Dow v. Warren
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of formedon in descender, sued by the demandant, as heir in tail, upon the gift of Joseph Maylem to his son Mark Maylem, and the heirs of his body; and a descent is derived from him, through his eldest son, Joseph Maylem, to the demandant.
Read the full summary
This was an action of formedon in descender, sued by the demandant, as heir in tail, upon the gift of Joseph Maylem to his son Mark Maylem, and the heirs of his body; and a descent is derived from him, through his eldest son, Joseph Maylem, to the demandant. The second plea pleaded by the tenant in bar is a common recovery, suffered and executed by the last-named Joseph Maylem, to his own use, in fee simple, agreeably to certain indentures to lead the uses; and the plea avers the recovery to have been had with single voucher, Benjamin Gridley being the demandant, and the same Joseph Maylem…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court thereupon observed that this objection was fatal But the counsel for the demandant urged that each successive heir in tail was entitled to bring his action of formedon at any time within twenty years after his right accrued. The Court denied this position to be law,, and said that it had been formerly settled in the case of Hart vs. Hart, in Middlesex, that when the statute of limitations had once begun to run against the heir in tail, no subsequent event could interrupt its progress; and after it had run twenty years, no formedon could afterwards be maintained.
The demandant…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Rush v. FrenchArizona Supreme Court · 1874
- Caldwell ex dem. Caldwell v. ThorpSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Wynn v. LeeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1848
- Inman v. BarnesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1814
- Baldridge v. McFarlandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1855
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.