Hounslea v. Hand

New York Supreme Court

Hounslea v. Hand

28 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 251

DecidedMay 15, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 28 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 251 (Hounslea v. Hand) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hounslea v. Hand, 28 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 251 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.:

The testator’s daughter, Ahuldah Tooker, under the Revised Statutes was possessed of an estate in fee simple absolute. The absolute gift of the land is declared subject to the condition that “ she and her heir or heirs born of her body shall have and enjoy the estate I have heretofore given her freely and clearly forever.” In case she should die without a child then the subject of the devise was to return to the testator’s daughter Nancy or her heirs. As the testator’s daughter Ahuldah left children living at her death the children of Nancy have no claim. The devise is to be considered as having-been made to Ahuldah “ and her heir or heirs born of her body.” She took a fee. (Lott v. Wykoff, 2 N. Y., 355.) The deed under, which the son of the devisee holds the property passed a good title, and the plaintiff has no interest in the same.

Order denying a new trial- and refusing to resettle the findings affirmed, with costs.

Gilbert, J., concurred ; Pratt, J., not sitting.

Order denying a new trial and order refusing to resettle findings affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barnard, P. J.:

The testator’s daughter, Ahuldah Tooker, under the Revised Statutes was possessed of an estate in fee simple absolute. The absolute gift of the land is declared subject to the condition that “ she and her heir or heirs born of her body shall have and enjoy the estate I have heretofore given her freely and clearly forever.” In case she should die without a child then the subject of the devise was to return to the testator’s daughter Nancy or her heirs. As the testator’s daughter Ahuldah left children living at her death the children of Nancy have no claim. The devise is to be considered as having-been made to Ahuldah “ and her heir or heirs born of her body.” She took a fee. (Lott v. Wykoff, 2 N. Y., 355.) The deed under, which the son of the devisee holds the property passed a good title, and the plaintiff has no interest in the same.

Order denying a new trial- and refusing to resettle the findings affirmed, with costs.

Gilbert, J., concurred ; Pratt, J., not sitting.

Order denying a new trial and order refusing to resettle findings affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hounslea-v-hand-nysupct-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack