Case Name: Lesse of Eward Caldwell and Eleanor his wife, and James M'Swine and Bridget his wife, against John Ferguson
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1798-12
Citations: 2 Yeates 380
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lesse of Eward Caldwell and Eleanor his wife, and James M'Swine and Bridget his wife, against John Ferguson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Yeates)
Volume: 2
Pages: 380–387

Head Matter:
Lesse of Eward Caldwell and Eleanor his wife, and James M'Swine and Bridget his wife, against John Ferguson.
Words in a will “I give to H, now in Ireland, or his heirs, 200 acres of patented land part of a patent for 300 acres; and the other undivided. 100 aeres I leave to B according to the judgment of my executors in dividing the same,”, passed an estate in fee simple to both devises, the lands being wholly wood-land and unimproved.
This canse came'before the court, on a point reserved at the trial •at Sunbury, October 20th 1797.
M‘E!ean, C. J. John M£Faddin by his will dated 15th June-1772, devises as follows:—
t£ Touching . such worldly estate-wherewith it hath pleased Almighty God to bless me in this life, I give demise and dispose of the same in the following manner and form: — First, I give and bequeath to my well beloved brother Hugh M£Faddin, [now in Ireland,- or his heirs, ] two hundred acres of patented land, on the waters of 'Warrior’s Run, as mentioned in the patent of said tract of three hundred acres, and the other undivided one hundred acres, I leave to my dear nephew Bernard Ferril, according to the judgment of my executors in dividing the same.”
At the time of making the will, the testator was seized in fee of a tract of land, containing 300 acres, which was then in its natural state, there being no part of it cleared, nor any building or inhabitant upon it. After his death, Bernard Ferril had 100 acres divided off to him, built a house, cut down trees, grubbed, fenced and improved upon it, and afterwards sold and conveyed it bona fide, and for a valuable consideration, to William Sawyers, who in like manner sold and conveyed it to the defendant. The wives of the lessors of the plaintiff are the heirs at law of the devisor, and a verdict passed for the defendant.
The point reserved is, whether Bernard Ferril had by the will, an estate in fee, or for life only, in the 100 acres ? If the former, judgment is to be entered for the defendant on the verdict; but if the latter, then a new trial is to be awarded without costs.
By the statute of 34 and 35 Hen. 8, c. 5, § 4, a person sezied in fee of land, &e. may dispose of them by will, at his pleasure. The pleasure or intention of the testator in his will must then govern ; but this must be collected from the whole will together, applied to the subject matter to which the will relates, and not inconsistent with the rules of law. 3 Burr. 1622. ■
The construction of a will must have relation to the time of making the same, and not the time of the death of the testator. 1 Vez. 295. Any charge of a gross sum gives a fee. A devise implies a bounty, a benefit, A devisee must be meant to be benefited. • It is not enough, that he probably may be no loser. Moor. 853, 873. 2 Mod. 25, 26.
It is argreed, that a devise -without the limitation of any estate, carries but an estate for life. Skin. 339, 563. Cro. Car. 368, M9. 3 Burr. 1623, 1898.
Particular cases serve rather to obscure and confound than to illuminate questions of this kind. And there is no case in the English law books that tallies with the present, for the subject matter of this devise was one hundred acres of land in its natural state, no industry of man having ever been exercised upon it. But from the general rules of construction, which I have stated may be inferred, that the testator intended to give a fee to Bernard Ferril. He has declared, that he meant to dispose of all his worldly estate, and that he would leave nothing to descend; in conformity thereto, he has given away all his land to his brother in Ireland, and to his nephew then in Pennsylvania, and his moneys that may arise after his debts and funeral expenses should be paid, to his said nephew. He thought he had made a complete disposition of the whole.
Again, if a devise being charged with the payment of a sum of money in gross, will create a fee on the ground that the devisee might otherwise be a loser, by dying before he could receive the amount out of the profits of the estate, why should not the same construction be made, and conclusion drawn, if he might be a loser in any other way % Now in this case, Bernard Ferril might have incurred great expenses in clearing the land of the trees and under-wood, erecting buildings, planting orchards, making meadows and inclosures, (most of which were necessarily to be done before he could reap any benefit from the devise,) and dies soon after; so that the devise, if construed only for life, instead of being beneficial, might prove very injurious to him, which would be repugnant to the nature of such a gift, and contrary to the intention of the giver; who must therefore have meant to give him the fee.
Besides, if the devise was determined to be only for life, by committing waste, according to the English law, the life estate was liable to íorfeiture ; and the devisee could derive no advantage from the land, without doing acts which by that law, must be deemed waste. To avoid this, Bernard Ferril must be adjudged to take a fee; and on the whole, I am of opinion, that judgment should be entered for the defendant.
These words were interlined in the original will.

Opinion:
Shippen J.
It is certainly a settled rule of law, that in a devise of land by the will of even an illiterate man, who knows nothing of the use of- words of limitation,if no such words are added, or other words which show his intention to give a greater estate than for life it must be construed an estate for life only.
Rut wherever there are expressions in a will, which the court can lay hold of,(to enlarge the estate of the devisee, they will do go, to effectuate the intention of the testator.
The preamble of this will, makes use of the words " touching his worldly estate. " There have been various opinions in the books, respecting the effect of these words in a will. The latest cases however show, that though these words alone will not do, yet they amount to a strong circumstance, connected with other records, to demonstrate the testator's intention of enlarging a particular estate. Upon this principle, is a case in Cowp. 357, where after introductory words " touching my worldly estate, " the following words were subjoined to a particular devise of land, " to be freely possessed and enjoyed, " and were adjudged to give a fee.
The devise in the case under our consideration, is short, and there are but few words to illustrate the intention of the testator. There are however some, which cannot fail to impress an idea, tha/t he meant to give a greater estate than for life. He appears to be entirely ignorant of the use of words of limitation, but he takes notice that the land he devises, is patented land; which shows that he had it in his mind, that he had a legal estate in fee simple in the premises, and not expressly restraining the duration of the estate, is one circumstance, (though I own but a slight one of itself,) to show he meant to give the whole estate, that he himself had in it, to his devisees. But further, he directs his executors to divide these hundred acres, from the quantity of two hundred acres he had immediately before devised to his brother in Ireland, the whole being one tract of 300 acres granted to him by patent. It appears to me, that the divisions of this land, must have been useless and nugatory, unless he meant to give an absolute property to his devisees in their several parts.
It is agreed in the case, that the land was altogether woodland, and entirely unimproved. Could the testator suppose, that either of his devisees would have laid out their labor and money in improving land, which they held on so precarious a tenure as their own lives, and must be surrendered up with all its improvements, to the heir at law, at their deaths ? By the law of England, the cutting down trees, in order to make improvements, would be waste, and a forfeiture of a life estate. Whether under the circumstances of this country, such an act would be de termined to be waste here, it is unnecessary to consider at present. It is sufficient for me, that the allotting different parts of one tract of woodland to his two devisees, was indicative of his expectation that they would improve them for the benefit of their families ; which expectation he must have known to be vain, if he meant to give them a life estate only. He surely meant to give them a beneficial estate. An estate for life in such lands, would have been beneficial, so far only, as to make his devisees freeholders; which, benefit would be overbalanced, by subjecting them to the payment of taxes for a property, which could yield no income. On the whole therefore, I am satisfied in my conscience, from the words of the will, connected with the nature of the property devised, that the testator meant to give an absolute estate in fee simple, to the objects of his bounty.