Fisher v. Hill
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
In this action Fisher demanded one undivided forty-eighth part of the land described in the writ. It was submitted to the decision of the Court, on a case stated and agreed by the parties. John Fisher, on the 16th of August, 1796, was seised of the demanded premises, and on that day devised the same to Thankful, his wife, for the term of her life, remainder *in [ * 87 ] fee to Samuel Hill, jun., son of the tenant.
Read the full summary
In this action Fisher demanded one undivided forty-eighth part of the land described in the writ. It was submitted to the decision of the Court, on a case stated and agreed by the parties. John Fisher, on the 16th of August, 1796, was seised of the demanded premises, and on that day devised the same to Thankful, his wife, for the term of her life, remainder *in [ * 87 ] fee to Samuel Hill, jun., son of the tenant. The said Hill died on the 4th of February, 1802, without issue, and unmarried; and on 25th of the same month the testator died seised. His will was afterwards duly proved, and the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
There can be no question but that this devise lapsed at the common law, by the death of the devisee before that of the testator. Our statute, of 1783, c. 24, § 8, only saves the devise, where the devisee dies leaving lineal descendants, who *74“ shall take the estate devised, in the same way and manner such devisee would have done in case he had survived the testator.” Such descendants are purchasers, and take by a sort of statute devise. But the devisee, in the case at bar, left no lineal descendants. The case is, therefore, not within the statute; and the demandant is of course…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Rivenett v. BourquinMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Ballard v. BallardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1836
- Estate of Pfuelb, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco1873
- Lee v. GayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892