Wadsworth v. . Wadsworth

12 N.Y. 376
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 5, 1855
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 12 N.Y. 376 (Wadsworth v. . Wadsworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wadsworth v. . Wadsworth, 12 N.Y. 376 (N.Y. 1855).

Opinions

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 378 The single question presented is, whether the title to the lands devised to the issue of Mrs. Murray vested in her son Charles James, the respondent, or whether it descended to the heirs of the testator, there being no residuary devisees.

The 4th section of the act "Of Wills and Testaments" provides, that "every devise of any interest in real property to a person who, at the time of the death of the testator, shall be an alien not authorized by statute to hold real estate, shall be void. The interest so devised shall descend to the *Page 379 heirs of the testator; if there be no such heirs competent to take, it shall pass, under his will, to the residuary devisees therein named, if any there be competent to take such interest." (2 R.S., 57, § 4.) As Mrs. Murray was unmarried at the death of the testator, her son was not at that time an alien, and of course not within the terms of the act nor within its spirit, if its object, as the revisers intimate, was to discourage devises to aliens, by a knowledge upon the part of the devisor that they would be ineffectual. Whatever might be the purpose of the legislature, they have not said that the devise in this case shall be void; and as the testator intended the gift for the issue of his daughter, his heirs have no claim to an enlarged or equitable construction of the statute in their favor as against the state.

According to the common law this devisee could take, although he could not hold the lands against the paramount right of the people. (Coke Litt., 2; Comyn's Dig. Alien; Bacon's Ab.Aliens.) Here the state, in April, 1852, released and conveyed its right accruing by escheat, to the devisee, who thereby acquired a perfect title.

The judgment of the supreme court should be affirmed.

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

Related

George v. People
180 Misc. 635 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)
Louisville Property Co. v. Mayor of Nashville
114 Tenn. 213 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1904)
McGillis v. . McGillis
49 N.E. 145 (New York Court of Appeals, 1898)
McGillis v. McGillis
11 A.D. 359 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Van Cortlandt v. Laidley
66 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 161 (New York Supreme Court, 1891)
Van Courtland v. Nevert
11 N.Y.S. 148 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)
Hall v. . Hall
81 N.Y. 130 (New York Court of Appeals, 1880)
Renner v. Müller
57 How. Pr. 229 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1879)
Goodrich v. . Russell
42 N.Y. 177 (New York Court of Appeals, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 N.Y. 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wadsworth-v-wadsworth-ny-1855.