Page images
PDF
EPUB

Baldwin v. Taylor.

Burdette, following Clayton v. Lowe and Gee v. Manchester and the English cases in the same line, notwithstanding the decision of the lords. The later cases are collected in Judge Titsworth's brief. I desire to call attention, particularly, to but one-Olivant v. Wright, L. R. (1 Ch. Dir.), decided in 1875, the year following O'Mahony v. Burdette, by four of England's greatest judges-James, Mellish, Bramwell and Brett-sitting in the court of appeal. There, as here, was an estate for life, and afterward a devise and bequest of both personalty and realty as follows:

"And after his decease, to be divided amongst my five children, share and share alike; and if any of my children shall die without issue, then that child or children's share shall be divided, share and share alike, among the children then living; but if any of my children should die leaving issue, then that child (if only one) shall take its parent's share, and if more than one, to be equally divided among them, share and share alike."

It will be observed that the gift itself is there, as here, a mere direction to divide, without any words of perpetuity; yet all the judges agreed that it imported an absolute estate. Again, there, as here, the provision is for the contingency of "the death under all possible circumstances "-i. e., both with or without issue. The case is as near a parallel to that before the court as often occurs, and the four judges who heard it on appeal agreed, each delivering judgment, in declaring that the children of testator living at the death of the tenant for life, took an absolute interest in their respective shares in the estate of the testator.

PER CURIAM.

This decree unanimously affirmed for the reasons given by the chancellor.

Osborn v. Havens.

JOHN E. OSBORN et al, appellants,

ย.

CHARLES C. HAVENS et al., respondents.

Mr. Wm. H. Vredenburgh, for appellants.

Mr. Charles Haight, for respondents.

On appeal from a decree of the chancellor, whose opinion is reported in Havens v. Osborn, 9 Stew. Eq. 426.

PER CURIAM.

This decree unanimously affirmed for the reasons given by the chancellor.

ALBERT C. HEULINGS, appellant,

v.

ANNA M. RIEHLE, respondent.

Mr. Fred. Voorhees and Mr. Barker Gummere, for appellant.

Mr. S. K. Robbins, for respondent.

On appeal from a decree of the chancellor, whose opinion is reported in Riehle v. Heulings, 11 Stew. Eq. 20.

PER CURIAM.

This decree unanimously affirmed for the reasons given by the chancellor.

Smith v. Mutual Loan Association.

CHARLES H. SMITH, appellant,

V.

THE MUTUAL LOAN, SAVINGS AND BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF HADDONFIELD, N. J., respondent.

Mr. John W. Westcott, for appellant.

Mr. David J. Pancoast, for respondent.

On appeal from a decree of the chancellor, whose opinion is reported in Mutual Loan Association v. Elwell, 11 Stew. Eq. 18.

PER CURIAM.

This decree unanimously affirmed for the reasons given by the chancellor.

HENRY H. VOORHIS et al., appellants,

ย.

MINNA DE KAY et al., respondents.

Mr. Charles H. Voorhis, for appellants.

Mr. John Linn, for respondents.

On appeal from a part of the decree of the chancellor (not disposed of by the appeal reported in Hackensack Water Co. v. De Kay, 9 Stew. Eq. 548), whose opinion is reported in De Kay v. Voorhis, 9 Stew. Eq. 37.

PER CURIAM.

This decree affirmed for the reasons given by the chancellor.

Van Winkle v. Isham.

For affirmance-CHIEF-JUSTICE, DEPUE, KNAPP, MAGIE, PARKER, REED, SCUDDER, VAN SYCKEL, BROWN, PATERSON, WHITAKER-11.

For reversal-DIXON-1.

MATTHEW A. VAN WINKLE, assignee &c., appellant,

บ.

CHARLES H. ISHAM et al., executors, respondents.

Messrs. Collins & Corbin, for appellant.

Mr. S. H. Little, for C. H. Isham, respondent.

On appeal from a decree of the chancellor, whose opinion is reported in Van Winkle v. Williams, 11 Stew. Eq. 105.

PER CURIAM.

This decree unanimously affirmed for the reasons given by the chancellor.

AARON HAYS, appellant,

V.

CHARLES STINES, respondent.

Mr. John Schomp, for appellant.

Mr. George O. Vanderbilt, for respondent.

On appeal from a decree of the chancellor, whose opinion is reported in Stines v. Hays, 9 Stew. Eq. 364.

PER CURIAM.

This decree unanimously affirmed for the reasons given by the chancellor.

[blocks in formation]

In 1861, the complainant conveyed certain lands to Quigleys, to-
gether with a plot twenty feet square, in an adjoining tract. In
1873, he conveyed all the adjoining tract to Mrs. Penrose, with-
out excepting the said plot. In 1879, Mrs. Penrose, who had
exclusive possession of the whole tract conveyed to her, was
evicted by the Quigleys, who had, meanwhile, obtained a riparian
title to the whole tract between complainant's original lands and
the ocean. In 1881, Mrs. Penrose died, and in 1882, her executor
brought an action at law against complainant for breach of the
covenant of warranty in her deed. Thereupon, complainant filed
his bill to enjoin that action, on the ground of mistake in Mrs.
Penrose's deed, and asking that her deed be reformed, by insert-
ing therein an exception of the said plot —Held, that the appli-
cation should be denied, on the ground that there was no proof
that the mistake was mutual, and that, even if there had been
proved a promise made to complainant by Mrs. Penrose's attor
ney, at the time her deed was executed, to insert an exception of
said plot, in her deed, such promise could not be deemed hers, so
as to entitle complainant to the relief sought. Morris v. Penrose, 629
See PLEADING, 2.

Adminstrators.

See EXECUTORS.

Aliens.

Complainant's title was derived under the will of a northern man
who lived and died in the south during the war of the rebellion.
He was loyal and took the oath of allegiance. The devisee under
whom the complainants claim was the wife of an officer of the
confederate navy. She, too, took the oath of allegiance and
there is no proof that she was not loyal.—Held, that there was
no ground for staying the proceedings because of the alleged
invalidity of the complainant's title on the score of its having
been derived from alien enemies. Smith v. Gaines,

Alimony.

See DIVORCE, 4.

Amendments.

See PRACTICE, 3.

65

« PreviousContinue »