Case ID: sc-eq_2/html/0052-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Present, Chancellors Rutledge, Bttk.ee and Marshall.]
    Nicholas Power, vs. Dr. James Lynah, Executor of Thomas Eustace.
    JUNE, 1801.
    The court decreed that the identity of a devisee and legatee, coming from abroad, was sufficiently proved by evidence and circumstan. Ces. But the legatee should give security that the estate should be returned at his d.eath, if the limitation over in the will, on the event of his dying without leaving any heirs, should be hereafter decreed to boa good limitation.
    THE complainant filed a bill, charging that the late Thomas Eustace made and executed his last will and testament, whereby he devised an4 bequeathed his real and personal estate to his wife for life j and on her death, to his two brothers John and Alexander Eustace, and their heirs and assigns ; but if they should die without leaving any heirs to enjoy the property, then to his friend Nichor las Power, of Waterford, in Ireland. If the said brothers, and N. Power should die without leaving any heirs, or their .heirs should not be heard of in ten. years, after the death of his wife, the testator directed the property to be sold, and the proceeds distributed among the poor of Charleston. He appointed Dr. James Lynah sole executor, who, on his death, qualified and proved the will as executor, and possessed himself of the estate. The widow has been dead near ten years ; and though great pains have been taken by complainant, to fmd out the brothers of the testator, they have never appeared, and no person has produced any proofs of relationship to them,
    
      The bill claims tbe estate, and an account thereof from the executor.
    The executor admitted the will, and that he had possessed himself of the estate, and was ready to account.— He admitted that no persons had appeared who answered to the t' stator’s brothers, though proper enquiries had been made for them and their heirs.
    He knows nothing of the complainant N. Power, and prays he may be put to the proof of his identity.
    At the hearing, the only question made was, as to the identicy of .Nicholas Power.
    M. Power, Mr. Phelon & M. Corbett, proved that they knew Nicholas Power well. He had been an innkeeper in Waterford for many years.
   The court delivered its decree as follows :

From the testimony which has been given in this case by M. Power, Corbett & Phelon, the court is of that the identity of the complainant’s being the person to whom the testator Eustace intended to bequeath his estate after the death of his wife and brothers, as mentioned in his will, is fully proved, as far as circumstances and strong presumptive evidence can go, and the nature of the case will admit.

It is therefore decreed that the estate shall be delivered up to him by the defendant, upon complainant’s giving security for its being returned at his death, if the limitation over in the will, on the event of his dying without leaving any heirs, should be hereafter decreed to be a good one ; that question not having been now agitated.