Sudduth v. Sudduth
60 Miss. 366
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
By the conveyance to the trustee there was limited a use to Sarah B. Sudduth and the heirs of her body, to be begotten by her then husband, the grantor. This, under the statute de donis, would have been a fee tail, and by our statute is converted into a fee simple. McKenzie v. Jones, 39 Miss. 360.
The decree is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sudduth v. Sudduth, 60 Miss. 366 (Mich. 1882).
60 Miss. 366 (Sudduth v. Sudduth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Liberty Bank v. Wilson
77 So. 145 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1917)
Wallace v. Wallace
75 So. 449 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1917)