Den ex dem. Rickey v. Hillman
Supreme Court of New Jersey
IN EJECTMENT. This cause being noticed for trial at the Hunterdon Circuit, at October term, 1820, the defendant confessed lease entry and ouster, (pro ut lex postulat.) the parties agreed to the following state of the case : John Rickey, being seized of the premises in question,-by his last will and testament; executed in due form of law, bearing date the 11th March, 1794, devised the same as follows : “ I give to Mary, my wife, the house and lot where I now live, together…
Read the full summary
IN EJECTMENT. This cause being noticed for trial at the Hunterdon Circuit, at October term, 1820, the defendant confessed lease entry and ouster, (pro ut lex postulat.) the parties agreed to the following state of the case : John Rickey, being seized of the premises in question,-by his last will and testament; executed in due form of law, bearing date the 11th March, 1794, devised the same as follows : “ I give to Mary, my wife, the house and lot where I now live, together with the remainder of my personal estate, (my bonds, bills, and book debts excepted) for and during her natural life; and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Eokd, J.
The lessors of the plaintiff claimed the premises in question, as heirs at law of Raudal Rickey, their father, who *died seized, and contested the legality of a sale of the premises made by the sheriff, under an execution against their father, Randal Rickey, after his decease. If the sale was valid, it, of course, destroyed the title of the heirs at law, aüd if not valid, their title must, of consequence prevail. All depends on the legality or illegality of the sále.
It is objected to it, in the first place, that the estate of the ancestor was…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In Re Eagleson EstateNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1980
- Miller v. Woodbury Trust CompanyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1949