Case ID: ga_94/html/0459-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bozeman v. Bishop & Pritchard.
    
      A donee of land having two children, and the conveyance made by the donor being to him by name and to his children without naming them, passed to the father and each of the children an estate for the life of the father, with remainder to the children; and the father’s life-estate in the premises was subject to levy and sale for his debts, the terms of the conveyance, so far as material, being as follows: “I, . . . do give, grant and convey, unto [B] and his lawful'children [certain lands], to have and to hold ... to them, the said [B] children, their heirs and assigns, to be for the use, support and maintenance of the said [B] and for the support and education of his children during the said [B’s] natural life, and at his death to be equally divided amongst his lawful children ; and should it become necessary for the interest of said children at any time, or for the interest of said [B], to sell or dispose of the said lands, the proceeds therefrom shall be invested in negro property, to be for the use of the said parties hereinbefore named; and at his the said [B’s] death, to be divided equally amongst his the said [B’s] children; the right and title to all of which I hereby relinquish and convey unto the said [B] and his children, free from the claims of myself and all other persons whatsoever.” . Judgment affirmed.
    
    April 2, 1894.
    Argued at the last term.
    Levy and claim. Before Judge Harris. Payette superior court. September term, 1892.
   An execution against J. W. Bozeman was levied on land which was claimed by his daughter to whom he fa ad made a deed. The case turned upon the construction of the conveyance, quoted from in the head-note, dated September 16, 1859, to J. W. Bozeman and his children. Under the charge of the court, the jury found subject an undivided third-interest in the land, and claimant’s motion for a new trial was overruled.

Stewart & Daniel, for plaintiff in error.

Dorsey, Brewster & Howell, contra.