Watson v. Watson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of ejectment; tried at Hartford, September term, 183?, before Bissell, J. In the life-time of Ann Watson, and until her death, the demanded premises were owned by her in fee; and the plaintiffs are her children and heirs at law, by John Watson, to whom she was lawfully married, and who is still living.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment; tried at Hartford, September term, 183?, before Bissell, J. In the life-time of Ann Watson, and until her death, the demanded premises were owned by her in fee; and the plaintiffs are her children and heirs at law, by John Watson, to whom she was lawfully married, and who is still living. The plaintiffs claimed, that John Watson had not an estate by the curtesy in the premises; and to establish this point, they offered in evidence the following writing, under his hand and seal, dated the 23rd of February, 1837, after the death of his wife: “ Know all men, by…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
The object of a disclaimer, is, to prevent an estate passing from the grantor to the grantee. It is a formal mode of expressing the grantee’s dissent to the conveyance before the title has become vested in him. In some cases, it may be highly proper ; as where a deed is made conveying an estate to one for life, with a remainder to another in fee. Here, in the absence of all evidence to the contrary, the law would presume the assent of the grantee in remainder, upon delivery of the deed to the grantee for life, for the benefit of both. But if the remainder-man chooses not to take the estate,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Treadwell v. BulkleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1810
3Cited by7 opinions
- Martin v. McGrathCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Bostian v. MilensMissouri Court of Appeals · 1946
- Cooke v. DoronSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Wyatt v. SmithWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1885
- Dueringer v. Klocke, New York County Courts1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.