Lessee of Baughman v. Baugman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Ejectment for lands in Daupliin county, in which a special verdict was found at Harrisburg, 29 October 1795. The jury find that Michael Baughman, the elder, was seized of the premises in question, and that he, together with Catharine his wife by indenture bearing date the 18th March 1747-8, for tlieir natural love and affection they bear to tlieir son Michael Baughman, junior, and Magdalena his wife, and for their advancement in the world, and in consideration of the sum of…
Read the full summary
Ejectment for lands in Daupliin county, in which a special verdict was found at Harrisburg, 29 October 1795. The jury find that Michael Baughman, the elder, was seized of the premises in question, and that he, together with Catharine his wife by indenture bearing date the 18th March 1747-8, for tlieir natural love and affection they bear to tlieir son Michael Baughman, junior, and Magdalena his wife, and for their advancement in the world, and in consideration of the sum of five shillings to them in hand paid by the said Michael Baughman, junior, and Magdalena his wife, have given, granted,…
1Opinion of the CourtShipper., J.
I have no doubt that the words in the deed on which the contest depends, are words of limitation and not of purchase. The rule in Shelley’s case fully applies hereto. When the ancestor takes an estate of freehold, and in the same conveyance an estate is limited to his heirs, the word “ heirs ” is a word of limitation and not of purchase. I am therefore satisfied, that Michael Baughman, junior, took an estate tail under the deed from his father, and he having suffered a common recovery, there should be judgment for the defendant.
Yeates, J.*
The sole question is, whether the remainder over to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hileman v. BouslaughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Fraser v. CheneMichigan Supreme Court · 1851
- Auman v. AumanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1853
- Demarest v. Den ex dem. HopperSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1850