Case Name: Vansant, et ux. vs. Money's Lessee
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1818-06
Citations: 4 H. & J. 313
Docket Number: 
Parties: Vansant, et ux. vs. Money’s Lessee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 4
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
Vansant, et ux. vs. Money’s Lessee.
aa?«Hu woo*aSr «“cu-tots, dewscd as i»!*» ^,Vy SS “4!, oneiS'f ot halfjf tamed, i ¡tine amt f^dííoeenmi simrehuke, igivo 3¡¿r|y béíovS«í¡e ««a mjrdJughwrM i„y a rcai estate, and equity, ■whirius said, op the ™|, lerna-wrai life, khe»up-‘"Saíuttínius, J.jiteei“amní’ i»rai way, untiUUe onejlhraaudafw-^5^’ tne y«u;¡j value of lamo, mmi the a»>iaevue ihewaa 1() ,liy dau.inst a- «■. a«“ i ^ iSid!"w Vy^dSr 'J'Jffl'fhotsfmr a“ush“1^‘l“¡|1eí“¡'* “,í!,?A¿’,”- — :¿e¡<í fur irfcmih.'i»ud* Bl1"'
Appeal from Kent County Court. Ejectment for a tract of laud called Partnership. The plea, general issue.
At the trial the plaintiff read in evidence, a grant of land called Partnership, issued to Daniel Toas on the l^tli of October 1684, and deduced a regular title from the grantee to Benjamin Money. He then read in evidence the will of Money, dated the 25th of March 1806, m, alter liberating sundry of his slaves, ano devising to bis executors a tract of land to be sold by them, and the proceeds to be applied to the payment of his debts, he vised as follows, viz. ii7Jiirdly. I give and devise to my brother Joseph Money, his heirs and assigns, for ever, one half of all those other lands near Massey's cross roads, which formerly belonged to Joseph Massey and Umt dingier, except that part which I have devised tobe sold. •remaining half of the lands above mentioned, / give and de~ we to be equally divided between my two sinterliosa Meelcins and Elisabeth Patterson, share and share alike. Fourthly. 1 give and devísete my dearly beloved wife, and sny daughter Rebcc.ca Money, all the rest of my real estate ■which I may be entitled to have in law and equity, is not devised as aforesaid, on the following terms: To my wife, during her natural life, she supporting, educating and maintaining, my said daughter, in a genteel and liberal way, until she arrives at the age of sixteen,* then and after that age my wite to account to her tor the yearly value of one half of the said lands, until the death of my said then 1 give and devise the said land and teal estate to my daughter aforesaid, her heirs and assigns, tor ever. And I do give and devise the said lands to my dear wife, heirs and assigns, should my daughter die before my wife, leaving no children.” The plaintiff then proved, that lie-becca Money, the lessor of the plaintiff, was the. only child and heir at law of the testator, and that, the land devised in his will to Rosa Meekins and Elizabeth Patterson, is a part of the tract called Partnership. That Rosa Meelñns' part thereof are the premises in question, and that Rosa Meekins, the devisee mentioned in the will, from the defendants claim, survived the testator, and entered upon the premises, and held the same until she conveyed them to the defendants. That Rosa Meekins and Elizabeth Patterson, and the wife of the testator, died before the institution of this suit. It was admitted that the quan - tify ofland devised to the lessor of the plaintiff was about 730 acres, and that that devised to Rosa Meekins was a~ bout 75 acres. The defendants then prayed the court to direct the jury, that the testimony was not sufficient to support the issue joined on the part of the plaintiff. Bui the Court {Earle, Ch. J. & Purnell and Worrell, A. J.j refused to give this direction, being of opinion that Rosa Meekins took only an estate for life in the lands devised to her, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The defendants excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against them, they appealed to this court.
The cause was argued before Buchanan, Johnson, Martin, and Dorsey, J.
Carmichael and Tilghman, for the Appellants,
stated, that the question was, whether or not an estate for life or in fee was devised by the will of B. Money to Rosa Meek-ins? To show that an estate in fee was devised to her, they cited Strong vs. Teatt, 2 Burr. 910, 913. Frogmor-ion vs. Holyday, 3 Burr. 1618. Doe vs. Richards, 3 T. R„ 357. Roe vs. Avis, 4 T. R. 605. Goodlitle vs. Miles, 6 Fast, 494. Robinson vs. Robinson, 1 Burr. 38. Gray-son vs. Atkinson, 1 Fils. 333. Tanner vs. Wise, 3 P. Wms. 295. Gulliver vs. Poynts, 3 Fils. 141. Doe vs. Buckner, & T. R. 610; and Doe vs. Clayton, 8 East, 141.
Chambers, for the Appellee,
cited Roe vs. Holms, 2 Wils. 80. Right vs. Sidebotham, 2 Dougl. 759. Derm vs. Mellor, 5 T. R. 558. Doe vs. Wright, 8 T. R, 64. Doe vs. Allen, Ibid 497. Goodright vs. Barron, 11 East, 220; and Waite? s vs. Walters, 3 Harr, fy Johns. 201.

Opinion:
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED»