Jackson ex dem. Roosevelt v. Thurman

6 Johns. 322
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 15, 1810
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 6 Johns. 322 (Jackson ex dem. Roosevelt v. Thurman) 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
Jackson ex dem. Roosevelt v. Thurman, 6 Johns. 322 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The fifth rule, or canon of descent, ill Our statute, regulating descents, (Laws, vol. 1. p. 46. sess. 9. c. 12.) has departed a little from the principle adhered to, in the order of lineal descent, and has carried to an unusual length, the doctrine of inheritance, per stirpes, or by representation. Thus if A. dies seised of land, and his nearest heirs are a brother and two nephews, by a deceased brother, the two nephews must claim by representation, to entitle themselves to a share of the estate with their uncle. But, if A. dies seised of land, and his nearest heirs are a nephew, by a brother deceased, and two nephews by another brother, deceased, in this Case, the claimants all stand in equal degree of consanguinity, being all nephews to the common .ancestor, and might all well inherit equally, or per capita; yet the statute makes them inherit per stirpes, or such share as their patents respectively would have inherited, if living; and, of course, one nephew would take one half of the [323]*323estate, and the other two nephews the other half. The present is such a case; and it is carrying the doctrine of inheritance, per stirpes, further than it is carried in the case of lineal descent; and further than it was carried in the celebrated novel of Justinian, (118.) from which the " statute of distributions was copied; but it is clearly the language and meaning of the statute. The lessors are, therefore, entitled to judgment, for one equal undivided moiety of the premises, and no more.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Related

Godwin v. Marvel
99 A.2d 354 (Delaware Orphan's Court, 1953)
Godwin v. Marvel
99 A.2d 354 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1953)
Nichols v. Shepard
63 N.H. 391 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1885)
Wagner v. Sharp
33 N.J. Eq. 520 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1881)
Stallworth v. Stallworth
29 Ala. 76 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1856)
Pond v. Bergh
10 Paige Ch. 140 (New York Court of Chancery, 1843)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Johns. 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-dem-roosevelt-v-thurman-nysupct-1810.