Case Name: Bevans vs. Taylor, et al. Lessee
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1825-06
Citations: 7 H. & J. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bevans vs. Taylor, et al. Lessee.
Judges: The cause was argued at the last June term before Buchanan, Earle, and Stephen, 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: 7
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
COURT OF APPEALS,
JUNE TERM, 1825.
Bevans vs. Taylor, et al. Lessee.
A declaration in ejectment contained two counts, one On a demise by A, and the other on a demise by B — Held, that the plaintiff may recover on the count whereby the land was demised by B, although he could not recover on the other count.
II ‘T, having two sons A and O, and several other children, died in 1768, having by his will devised a tract of land to his youngest son O for life. A died in 1785, leaving two sons, T and J. T in 1790 married K, by whom he had before liad an illegitimate son called F, the lessor of the plaintiff in the second count in the declaration, and who, after his marriage, lie acknowledged to be his child, and had also other children after said marriage, the other lessors of the plaintiff in the first count in the declaration, and died in 1803. O, the tenant for life, died in 1817 intestate, leaying children now living — Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on the demise of F in the second count of the declaration.
Appeal from Worcester County Court. Ejectment forpart of a tract ot land called Temple Comb. The declaration contained two counts; the first on demises by Teackle Taylor, Alexander Taylor, Nancy Taylor, James Buby, and Peggy his wife, and James Taylor, and the second on a demise by Teackle Taylor. Defence was taken on warrant, and plots were returned. Non cul and issue joined. At the trial the plaintiff, (now appellee,) offered in evidence a patent for the land mentioned in the declaration, called Temple Comb, granted to John Capman, on the 10th of September 1684. He then offered in evidence that Roger Taylor, in the year 1767, was in possession of the said land; and that being so in possession, by his will, dated the 17th of November 1767, he devised it to his son Obed Taylor for life; and in 1768 died in possession, leaving Alexander Taylor, his eldest son, and several other children, mentioned in his said will. That Alexander died intestate in 1785, leaving Teackle Tony lar his eldest son, and Joshua Taylor a younger son. That Teackle in 1790 married Keziah Mallitt, by whom he had had, before the passage of the act of 1786, ch. 45, an illegitimate son called Teackle, the lessor of the plaintiff mentioned in the second count in the declaration; that after his marriage he acknowledged the said son to be his child, and that subsequent to the marriage he had other children, viz. Alexander, and the other lessors of the plaintiff mentioned in the first count in the declaration, and died in 1803, leaving the said children. That Obed Taylor, the devisee mentioned in the said will, died in 1817 intestate, leaving three or four children now living. The plaintiff then prayed the court to direct the jury, that the lessor of the plaintiff, mentioned in the second count of the declaration, was entitled to recover the land therein mentioned, and that they ought to find for the plaintiff upon that count. This direction the Court, [Martin, Ch. J. and Robins, A. J.] gave to the jury. The defendant excepted. Verdict for the defendant on the first count, and for the plaintiff on the second. Judgment upon the verdict. The defendant appealed to this court.
The cause was argued at the last June term before Buchanan, Earle, and Stephen, J. by
J. Bayly, for the Appellant; and by
Spence, for the Appellee.
Curia adv. vult.

Opinion:
At this term,
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED,
Where A, seized in fee simple of land, devised it for life, and dies, leaving B his heir at law, who dies before the termination of the estate for life, the heirs of B are not, as such, entitled to the land, after the death of the tenant for life; for B had not such a seizin as to create a new stock of descent.
A person claiming land by descent, must entitle himself as heir of hint who was last actually seized in fee. Jackson vs. Hilton, 16 Johns, Rep. 96. See Jackson vs. Hendericks, 3 Johns. Cas. 214; and Bates vs. Shraeder, 13 Johns. Rep. 200.