Case Name: Thomas's Lessee vs. Wootton
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1799-10
Citations: 4 H. & McH. 428
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas’s Lessee vs. Wootton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 4
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERM, 1799.
Thomas’s Lessee vs. Wootton.
Ejectment for a tract of land called Chance, lying in Baint-Mary’s county.
It appears by the case stated for the court’s opinion, that Ignatius Gough being seised in fee of the land mentioned in the declaration in this pause, in the year 1782 duly made and executed his last will and testament, and thereby devised the land in question as follows: “First “of all I desire that all my just debts be paid; and my «‘will and desire is, that all my plantation and tract of «‘land lying in Saint Mary’s county, called Saint Marga“refs, containing ¡¡4f acres, be in possession of Eliza “leth Herd, for the use and maintenance of her ami her «daughter Mary Herd, until the said Mary Herd, daugh«ter of the same Elizabeth Herd, and granddaughter 0f “John Basil Herd, arrives to the years of sixteen, then «the said land to belong to the said Mary Herd, and to «her heirs and assigns, forever.”
That the said Mary Herd, in the said will mentioned, was the natural, illegitimate daughter of the testator, by the said Elizabeth Herd. That the said Mary Herd died under the age of sixteen, unmarried, intestate, and without issue. That the plantation on which the testator lived, consisted of several tracts of land, the whole of which amounted to 157 acres. That the dwelling house was not on the tract of land called Saint Margaret’s, but that Saint Margaret’s, and the other tracts, composed and made but one plantation, and was occupied and possessed as one entire tract. That a warrant of escheat issued to affect the said land in the name of John Mien Thomas, who by his will duly executed, devised the same to the lessor of the plaintiff, who obtained a patent therefor prior to the commencement of this action for the said land, by the name of Chance.
The question was, whether the said land was liable to escheat?
' Johnson, for the plaintiff.
W. Dorsey, for the defendant.

Opinion:
It was contended on the part of the plaintiff, that under the will, immediately on the death of the testator, an estate in the land vested in Mary Herd, and that on her death, without issue and intestate, the land was liable to be escheated. Boraston's case, in 3 Coke 19, was relied on as in point — 2 Mod. 289, and Fearne Con. Rem. 318, were also cited.
Tee Generar Court gave judgment for the plaintiff for possession and costs.