Markoe v. Maxcy

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Markoe v. Maxcy

5 D.C. 306

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedMarch 15, 1837

StatusPublished

This text of 5 D.C. 306 (Markoe v. Maxcy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Markoe v. Maxcy, 5 D.C. 306 (circtddc 1837).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court

(Thruston, J.,

absent,) was of opinion that the wives had no power to convey but by last will and testament, or by an instrument m the nature of a last will and testament, as provided for in the deed of trust; and that the Court could not enable them to do so.

See 2 Kent’s Com. 163, 165, 166, 170, and the cases by him cited. Lowry and Wife v. Tiernan and Williamson, 2 Har. & Gill, 34-40; Methodist Episcopal Church v. Jacques, 3 Johns. Ch. Rep. 90, 102, 103 to 113; and Ewing v. Smith, 3 Desausure, 417. See, also, Sperling v. Rochfort, 8 Ves. 170; Chesslyn v. Smith, 8 Id. 183; Frederic v. Hartwell, 1 Cox, 193; Burford v. Street, 16 Ves. 135; Pybus v. Smith, 3 Bro. C. C. 346; Newman v. Carlony, 3 Id. 346, note; Socket v. Wray, 4 Id. 483; Anderson v. Dawson, 15 Ves. 536; Richards v. Chambers, 10 Id. 580; Reid v. Shergoold, 10 Id. 370; Lee v. Muggeridge, 1 Vesey & Beames, 118; Fettiplace v. Gorges, 1 Ves. Jun. 46; S. C. 3 Bro. C. C. 8; Rich v. Cockell, 9 Ves. 369; Fenner v. Taylor, 1 Simons, 169; Methodist Episcopal Church v. Jacques, 1 Johns. Ch. Rep. 450; same case, 3 Id. 77; Lancaster v. Dolan, 1 Rawle, [308]*308231, 248; Acton v. White, 1 Simons & Stuart, 429; Ritchie v. Broadbent, 2 Jac. & Walk. 456, and the case of Gullan v. Trimbey, in a note; Howard v. Damiani, 2 Id. 458; Ball v. Montgomery, 2 Ves. 199; Rich v. Cockell, 9 Id. 369; West v. West, 3 Rand. 373; Emery v. Neighbor, 2 Halsted, 142.

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

The Court

(Thruston, J.,

absent,) was of opinion that the wives had no power to convey but by last will and testament, or by an instrument m the nature of a last will and testament, as provided for in the deed of trust; and that the Court could not enable them to do so.

See 2 Kent’s Com. 163, 165, 166, 170, and the cases by him cited. Lowry and Wife v. Tiernan and Williamson, 2 Har. & Gill, 34-40; Methodist Episcopal Church v. Jacques, 3 Johns. Ch. Rep. 90, 102, 103 to 113; and Ewing v. Smith, 3 Desausure, 417. See, also, Sperling v. Rochfort, 8 Ves. 170; Chesslyn v. Smith, 8 Id. 183; Frederic v. Hartwell, 1 Cox, 193; Burford v. Street, 16 Ves. 135; Pybus v. Smith, 3 Bro. C. C. 346; Newman v. Carlony, 3 Id. 346, note; Socket v. Wray, 4 Id. 483; Anderson v. Dawson, 15 Ves. 536; Richards v. Chambers, 10 Id. 580; Reid v. Shergoold, 10 Id. 370; Lee v. Muggeridge, 1 Vesey & Beames, 118; Fettiplace v. Gorges, 1 Ves. Jun. 46; S. C. 3 Bro. C. C. 8; Rich v. Cockell, 9 Ves. 369; Fenner v. Taylor, 1 Simons, 169; Methodist Episcopal Church v. Jacques, 1 Johns. Ch. Rep. 450; same case, 3 Id. 77; Lancaster v. Dolan, 1 Rawle, [308]*308231, 248; Acton v. White, 1 Simons & Stuart, 429; Ritchie v. Broadbent, 2 Jac. & Walk. 456, and the case of Gullan v. Trimbey, in a note; Howard v. Damiani, 2 Id. 458; Ball v. Montgomery, 2 Ves. 199; Rich v. Cockell, 9 Id. 369; West v. West, 3 Rand. 373; Emery v. Neighbor, 2 Halsted, 142.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 D.C. 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markoe-v-maxcy-circtddc-1837.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack