Jackson ex dem. Hall v. Burr

9 Johns. 104
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1812·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is no devise of the real estate to the defendant. There is nothing which denotes such an intent. The defendant had his specific legacy in money, with the rest of the children. He. is not distinguished from the other heirs, in any other respect than that he is made executor. The most that could be deduced from the will is, that the executors had power to sell the land, and if that were so, the land in the mean time, and until the sale, would descend to the heirs at law. There must be judgment for the plaintiff.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

Jackson ex dem. Hall v. Burr, 9 Johns. 104 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

9 Johns. 104 (Jackson ex dem. Hall v. Burr) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Decker v. Hoag
101 Misc. 474 (New York Supreme Court, 1917)
Cohea v. Jemison
68 Miss. 510 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1891)
Compton v. McMahan
19 Mo. App. 494 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)
Nimmons v. Westfall
33 Ohio St. (N.S.) 213 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1877)
Gibson v. McNeely
11 Ohio St. (N.S.) 131 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1860)
Hunt v. Guilford
4 Ohio 283 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1829)
Schauber v. Jackson
2 Wend. 13 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1828)
Jackson ex dem. Bogert v. Schauber
7 Cow. 186 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)
Roosevelt v. Heirs of Fulton
7 Cow. 71 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)