriage,
and the woman died in the lifetime of the husband, it
was held that the husband did not take any estate under
the settlement, because it was not competent for the wife
to pass the estate by such a conveyance, to the prejudice
of her issue, after her death, and that he did not take
any estate by the curtesy ; because the instant the mar-
riage took effect, the estate was vested in the husband
during the joint lives of himself and his wife ; conse-
quently there never was one moment during the covert-
ure when the wife was seized of an estate-tail in posses-
sion ; which was necessary, in order to make the husband
tenant by the curtesy.^
Sec. 886. Adverse possession and bar of statute.— Where
coverture began and ended during adverse possession of
the estate, the husband will not be entitled to an estate
therein by the curtesy,^ unless indeed actual seisin during
coverture was prevented by bodily fear.^ And where the
joint right of husband and wife is barred by the statute
of limitations, the husband's interest is thereby extin-
guished, and should he survive his wife, he has no right-
to, or interest in, her real estate as tenant by the curtesy.*
Sec. 887. in lands mortgaged to wife.— The husband will
not be entitled to an estate by the curtesy in lands held
by his wife as mortgagee thereof, unless the equity of -re-
demption has been barred by the statute of limitations.^
Sec. 888. In remainder and reversion.— The seisin of the
wife, whether actual or potential, must be a present one
to entitle the husband to curtesy ; consequently the com-
mon-law rule was that where a wife had no seisin of re-
mainder in fee, expectant upon a life estate, and died
before the determination of the life estate, there could be
no tenancy by the curtesy of such remainder or reversion,
1 1 Cruise Real Prop. (4th ed.) 165, See : Ante, § 736.
166 ; "' Weisinger v. Murphy, 2 Head
Doe V. Rivers, 7 Durnf. & E. (7 (Tenn.) 674.
T. R.) 276. = Chaplin v. Chaplin, 3 Pr. Wms.
' Baker v. Oakwood, 49 Hun (N. Y.) 334 ;
416. 4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 33 ;
2 Lesseeof Barr V. GaUoway, 1 McL. 7 Vin. Abr. 156, pi. 22.
O. C. 476.
Chap. XVn. § 888.] MERGER OF ESTATES.
T03
unless the particular estate be ended during the coverture,
and this rule obtains in this country, where it has not
been changed by statute.-^ We have already seen that
where an outstanding life estate and the immediate re-
version meet in the same person, the particular estate is
merged in the greater ; and if the two estates meet in a
feme covert, her husband- will be entitled to a life estate
as tenant by the curtesy.^
Planters' Bank v. Davis, 31 Ala.
626;
Todd V. Oviatt, 58 Conn. 178 ;
B.C. 7 L. R. A. 693 ;
Mackey v. Proctor, 13 B. Mon.
(Ky.) 433 ;
Adams v. Logan, 6 T. B. Mon.
(Ky.) 176 ;
Stewart v. Barclay, 2 Bush (Ky.)
550;
Webster v. Ellsworth, 147 Mass.
603 ; s.c. 18 N. E. Rep. 569 ;
Brooks V. Everetts, 95 Mass. (13
Allen) 575 ;
Shores v. Carley, 90 Mass. (8
Allen) 425 ;
Blood V. Blood, 40 Mass. (23 Pick.)
80;
Eldredge v. Forrestal, 7 Mass.
253;
Redus V. Hayden, 43 Miss. 633 ;
Malone v. McLaurin, 40 Miss. 161 ;
s.c. 90 Am. Dec. 320 ;
Orford v. Benton, 36 N. H. 395 ;
Fiske V. Eastman, 5 N. H. 240 ;
Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y.
549;
Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
401;
Green v. Putnam, 1 Barb. Ch.
(N. Y.) 506 ;
Re Creiger, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.)
598 ;
Adair V. Lott, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 182 ;
EUingsworth v. Cook, 8 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 643 ; „ . ^^
Dunham v. Osburn, 1 Paige Ch.
(N. Y.) 634 ;
Weir V. Humphries, 4 Ired. (N. C.)
Eq. 397 ; ^ ,^t r. n
Gentry?;. Wahstaflf, 3 Dev. (N. C.)
270 •
"Watkins v. Thornton, 11 Ohio St.
Hitner v. Ege, 23 Pa. St 305 ;
Shoemaker v. Walker, 2 Serg. &
T> /T>o 1 544 *
Reed w. Reed, 3 Head (Tenn.) 491 ;
s.c. 75 Am. Dec. 777 ;
Young w. McIntyi-e,6W. N.C. 253;
Doe V. Rivers, 7 Durnf. & E. (7
T. R.) 273 ;
Stoddard v. Gibbs, 1 Sumn. C. C.
363;
De Gray v. Richardson, ■ 3 Atk.
467;
Stoughton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 403 ;
1 Co. Litt. (19th ed.) 29a ;
3 Bl. Com. 127 ;
4 Kent Com. (13th ed.) 29, 30.
See : Ante, § 64.
Thus where a daughter, a feme
covert, dies in her mother's life-
time, her husband is not entitled
to curtesy, in the third assigned
as dower, even after termina-
tion of the widow's life estate.
Ferguson v. Tweedy, 43 N. Y.
549;
Tayloe v. Gould, 10 Barb. (N. Y.)
401;
Re Creiger, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.)
598;
Green v. Putnam, 1 Barb. Ch. (N.
Y.) 506.
The court say, in Malone v. Mc-
Laurin, 40 Miss. 161; B.C. 90 Am.
Dec. 320, that " aman shall not
be tenant by the curtesy of a
remainder or reversion " (2 Bl.
Com. 127). But this proposition
is restricted by the later autlior-
ities to cases of remainders or
reversions expectant upon es-
tates of freehold ; and upon a
reversion expectant upon an
estate for years, the right of
curtesy and dower both accrue,
for the reason that the posses-
sion of the tenant for years
constitutes a legal seisin of the
freehold in reversion.
Stoughton V. Leigh, 1 Taunt. 410;
De Gray v. Richardson, 3 Atk.
470;
Goodlittle v. Newman, 3 Wils.
521
2 See : Ante, § 864.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11