clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 46   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

46 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.
his wife his entire estate for life, with the exception of some
articles of little value, with remainder in fee to his surviving
children, and the children of a deceased daughter, intended)
with respect to this house, to revoke the devise to his wife,
and give the rents and profits of it for her life to his surviving
children, to support and educate them, leaving the will after
her death to operate upon it as upon the residue of his estate,
and that consequently the proceeds of it must be distributed
amongst his surviving children and the children of his deceased
daughter, in the proportions specified in his will, and the ac-
count B. being stated according to this view, will be confirmed.
I do not think the Act of 1825, ch. 119, can be made to
operate upon this will. That Act applies to devises of lands
or real property in general terms, without words of perpetuity
Or limitation, and gives the entire estate and interest of the
testator, unless by devise over, or by words of limitation or
Otherwise, a contrary intention is indicated. The devise in
this case is not of lands or real estate, but of their rents and
profits, which, as we have seen, do not, proprio vigore, pass the
land, but only afford evidence of the intention of the testator
that it shall pass, subject to be rebutted, of course, by the
manifestation on the face of the will of a contrary intention;
and that contrary intention, as I think, is exhibited on the
face of this will with sufficient distinctness to repel the evi-
dence.
WM. H. COLLINS, for the Exceptants.
J. H. B. LATBOBE, for the Respondents.
EDWARD DUNN ET AL.
vs. DECEMBER TERM, 1851.
ERWIN J. COOPER ET AL.
[CHANCERY PRACTICE—MULTIFARIOUSNESS.]
IT is extremely difficult, if not impracticable, to lay down any general rule
upon the subject of multifariousness. The Courts, in deciding such cases,
are governed very much, if not exclusively, by considerations of conve-

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 46   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives