May v. Joynes

20 Va. 692
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedFebruary 15, 1871
StatusPublished

This text of 20 Va. 692 (May v. Joynes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
May v. Joynes, 20 Va. 692 (Va. 1871).

Opinion

Allen, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This day came the parties, by their counsel, and the-court having maturely considered the transcript of the record of the decree aforesaid, and the arguments of' counsel, is of opinion, for reasons stated in writing and filed with the record, that the Circuit court erred in holding that Margaret B. May is not entitled to a fee simple in the real estate, and an absolute property in the personal estate, of her late husband, John F. May, deceased, under his last will and testament, as-claimed by her in her answer; but that she is entitled . to the same, except the part embraced by the second codicil, for life only, with remainder to the children' and grand-children of the testator. The court then reversed the decree of the Circuit court, with costs, and proceeded: “And this court, proceeding to pronounce; [715]*715such decree as the said Circuit court ought to have pronounced, doth declare that, by the last will and testament of John F. May, the said Margaret B. May is entitled to a fee simple in the real estate, and an absolute property in the personal estate, of her late husband, the said John F. May, deceased, under his last will and testament, as claimed by her in her answer; and that the limitation over of whatever remains at her death is inconsistent with, and repugnant to, such fee simple and absolute property in said real and personal estate, and fails for uncertainty; and doth adjudge and decree that such are the rights of said Margaret B. May under said will; and that no interest vested in the other parties by the limitation over in said will.” The court proceeded, therefore, to dismiss the bill with costs.

Samuels, J., dissented.

Decree reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Va. 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-joynes-va-1871.