Case ID: h-j_3/html/0287-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stewart's Lessee vs. Evans.
    Apreaé from Somerset, County Court. Ejectment for part of two tracts of land, one called BashieH’s Lott, and the other Steven’s Folly. The case was admitted to be this: Col. John Stewart was actually seized, in fee simple, of the lands mentioned in the declaration, and also of other lands of equal value with those mentioned in the declaration; and being so seized thereof, on the 12th of June 1794, died inleolate, leaving two children, to wit, Jane Gale, a daughter, and Alexander Stewart, a son, his ..heirs at law under the acts of descents of this state; to whom the said lands descended. That a division and partition of the said lands were made according to law, between Jane Gale and Alexander Stewart, and those lands mentioned in the declaration were allotted to Jane Gale, as her part of her father’s real estate, to hold iu fee simple and in severalty, and into which she entered and was actually seized thereof in fee simple, and in severalty; and being so seized, in November 1797, died intestate, and without issue, leaving the said Alexander Stewart, her only brother and heir at law, to whom from her the said lands, in the declaration mentioned, descended. Alexander Stewart, after the death ot Jane Gale, entered into the lands so allotted to Jane, and as brother and heir at law ot Jane, was actually seized thereof iu fee simple: and being so seized, on the 22d of June 1810, died intestate, and without issue, or father, mother, brothers or sisters, or descendants from either, and leaving the follow» íug pe¡t..í0n8í his relations, living at the time of his death-, > • • viz. John Stewart, the lessor of the plaintiff, who is the 'eldest son of William Stewart, deceased, who was the eldest brother of Col. John Stewart, and Who was the eldest and only uncle of Alexander Stewart, and which William Stewart died before the said Alexander. Alex• under Stewart also left other relations living at his death, viz. other children, and grandchildren of the said William Stewart, and children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, of sisters of tiie aforesaid John Stewart.
    
    
      > J is seized of hinds, died ir.testaf< in Vi^4, k’iiving A, a son, ami J, a daughter, be* twot n whom a division and partition wpro in.ule • according to law. In 1707 J died intestine, and without issue, havin'* • A, her brother*, her Indi* at law. In A died intestate, and with* out issue, or father, mother, brother»' or sister*», or descendants from, either, but leaving' S, the elcí< st son of W, deceased, v 1: o was the eldest brother of .! S, and who was the eldest and only uncle of A, ami winch W di ’d before A. Also other children, and grandchildren of W,and *ho children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of sisters of J S-Held, that the land» which descended from J to her brother A. ou his demlnní estate, and without issue, were embraced by the act of 17o6, ch• 45, to direct des* cents, and v-eve to descend under the providuiis ot that
    
      The question submitted to the court on these facts was, whether or not John Stewart, the lessor of the plaintiff, being the oldest son of William Stewart, who was the oldest brother of Col. John Stewart, and oldest and only uncle of Alexander Stewart, was not entitled, as heir at common law, to the lands in question? Or, whether the said lands descended according to the act of assembly to direct descents? The county court gave judgment for th« defendant, and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. X and Buchanan, Nicholson, and Johnson, J.
    
      Martin, Bullitt and Whittington, for the Appellant»'
    The only question is, whether the land, into which Alexander Stewart entered on the death of his sister, Jane Gale, and which descended from her to him, was operated oft by the act to direct descents, 1786, ch. 45; if it was not. then Ihe lessor of the plaintiff, as the eldest son of William Stewart, who was the eldest brother of Col. John Stewart, is entitled to the whole of Jane Gale’s part; but; if it is operated upon by that act, then others must come in for a part. There would be no doubt, except for the act to direct descents, that the lessor of the plaintiff is entitled to the land. Doth that act bar him? The person last seized, and who died seized, is the stock from whom the representatives must claim, without regard to the manner he or she obtained it. Hale's Hist. C. L. 246. 2 Bac. Ab. 29. Suppose before the act to direct descents, lands descended from the nephew to an uncle, (living the father,) and then the uncle died, who would then inherit — the uncle’s children or the father? Co. Litt. 11, 12, s. 4. You. are precluded from showing how Jane Gale entered on the land. Suppose she purchased it, would that make any difiereneo? Doe vs. Whichelo, 8 T. R. 211. Goodtitle vs. 
      Newman, 3 Wils. 526. Doe vs. Morgan, 7 T. R. 99. Doe vs. Keen, Ibid 382. Would the partition between Alexander Slewart and Jane Gale alter the nature of the estate; or in other words, does it make them hold by put-chase and not by descept? Alexander Stewart did not acquire the land, but from his sister; She was seized, and scisina faát slirpem. Did lie claim the laud through the father? The descent from brother to brother, or from sister to brother, is immediate, and not through the father. Collingwood & Pace, 1 Ventr. 423. Where a statute uses words known to the common law, you must resort to the common law for their meaning. 4 Bac. Ab. 647. The preamble of a statute cannot enlarge the enacting clause. 7 Bac. Ab. 551, 553.
    
      W. B. Mártin, J. Bayly, f'. Bayly, and Wilson, for the Appellee.
    The common law rules have nothing to do With this case, but it depends on the true construction of the act ta direct descents, 1786, ch. 45. The land descended immediately from tile sister, and mediately from the father. Although the descent was not from or through, yet it was on the part of the father. On the construction of statutes, the preamble mayseive to explain doubtful expressions. 6 Bac. Ab. 381, 384. In the construction Of the act to direct descents, that, part Which says, if the estate descended on the port of the father, it should go to him, means that he should be the stock from whom the other claims should be ascertained.
   JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.