Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-03-27
THE DIVISION STANDS
important Land Suit Decided in Inc
Supreme Court Of Appeals
vuIrLocK WILL CASE ENDED.
zhc Instrument Drawn In fsoa' ana
ur,ienated "CodiciI No. O." Again
ReJected-NepheVs of the Deceased
n.rcQtcd.
BcrcHtcd.

Nve against Levitt and others, which
csme ND from the Corporation Court OF
Norfolk The first question determined
al. the court in the controversy was the
,rooor construction OF the deed upon
,b,ch the defendants in error based their
,.,ht 10 recover the property. This deed
MS one from George Bramble, giving 70
Mrs. Jane c. Levitt tract Of land in
p~an,bloton now q ward OF NorfoliS)
srrrerating about twenty acres. the title
,r.re,o TO pass at the death OF the said
,,,.r,tfe TO Mrs Levitt to be held anu
,,i,reT by her during her natural life,
and aftor her death TO pass to and be-
came The property and estate OF the
,..-s of her body and Of their heirs for
.,.r The court holds unqualhedly that
iy this instrument the tract was left,
mot FOR the benefit Of Mrs. Levitt and
r.r children. but 10 her and the heirs
a. ho! body and their heirs. At the
rfne az her death Mrs. Loyitt had three
rluireu-two sons and a daughter. one
OF the sons married, and had one child,
born in December. 1851. Robert Levitt,
ono of the sons. died before the mother
and Two grandchildren at the time OF her
c,3th as the heirs Of her body. During
fre lifetime Of the mother the two sons
purchased her lie estate, and pertitiOned
ire land between them. Robert sold his
interest. and II passed to the defendant
in error.
TOOK a CONTINGENT REMAINDER.
Tfs opinion. which was prepared ty
judge buchanan, goes on 10 say that he
ire rafshed that il was the manifest
intention of the grantor 10 convey the
property TO Mrs. Levitt for and during
Der natural life. and then 10 the heirs OF
h.r body. the court was relieved from
reviewing cases cited, and was Of the
opinion that the heirs Of the body Of
1irs LOyitt took a contingent remainder
ir the lands conveyed I'm the deed Of
January z, 1855. and that the persons who
answered that description az the time Of
Der death were her son Henry her daugh-
t.- Jane T., and her granddaughtCrs.
Hattie c. and Mary g, the children OF
Robert who died during the lifetime Of
his mother. IL being conceded by the
agreed facts I'm the case that Mrs. Brown
Gee LoytO. the daughter of Mrs. Levitt,
ly her acceptance Of the deed OF Jan
nary n. 1866. was no longer entitled 10
any interest under the deed of January
Fl. AffIs Henry u J4'NA'A ADNh All I4AAA-
vided m0lety I'm the lands conveyed.
The next question considered by the
court was whether Mrs. Mary j. Levitt,
wife 81 Robert, ana one Of the plaintiffs,
was estopped from recovery In the case.
The action was originally brought by her
daughters. but pending the litigation, one
Of them. Mary C., died, and the action
was revived In the names Of her mother
rnl sister on February IS, 1876, Mrs.
Levitt conveyed her life estate in the
lands 20 her sons-Robert G. and Hugh
C-and IN July Of that year Robert c.
conveyed his interest TO Gideon Christian,
trustee, for the separate use and benefit
Of his wife with authority 10 sell or
otherwise dispose OF the land whenever
directed to DO so by Mrs. Levitt. After
the death Of Robert g. Levitt his widows
interest in the property was sold to
Theodore s. Garnett trustee. for the sole
ana separate use Of Mrs. Jane de j. BYRD,
and was subsequently conveyed by Car
nett. trustee, 20 Caroline J.. Nye who
devised it 20 her husband. David Il. Nye,
tae plaintiff IN error
THE LOWER COURT REVERSED.
After discussing extensively the several
phases OF the case, the court says: "The
partition Of the land between Robert G..
end Henry c. Levitt could have no effect
Ur-u the rights Of the plaintiffs. They
were not parties TO it, nor In any way
bound boy 90. When the lne-tenant. Mrs.
Levitt died, I'm the year 1890. the original
plaintiffs In the case were vested with
the title 20 an undivided half interest
therein. and the right to the possession
thereof Their election to take as their
share that portion Of the property which
was allotted 10 Robert Levitt in the p2rti-
ton between him and Henry Levitt, even
Dr. thr institution of this action by them
for the whole OF that parcel could be
treated as am election. could not clOthe
Them with the legal title 10 the interest
c' their cO-owner. Henry Levitt, therein.
TO acquire his title in the parcel sued
fol 30 was necessary for them TO have
release o. conveyance from him, or those
Who bella under him.
ln tl- ease at bar neither Henry Levitt
r- bis yll1ees are or could properly be
before t0- court. Except In a very limited
class of CASES Of which this IS not one, a
court NJ Jaw Boo an action Of ejectment IS
lo' rnel ty the rigid rules of law, and
decides according to the legal rights alone
ar me parties. and leaves them 10 settle
taeIr equitable rights In the equity form,
Mhtre alone th y can be properly settled
Seite SIS. 3. =. Company, &c Virginia,
9,.2I"
To- conclusion the opinion says: eve are
OF opinion that the plaintiffs were only
Guided tO judgment for one undivided
mo. 'r of The land sued for and that the
iral cart. in rendering Judgment in their
ii'of tor The whole parcel, erred. and for
'iat error its Judgment must be reversed.
tai such judgment entered by this court
's 10 OUGHT 20 have entered"
The WhitIock win Case Decided.
quite an Important viii suit was also
1.I ty the Court OF Appeals yester-
"t.tock and others. from the Chancery
.o4u ~ tho city Of Richmond. In this
case ua deceased. Charles Il. Whitlock,
I't ave tcstamentary papers. all OF
N"cf were "a the time Of his death IN
tu. hands % the persons named as HIS
executors. These papers. In brief, are as
.l9...
8 rm dated Apfl p, 1855. dlsposlng
% i4se estate. valued al the time of
BIS death 40 100000.
a Telegraph will dated october 4.
i-i containing no revocatory or residUary
Clause and aisrosing OF only "A very small
l.t .t the very large estate possessed
Dr. iae testatOr.
a Telegraph codicil. executed at the
sane time with the viii Of October y,
a Photograph codlcil. dated October
e. lli detached, but with directions 10
.s read az part OF his viii, styled Codicil
BIO. g.
a Telegraph codcil, detached, and
without date. but with directions 10 be
te-i as part Of his VIII, styled Codicil NO.
-.e Chancery Court Of the city OF Rich
moud declared that the testamentary
tpers. Nos. /. 2, 3. and 4, taken together,
constituted the true last VIII and tesla
l.it of the testator. Paper No. was re-
Nc'ei upon the ground that the testator
vas not competent 10 make valid tes-