Case Name: Selby's Lessee vs. Williss
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1817-06
Citations: 4 H. & J. 242
Docket Number: 
Parties: Selby’s Lessee vs. Williss.
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: 242–243

Head Matter:
Selby’s Lessee vs. Williss.
J S, by his will in 1790, devised certain lands to his two sons J and D, and his three daughters N, and B, in trust for his son W and he au-thorised the trustees to sell all or any part oí the lanes in order to buy other lands, wnh the money «rising; from such sale, for the benefit of his son W, a9 should appear to a majority of his trustees to be most for his Wss benefit; and if lus son \V should die without lnwfu l issue, he then gave the lands to his above men» tioned five children. In 1793 W, 3. D and N, sold the lands to I W in fee simple, and on the purchase money bei g paid, they conveyed the lands to him When tins deed was executed, J, D, W. \T, P, and B, wore ad alive and of full age, and !N iv it at that time a feme covert,and afV r\v irds died leaving finir chil-dn n. W died intestate, and without issue, before the d< ath of N. On an ejietment brought 1)V the heir of one of the trus res against J W,lor one undivided twentieth part of die lands- — Held, (hat he w s not entitled to recover,
Appeal from Worcester County Court. Ejectment for one undivided twentieth part of the tracts of land, called Chance, John's Purchase, Wild Cat, and Addition to Wild Cat. Defence was taken on warrant, and the general issue pleaded. The farts as agreed upon were these: A certain John Selby died seized of the lands in question, having by his will, dated the 13th of November 1790, devised as follows: '■'•Item, I give and bequeath unto my tw® sons James and Daniel, and to my three daugh'ers Nancy, Polly and Betty, the land I bought of John Sturgis, and all my land which lies on the north side of Caulker's Creek; also one negro woman called Hannah, and her two children, in trust for my son William, and his heirs; and I do direct, and do hereby authorise and empower my said trustees, and their heirs, to rent out the aforesaid lands, and hire out the aforesaid slaves, for the use and benefit of my said son William, or his heirs, or to sell all or any part of the said lands in order to buy more lands, wifh the money arising from such sale, for his benefit, as shall appear to a majority of my said trustees to be most to his benefit. I also empower my said trustees, or a majority of them, to settle my said son William, on any part of the aforesaid lands, if they in their discretion may tl ink it advisable. And if my said son William shall have children by any marriage, I then empower my trustees, or a major part of them, to convey the aforesaid lands and ne-groes to such of my said son William's children as they, or a majority of them, may think proper; but if mv said son William shall die without lawful issue, I then give the lands and negroes aforesaid devised in trust as aforesaid, to my five children James, Daniel, Nancy, Polly and Bet' ly, to be equally divided between them and their heirs for ever ” On the 31st of December 1793, William, James, Daniel and Nancy, sold the lands mentioned in this will, to a certain Jabez Wil/iss. in fee simple, for the sum of £150 15 0, which sum being paid by Wil/iss to llií! bargainors, they afterwards, on the same day, executed a deed conveying to him the lands in question. At die time of the execution of this deed, James, Daniel, William, Nancy, Pally and Betty, mentioned in the will, were all alive and of full age, and Nancy war. at that time a feme covert, married to one Guriby, and afterwards died leaving the following children and heirs at law, to wit. George, Betty, John and Jinn. William, named in the will, died intestate and without issue, before the institution of this suit, and before the death of Nancy. The defendant claims title under Jabez Willies, by devise. The present suit was brought by one of the heirs of the said trustees. Upon these facts the county court gave judgment for the defendant, end the plaintiff appealed to this court, where «he cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Johnson, and DoitsEY, J. by
Bullitt., for the Appellant, and by
J. Bayly, for the Appellee.

Opinion:
JUDGMENT Ai'FlRMr,»,,