Jackson ex dem. Rogers v. Potter

9 Johns. 312
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1812·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The law is too well settled to be now questioned, that a devise of lands will not operate upon lands purchased after the execution and publication of the will, unless, subsequent to such purchase or seisin, the devisor republish his will, with the requisite solemnities. And it is equally well settled that the republication of the will, so as to affect the after acquired lands, must be made wifh like solemnity as the execution of the original will. The statute (Laws, v. 1. p. 173.) says, that no such will shall be revoked, or altered, but by another writing, executed in like manner, or by destroying it. Here was no such republication, nor does the case come within any of the decisions relative to constructive revocations in law. (See 1 Saund. 277. note 4.) The plaintiff is entitled to judgment.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

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

Jackson ex dem. Rogers v. Potter, 9 Johns. 312 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

9 Johns. 312 (Jackson ex dem. Rogers v. Potter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Stickney
31 A.D. 382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
In re the probate of the last will & testament of Simpson
56 How. Pr. 125 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1878)
Carey v. Baughn
36 Iowa 540 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1873)
Barker v. Bell
46 Ala. 216 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1871)
Campbell v. Rawdon
19 Barb. 494 (New York Supreme Court, 1854)
Bruen v. Bragaw
3 N.J. Eq. 261 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1842)