Smith v. Hammond
New York Supreme Court
ISRAEL SMITH, being seised in fee of the premises in question, by his will of the 21st July, 1774, devised them “ to the trustees of the town of Brookhaven, and their successors for ever, upon trust and confidence, and to the intent and purpose that x x e they did, and should, after his decease, rent and hire the same to any person at their will, and pay the rents and hires thereof, after the expiration of the time, during which the same should be legally charged and…
Read the full summary
ISRAEL SMITH, being seised in fee of the premises in question, by his will of the 21st July, 1774, devised them “ to the trustees of the town of Brookhaven, and their successors for ever, upon trust and confidence, and to the intent and purpose that x x e they did, and should, after his decease, rent and hire the same to any person at their will, and pay the rents and hires thereof, after the expiration of the time, during which the same should be legally charged and incumbered with the lawful maintenance and dower of his wife, into the hands of the regular minister and other ruling officers…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam, delivered by Benson, J.
By the law of England, and which, as such, became the law of the colonies, lands were devisable in virtue only of the statute of Henry VIII. commonly known as the statute of wills. Special customs were exceptions to the common or general law; but, being local, they formed no part of our law, and the right or *338P°wer to devise, granted by the statute, being expressly limited or restricted from extending to a right or power to devise to corporations, the devise in the will of Israel Smith to the trustees of Brookhaven, ought, therefore, to be adjudged void; so,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Stoney v. Union Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1825