Case ID: del_3/html/0482-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Court\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lessee of ISAAC CONOWAY and Nancy his wife, devisee of EDWARD SHORT vs. HANNAH PIPER, tenant.
    A general devise without words of limitation, carries only a life estate.
    There must be some words in the will, however untechnieal, to control the rule of law that a mere general gift of lands is but a life estate.
    Ejectment. Case stated.
    Edward Short being seized of the land in dispute in fee, made his will and devised as follows: — 1st. I give to my son Wingate Short “$24 of my estate and no more.” 2d. To Hannah Piper, my daugh ter, and Naomi West my negro Jinn, and no more of my estate. 3d.| My will and desire is, that my son Isaac Short, should have my ne' gro Frank, and “to him and his brother John Short should have fou: hundred acres and three to be equitably divided between the agreeably to men, only I wish my son John Short to have my housi and orchard where I now live. 4th. To my son Leonard Short, al the lands bought of John Johnson, &c., in Dagsborough hundred 5th. My desire is, that after all the legacies are paid, that the re mainder of my estate should be equally divided between Isaac an Leonard and John and Nancy, to them and their heirs.”
    The defendant claimed under Isaac Short, who conveyed to He; all his interest in the land. She held adversely to the others.
    The questions were — 1st. Whether the devise in the third an fourth clauses to Isaac and John Short, as tenants in common, is devise in fee or only for life. 2d. What share, if any, is the plai tiff’s lessor entitled to.
    
      Ridgely, for plaintiffs contended
    1st. That the devise to Isaa Leonard and John Short, was a devise to them for life only, (j Blac. Rey. 1045, Roe vs. Bolton; 2 Vern. 388; 14 Ves. 384; Cro. Ca: 368; 3 Bin. 476; Cro.Eliz. 330; Cowp. 235; 2 Wm. Blac. 1045; Cowj^ 657; 6 Cruise 326-7.) 2d. The residuary devise carries the reversii in fee to Isaac, Leonard, John and Nancy Short as tenants in commo (Cowp. 299, 308, Hogan vs. Jackson; 3 Aik. 486; 1 Luiw. 755; Tal\ Ca. 157, 284; 3 P. Wins. 294; 2 ib. 523; 3 Mod. 137; 2 Vern. 161; Term Rep. 411, Holdfast vs. Martin; 2 T. Rep. 656; 3 Yeatcs 187; Burr. Rep. 2639; 2 Powell on Devises, pt. 2, p. 158, ózc., 414.)
    
    
      Brincldoe, for defendant,
    cited 12 Mod. 596, Shaw vs. Bull; Cruise’s Dig. 244; 1 II. Blac. 1, Tinwell vs. Perkins; 2 Atk. 102.
   The Court

held that the first devise was a life estate in Isaac, Joi and Leonard Short; and that the residuary clause carried the reversion in fee to Isaac, Leonard, John and Nancy Short, as to the lands so devised to Isaac, John and Leonard; and the fee in any other land of the devisor.

Ridgely, for plaintiff.

Rrinckloe, for defendant.

Judgment for plaintiff for one-fourth part.