Jones v. Jones
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery. The bill, filed on the 29th of July 1T99, by the appellants, as ' complainants* states, that Susanna Jones, mother of the complainants and defendant, being seized in fee tail of a tract of land in Saint Mary’s county, called The first awl second parts of Pountney’s Oversight, and desirous that the same, on her death, should descend to all her children equally", or be subject to her disposition by will, did by deed .of indenture,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from a decree of the Court of Chancery. The bill, filed on the 29th of July 1T99, by the appellants, as ' complainants* states, that Susanna Jones, mother of the complainants and defendant, being seized in fee tail of a tract of land in Saint Mary’s county, called The first awl second parts of Pountney’s Oversight, and desirous that the same, on her death, should descend to all her children equally", or be subject to her disposition by will, did by deed .of indenture, in due forrri of law, executed and acknowledged, together with Mathias Jones,.her husband, olí the 13th of July 1797,…
1Opinion of the Court
Chase, Ch. J.
I am of opinion that the decree of the. Chancellor be affirmed-, with costs.
It is certainly an established principle, that the heir or-issue in tail claims the land per formam donr, and does-not derive his title to it from the tenant in tail, who in respect of said land is nothing more than the conduit pipe, through wjiich the title to the land is conducted to the issue in tail, whose claim to it is from the donor according, to the gift. The land of the heir, or. issue in tail, is not, liable to the debts of the tenant in tail, nor is he compellable to execute or fulfill any…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Roe v. DoeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1864