Hamilton v. Hempsted
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of ejectment by the plaintiffs, in the right of the wife, claiming title to the demanded premises as tenants in common with the defendant, and alleging an actual ouster and exclusive possession by the defendant. The general issue was pleaded.
Read the full summary
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of ejectment by the plaintiffs, in the right of the wife, claiming title to the demanded premises as tenants in common with the defendant, and alleging an actual ouster and exclusive possession by the defendant. The general issue was pleaded. On the trial, it appeared, that Joshua Hemfisted thé first devised the premises by a will dated the 17th of October, 1683, to Ms son Joshua Hemfisted the second, with this clause of limitation : “ Which lands, (to say,) all the lands given him, shall accrue unto the heir male of my said son, and not to be…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The proceedings in the probate of ⅝ the will are conformable to the usage and practice of ‘that period; for the general assembly then exercised ex* ! tensive judicial power, especially in granting new trials, ! And it would be of dangerous consequence to set aside ! such ancient proceedings, because they do not appear to ; be conducted with all the regularity *f modern times.
*339In the construction of devises, the intent of the devi-sor, collected from the whole devise, is to be pursued, if that intent is consistent with the policy of the law. Though the words “ heir male in…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Edgerly v. BarkerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891
- Dart v. DartSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
- Warren v. DuvalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Thames Bank & Trust Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Rudkin v. RandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.