Rhodes v. Bouldry

Michigan Supreme Court

Rhodes v. Bouldry

101 N.W. 206, 138 Mich. 144, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 810

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 9, 1904

DocketDocket No. 16

StatusPublished

This text of 101 N.W. 206 (Rhodes v. Bouldry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rhodes v. Bouldry, 101 N.W. 206, 138 Mich. 144, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 810 (Mich. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

<3rant, J.

(after stating the facts). An estate tail general is one “limited to a man and the heirs of his body, without any further specification.” 1 Washb. Real Prop. § 200. “To hold in fee tail or in tail, is ‘where a man holdeth certain lands or tenements to him and to his heirs of his body begotten;’ that is a general tail.” 3 Stroud’s Jud. Dic. 2004. See, also, 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), p. 371. The devise in this will created an estate tail general under all the authorities. It would be difficult to find language more appropriate to create such an estate. Estates tail are abolished by statute. 3 Comp. Laws, § 8785. This case is ruled by Goodell v. Hibbard, 32 Mich. 47, and Eldred v. Shaw, 112 Mich. 237.

The decree of the court is correct, and is affirmed, with costs to the complainant.

The other Justices' concurred.

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

<3rant, J.

(after stating the facts). An estate tail general is one “limited to a man and the heirs of his body, without any further specification.” 1 Washb. Real Prop. § 200. “To hold in fee tail or in tail, is ‘where a man holdeth certain lands or tenements to him and to his heirs of his body begotten;’ that is a general tail.” 3 Stroud’s Jud. Dic. 2004. See, also, 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), p. 371. The devise in this will created an estate tail general under all the authorities. It would be difficult to find language more appropriate to create such an estate. Estates tail are abolished by statute. 3 Comp. Laws, § 8785. This case is ruled by Goodell v. Hibbard, 32 Mich. 47, and Eldred v. Shaw, 112 Mich. 237.

The decree of the court is correct, and is affirmed, with costs to the complainant.

The other Justices' concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 N.W. 206, 138 Mich. 144, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhodes-v-bouldry-mich-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack