Case ID: sc-eq_27/html/0406-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’Neall, J. Johnston, Ch.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jonathan Wright and others vs. William Herron and others.
    
    The Court of Errors equally divided upon the question, Whether a husband, is entitled to hold as tenant by the curtesy, the land in which his deceased wife was seized of a fee conditional.
    This case having been remanded to the Equity Court of Appeals, that Court held, (three Chancellors for, to one against,) that a husband is entitled to hold as tenant by the cur-tesy, in such case:
    
      Before Dargan, Ch., at Darlington, February, 1854.
    For a full and proper understanding of this case reference should be had to it as reported 5 Rich. Eq. 431; where will be found the circuit decree of his Honor Chancellor Dargan, the grounds of appeal and the opinion of the Court of Appeals sending the case to the Court of Errors upon the following question, to wit: “ Whether the surviving husband of a wife who is tenant in fee conditional, be entitled to hold by the curtesy the land for his life, conveyed to his wife in fee conditionalupon which question the case was now heard.
    
      Dargan. for the plaintiffs.
    
      Moses, contra.
   Curia per

O’Neall, J.

In this case the Court of Errors are not able to decide the question. The members of the Court are equally divided in opinion. Hence the case must be remanded to the Chancellors for their own disposition ; and it is so ordered.

Johnston, Dunkin, Dargan and Wardlaw, CC., and Wardlaw, Withers, Whitner, Glover and Munro, JJ., concurred.

The Court of Appeals in Equity afterwards pronounced judgment as follows:

Johnston, Ch.

The Court of Errors having certified that that Court “ are not able to decide the question ” sent to them from this Court; the members of that Court being equally divided in opinion ” upon it: and having by its order “ remanded the case to the Chancellors for their own disposition and the majority of this Court (Chancellors Johnston, Dargan and Wardlaw) being of opinion that the decree of the Chancellor, now under appeal, is correct: — it is, therefore, ordered that the appeal be dismissed and the decree affirmed.

Dunkin, Dargan and W'ardlaw, CC., concurred.

Appeal dismissed. 
      
       At the request of a member of the Court I state that the Court of Errors was divided as follows: Eor, Johnston, Daegan and Tabsuw, CO., and Glovee and Moneo, JJ.: Against, Dunkin, Ch., and O’Neall, Waedi,a-w, Withees and whit-nee, JJ.
      JOHN BELTON O’NEALL, Pres’t. St. of Errors.