Legal Opinion

M'Call v. M'Call

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 15, 1809PublishedCited by 6 opinions

WRIT of error. This was a petition in chancerv, to the superior court, . ' « . brought by Abigail M'Call, against Deborah M'Call and t, OthetS, The material facts stated, that were found by the court were: That Arch>pfius M'Call, on the 22d of ^ttltl'-mberi 1784, designing to settle and estate his sons, Hobart, Ozias, Green, Roger, and Walter, did, by several deeds, duly signed, acknowledged, &c. convey farms of ®anc* t0 each °f them, with covenants of seisin and warranty,…

Read the full summary

WRIT of error. This was a petition in chancerv, to the superior court, . ' « . brought by Abigail M'Call, against Deborah M'Call and t, OthetS, The material facts stated, that were found by the court were: That Arch>pfius M'Call, on the 22d of ^ttltl'-mberi 1784, designing to settle and estate his sons, Hobart, Ozias, Green, Roger, and Walter, did, by several deeds, duly signed, acknowledged, &c. convey farms of ®anc* t0 each °f them, with covenants of seisin and warranty, and to Jabez and Josiah, the heirs of his son Jacob, deceased, he gave an equal share- in money and securities. By the…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

The deed from Archippus M‘Call, accompanied with the actual delivery of possession, under the circumstances, and in the manner, in which that deed was made, and delivered, cannot be considered, as an executory contract; but may be considered as a voluntary, though <i= fective conveyance, which passed the whole equitable interest at the time, out of Archi/ifius, and vested it in Walter M‘ Call; and though voluntary, being made with a view to a family settlement, and in the nature of a testamentary disposition of the estate, it is such a conveyance, as a court of chancery may…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Jones v. JonesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1826
  2. Hebrew University Assn. v. NyeConnecticut Superior Court · 1966
  3. Frisbie v. McCartySupreme Court of Alabama · 1831
  4. Belden v. SeymourSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
  5. Carr v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 1840

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API