Barlow v. . Barlow
This text of 2 N.Y. 386 (Barlow v. . Barlow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
By the Court,
According to the will of. Thomas Braman, Braman Barlow took an estate for life in the premises in question, remainder in tail to his son James Barlow, remainder in fee to his second son Cyrus. (But. Fearne, v. 1, 426, 7; Driver v. Edgar, Cowp. 379.) As the remainder limited to James Barlow, vested upon the death of the testator, it was converted by the statute of 1786 into a remainder in fee. (Wendell v. Crandall, 1 Comst. R. 491.) James became a new stock of descent, and upon his death, in 1817, the land, which is the subject of this suit, descended to his father as his heir at law. The charge of the judge was therefore erroneous, and the supreme court were right in awarding a new trial.
The other points discussed upon the hearing, have been considered and determined in Lott and wife v. Wykoff, decided at this term, (a) There must be a new trial.
New trial granted.
Ante, p. 355,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 N.Y. 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barlow-v-barlow-ny-1849.