Smith v. Smith

Delaware Orphan's Court

Smith v. Smith

3 Del. Cas. 73, 1823 Del. LEXIS 9

DecidedJuly 26, 1823

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Del. Cas. 73 (Smith v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Orphan's Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Smith, 3 Del. Cas. 73, 1823 Del. LEXIS 9 (Del. Ct. App. 1823).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The whole evidence to prove that William Smith was seised of an estate of inheritance in this land, is by paroi; and that proves nothing more than that some verbal contract was made by David Smith for the conveyance of this land to his son, William, at some future day. Such conveyance was never made. The testimony of Mr. Judge proves the reverse of an estate of inheritance in William, for David Smith was required to make the deed to him to secure the privilege of raising ore for twenty-five years. This petition is dismissed because there is no evidence in writing of any sale, bargain or contract touching this land; and because William was not, at the time of his death, seised of an estate of inheritance in the land.

Let it be dismissed without prejudice to any suit in Chancery; for if she can recover dower, such recovery can be effected in that court only.

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

The Chancellor.

The whole evidence to prove that William Smith was seised of an estate of inheritance in this land, is by paroi; and that proves nothing more than that some verbal contract was made by David Smith for the conveyance of this land to his son, William, at some future day. Such conveyance was never made. The testimony of Mr. Judge proves the reverse of an estate of inheritance in William, for David Smith was required to make the deed to him to secure the privilege of raising ore for twenty-five years. This petition is dismissed because there is no evidence in writing of any sale, bargain or contract touching this land; and because William was not, at the time of his death, seised of an estate of inheritance in the land.

Let it be dismissed without prejudice to any suit in Chancery; for if she can recover dower, such recovery can be effected in that court only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Del. Cas. 73, 1823 Del. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-smith-delorphct-1823.