Case Name: Laidler vs. Young's Lessee
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1806-06
Citations: 2 H. & J. 69
Docket Number: 
Parties: Laidler vs. Young’s Lessee.
Judges: The case was argued before Tilgkmant, Nicholson, and Gantt, J. by
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: 2
Pages: 69–71

Head Matter:
Laidler vs. Young’s Lessee.
A, by liis v'ir. devised as> follow *T give and dewe to my son Rt u. trail of hr.d, tee. to him ami his lieiis, forever, and in case he dies without heirs, to my *cu J, and ibt* heirs of his body linvfi’hy bogoiten.” ThisdeVi e created an estate tail in li, the tie-visee.
Under the act of November m2, ch 23, a tenant in tail may dt-fras the estate tail alto*» {‘•ether, or convey only a limited or qualified estate. A common died of bargain and sate operates to convex the estate ami vest a fee simple in the grantee.
If a limited in-forest i, eonvejed b) a tenant in tai!, opon the expiration of the pai*. ticular niferevf. the tenant in tail again takes the o— tate tail as oiiginalty he'd,
seven year*, made by-tenant in Jail, will have the effect to pas, the estate for term therein express d.
t Amortgiqye made by a tenant m tail de¡ e.ts the * slate tail for a limited time. If the money is paid, the old estate is revi»
j An estate tail cannot bo devnoU under the act of 17..2, ch 23
The intention and meaning* oi‘ the legislature are be collected from tko Jaw Itself* and U»# y are not to bo rtstvametl In any thin? in the pr.aU’híf 0
Ái’MsAr, from the General Court. The appellee brought an action of ejectment in that court to recover a tract of land called Let’s Purchase, otherwise called Laidler’s Perry, lying in Charles county. The defendant, (now appellant,) took general defence. At the trial at May term 1804, the plaintiff offered in evidence a grant for Lee’s Furdíase, dated the 2d of May 1664, to John Lee; also the will of Richard Lee, the heir of John, dated the Sd of March 1714, devising the land to his son Philip Lee; also the will of Philip Lee, dated the 20th of March 1743, devising the land to George Lee; also a deed from George Zee to John Laidler, dated the 10th of Oct’r 1760, and the will ni John Laidler d&teútiiü Istof February 1771, devising as follows, viz. “1 give and devise to my son Robert Laidler, all that tract of land called Leers Purchase, to him and his1 heirs forever, together with the lands thereto adjoining;1 and in case he dies without heirs, to my son John Laidler,' and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten.” He also’ offered in evidence and proved, that after the death of John; Laidhf, the testator, Robert, his son and devisee, entered1 and was seized of the lands devised to him by the will; and that Robert, in his life-time, executed the following lease] to the lessor of the plaintiff, viz. “Know all men by these presents, that I, Robert Laidler, of Charles county, in the state of Maryland, for and in consideration of the annual sum of live pounds currency, paying my just debts, andi maintaining my sister Elizabeth Laidler, have farmed and1 to rent let unto Joseph Yeung, the plantation whereon 1 now live, known by the name of Laidler’s Ferry, for the1 term of seven years from the date hereof. As witness my L V - j j * ' 1 ' ' > . l > ¡ t ’ hand and seal this eighth day of June seventeen hundred! and ninety-nine.
Robert Laidler (Seal.)
Witness,
Jldam Rains,
Stephen Moore,
John Slimer.
That Robert Laidler died after the execution of the lease, intestate, and without issue, leaving the defendant his heir at law. The defendant then prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that under the lease so executed, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
Key, Mason, and J. B. Duckett, for the defendant,
contended, that the lease executed for seven years, by Robert Laidler the tenant in tail, did not operate under the act of November 1782, ch 23, to bar the estate tail created by the •will of John Laidler, and that upon the death of Robert Laidler, the land descended to the defendant. They cited and relied on the statutes, de donis, 32 Hen. Y1TI, ch 28. 13 Edw. I, ch. 1. 4 Bat. Jib. tit. Leases, (D.) 22i
Martin, (Attorney-General,) Johnson, & T. Buchanan, for the plaintiff,
referred to the same statutes; also 2 BllL Com. 119. The acts of June 1773, ch 1; Nov. 1782, ch 23; and 1786, ch 45. Todd et ux vs. Pratt, 1 Harr. <§• Johns-, 465. Paca’s Lessee vs. Forwood at al. 2 Harr. & M'Heu. 175.
Chase, Ch. J. . The Court are of opinion, that under the act of assembly of November 1782, ch. 23, a tenant in tail may defeat the estate tail altogether, or convey only a limited or'qualified estate; the remainder, whatever it may be, will, -in this last case, descend. But if he intends to change the estate tail to a fee simple, then a conveyance and reconveyance to himself are necessary. But if he disposes of the estate, a common deed of bargain and sale will operate to convey the estate, and vest a fee simple in the grantee.
If a limited interest is‘ conveyed, upon the expiration of the particular interest, the tenant in tail again takes the estate tail as originally held.__.....
'The Court have no doubt but that a lease will have the-effect to pass the estate, for the term of years therein expressed; for if a tenant in fee simple can lease, a tenant in tail may also.
It was contended, in (lie case of Paca’s Lessee vs. Forwood et al. that an estate tail might, under the act of 1782, foe devised by last will and testament. Rut the court said it could not; for they considered the tenant in tail, and the heir, in the situation of joint tenants, and that the estate, upon the death of the tenant in tail, survived to the heir, and as the will would not take effect until after the death of the tenant in tail, the right of the heir, by such death, had already vested.
It has been said, that a mortgage executed by the teaiantintail conveyed the interest. It is not so. When the money is paid, the old estate is again revived, and the mortgage only defeats the estate tail for a limited time.
The intention and meaning of the legislature are to be «ollected from the law itself, and they are not to be restrained by any thing in the preamble.
Upon the whole, the court are of opinion, that the lease in this case is good and valid in law to pass and transfer -the interest in the land to the lessee for the term of years therein mentioned, and when the term of years expires, the remainder-man will take the estate under the will.
The defendant excepted. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed to this court.
The case was argued before Tilgkmant, Nicholson, and Gantt, J. by
Key, for the appellant,
and by
Johnson, (Attorney General,) and T„ Buchanan, for the •appellee.
.) Done and Sprigg, 3, concurred,

Opinion:
The Court or Appeals
affirmed the judgment of the general Court.