Jackson ex dem. Hammond v. Veeder
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of ejectment. Johannes S. Feeder, being . . ° seised in fee of the premises in question, by his last will, dated the 15th July, 1746, devised the same to his two sons, Myndert and Simon Feeder, as tenants in common, and died seised.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of ejectment. Johannes S. Feeder, being . . ° seised in fee of the premises in question, by his last will, dated the 15th July, 1746, devised the same to his two sons, Myndert and Simon Feeder, as tenants in common, and died seised. Myndert, the son, being seised in fee of an undivided moiety of the premises in question and of other real estate, by his last will, dated the 7th July, 1754, devised his real estate to his wife, Elizabeth, during her life or widowhood; and out of the rents and profits of which she was to maintain and bring up his children, until they came of…
1Opinion of the Court
Thompson, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the court. The question in this case is, whether there was a due execution by Elizabeth Feeder of the power given her by the codicil to the will of Myndert Feeder. By the codicil the testator devised a *171certain farm, of which the premises in question are a part, to such of his said sons, and his heirs forever, as shall agree and live best with their mother, which was to be signified by an instrument in writing, under the hand and seal of his wife, signed in the presence of two credible witnesses. And he further provides, that the same should serve as a…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Dorland v. DorlandNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Clark v. HornthalMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
- In re the Will of HemstreetNew York Surrogate's Court · 1917
- Ryan v. DalyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
- Shoofstall v. PowellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.