Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	john_n	son_n	succeed_v	1,708	5	9.7941	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42922	The orphans legacy, or, A testamentary abridgement in three parts ... : wherein the most material points of law, relating to that subject, are succinctly treated, as well according to the common and temporal, as ecclesiastical and civil laws of this realm : illustrated with great variety of select cases in the law of both professions, as well delightful in the theorie, as usefull for the practice of all such as study the one, or are either active or passive in the other / John Godolphin.	Godolphin, John, 1617-1678.	1674 (1674)	Wing G946; ESTC R8268	410,843	382

he should have all the Goods and the Kindred be defrauded which is not reasonable and therefore such Administration shall be void CHAP. XXXV Of Succession in the Right Line Ascendent 1. Whether Parents specially the Mother be next of Kin to her Child 2. The method of Succession by the Civil Law in the Right Line Ascendent 3. How the Succession goes by the Civil Law when some of the Collaterals concurr with those of the Ascendent Line 4. Whether by the same Law the deceaseds Brothers and Brothers Children may concurr with their Parents to the Succession 1. NOtwithstanding that Maxime at the Common Law That Inheritance cannot Lineally Ascend yet is the Parent more nigh of blood to the Child even by that Law than is the Uncle And by the Civil Law as the Son and Daughter be in the first degree of Kindred in the Line Descendent So the Father and Mother are in the first degree of Kindred in the Line Ascendent To constitute a Kindred it is sufficient that the Relations do centre and agree in aliquo Tertio or flow from one common Head or Fountain or spring from the same Stock or Root Thus the Father and the Daughter the Mother and the Son the Mother and the Daughter the Father and the Son they flow from one and the same Fountain they spring from the same Root viz. the Grand-Father and therefore are of Kin each to other And by the Laws of this Realm Parents are reputed to be of Kin to their Children and the Mother to be of Kin to her Child and therefore by the Statute Law if a man seized of Lands in Socage his Heir being within the Age of Fourteen years In this case the Mother shall have the Wardship of her Son as being next of Kin to whom the Lands cannot descend Indeed by the Law of the twelfth Table the Mother could not Succeed to her Children nor they to her But this is now altered the Law now being otherwise It cannot be denyed but that this Question viz. Whether the Mother be of Kin to her Child hath been much controverted amongst the ablest Lawyers and in the close of all after much dispute it hath been adjudged in the Negative viz. That the Mother is not of Kin to her Child As in that remarkable of the D. of Suffolk in Ed. the sixth's time wherein an Administration was granted away from the Mother to a Sister of the half blood According to which Judgement divers other Administrations for several years after were granted away from the Mothers to the Brethren and Sisters as next of Kin. Notwithstanding all which the Law indeed being all that while quite otherwise than was practised at last the Truth prevailed and the practice now frequent and Judgement every where given for the Mother that she is of Kin to her Child who dying Issueless and Intestate the Administration of his Goods may be committed to her as next of Kin according to the Statute Or if he be Issueless but not Intestate and maketh his Kin his Executor or bequeath the residue of his Goods to his Kin the Mother in this case is Admissable to the Executrixship as next of Kin to her Child or on the same account to enjoy the Legacy during her life and after her death then the other next of Kin. 2. If the deceased leave no Children they in the Right Line Ascendent do by the Civil Law succeed him but in this Order First the Father and Mother succeed equally and exclusively to all others that are of a more remote degree or the Mother only if the Father be not alive or the Father only if the Mother be dead And if there be several Parents of a distinct Line who are equal in degree but unequal in number they succeed according to their Stock or Root not according to their number thus the Grand-Father by the Fathers side shall have as much as both Grand-Father and Grand-Mother by the Mothers side But if the Parents be in an unequal or different degree then the right of Representation doth cease and the nigher shall ever exclude the more remote Thus the Father excludes both the Grand-Fathers by the Fathers and Mothers side and the Mother both the Grand-Mothers 3. There are also some of the Collateral Line who by the Civil Law do concur with those of the Ascendent Line for the Brothers and Sisters of the deceased do succeed him together with the Father and Mother And the Succession when the Brothers concur is proportioned according to their number But if there be divers Kindred of the same degree to the Intestate whose Father is dead whereof some are by the Fathers side others by the Mothers side as if the deceased leave a Grand-Father by his Fathers side and a Grand-Father and Grand-Mother by the Mothers In this Case the Succession is not proportioned according to their number but it is to be divided into two equal parts and the Grand-Father by the Fathers side draws the one Moity the Rest the other Moity And if it happens that together with those of the Line Ascendent and with Brothers of the whole blood to the deceased there be the Sons of other Brothers of the whole blood deceased In this Case the Sons of such Brothers deceased shall Succeed together with the others but not according to their Number but according to their Stock or Root that is those Sons of such deceased Brothers shall among them all have only that proportion which would have come to their Fathers if they had been alive Here Note that this is meant only of the Children of such Brothers deceased therefore the Grand-children and others more remote are not admitted together with the Parents and Brothers and Sisters of the deceased 4. Brothers and Sisters only of the half blood to the deceased do not concur with the Parents in the Succession Thus the Grand-Father in Succession to his Grand-child doth exclude the Brothers of half blood to such Grand-child unless the Brothers be of the same blood and of the same side with such Grand-Father And if a man dye Intestate leaving a Mother and the Children of his Brothers deceased behind him the Mother alone shall Succeed to the Intestate unless there be other Brothers of the deceased then living for then the said Children of the said Brothers deceased shall concur with the Mother Thus Brothers and Brothers Children may concur with their Parents to the Succession of the deceased but all other Collaterals are excluded by the Parents insomuch that the Uncles both by the Fathers and the Mothers side are excluded by the Grand-Father and Grand-Mother of the deceased CHAP. XXXVI Of Succession in the Line Transversal or Collateral 1. The Line Collateral is Two-fold In which Line the Jus Repraesentationis holds only in Brothers Children not in their Grand-Children 2. Regularly the whole

in the Womb at the Testators death seems to be void Yet if a Man Devise to such an Infant and he happen to be Born before the Testators death it seems that in this case the Devise is good Again A Devise made to a person altogether uncertain and not certainly Named or Described is altogether void yet a plain Description of a Person without naming him is sufficient so that a Devise made to the Dean of Pauls without naming him is good A Man Deviseth his Land to Elianor the Daughter of I. S. who hath divers Daughters whereof one is named Hellen and none Eleanor This is a good Devise to Hellen. Likewise if a Man hath Two Wives and he Deviseth his Land to his latter Wife in Fee the first Wife shall have it or if he hath Two Sons called John and one of them is a Bastard born before Marriage and he makes a Devise to his Son John the Legitimate John shall have it and not the Bastard The Husband can be no Devisee as to a Devise of Lands from his Wife There are Three Brothers by the same Father and Mother and the middle Brother Seized of Land Deviseable giveth it by his Testament Propinquiori fratri suo it seems that neither of them shall have it Suppose a Man who hath a Term Deviseth the Land to one and his Heirs the Devisee dyeth leaving Executors his Heirs shall have the Land and not his Executors the Law is otherwise in case the Entire Term were so Devised A Devise of Land made to the Canons of a certain Cathedral for ever or Canonicis Ecclesiae D. Pauli Lond. in perpetuum is a good Devise to all the Canons joyntly in Fee and the Survivor shall have the Entierty If a Man willeth that his Executors shall Sell his Land for the Payment of his Debts and they all die save one who maketh the Sale in this case the Vendee shall not have the Land the Law were otherwise if the Land had been Devised to the Executors to be Sold. If a Man hath Issue a Son and Land is Devised to the Father Habend sibi Hered de Corpore suo Legitime procreand and after the Devisee hath Issue another Son the second shall have the Land If a Man Deviseth by the Will That after the death of his Wife the Land Devisable shall go to I. S. his Wife shall have it for her Life by this Devise Or if a Man willeth that after 20. Years after the death of the Devisor I. S shall have the Land in Fee the Heir of the Devisor shall have the Land during the Term and not the Executor 5 A Testament Nuncupative is not good for a Devise of Land nor a Testament made in Print if it were never written yet a Testament written though no Executor be named therein is good for Lands but not for Goods Likewise a Testament without Sealing or Subscribing is good enough for a Devise of Land so as it be put into Writing in the Testators Life Time although it be never proved before the Ordinary But if in a Testament there are these words viz. Haec est voluntas intentio mea A. B. c. This is not good for the disposition or devise of Land without saying ultima voluntas according to the Lord Dyers Opinion who in his Learned Readings on the Stat. of Wills 32. and 38. H. 8. if he were indeed the Author of that Impression 1648. doth further Affirm That if a Man makes a Testament of his Land in one County and long after makes a Testament of his Land in another County These are good Also that if Two Men severally Seized of Lands make a Joynt-Testament of their Land This shall be good and several Testaments Also that where a man is in making his Testament and having Devised a parcel of his Land dies before the perfection and finishing thereof This shall be good for so much as is Devised That a Man willing by his Testament that his Lands shall be Sold to pay his Debts not declaring by whom This is a good Will and shall be performed by his Executors or Administrators That a Man making a Will of Land in which he hath nothing and after Purchaseth the same Land and dyeth This is not good That a Woman Covert making a Will of her Land and after taking a Husband who hath Issue the Husband dyeth the Wife dyeth this is not a good Will That if a Man make a Will of his Land and after alien this Land in Fee and after repurchaseth the same Land This is not a good Will That a Man making a Will and after making a new Will and after on his Death-bed saith That the first Will shall be his last Will This is good Also that where a Man giveth Land by his Will in Fee and after by another Will giveth the same Land to another but for Term of Life This is a Revocation of the Entire first Will. Also if a Man Devise another Mans Land This Devise is void but if he after the Devise made Purchase this Land then the Devise is good CHAP VIII Certain Cases touching Devises of Land Void or not 1. Lands What and how Devisable 2. Certain void Devises of Land 3. To what Persons and in what Cases Devises of Land may be good or not 4. The same Lands twice Devised to several Persons in the same Will how both Devises may stand good 5. The Profits of Land Devised do pass the Land it self in which Case Testaments more favourably construed then Deeds 6. How Lands Purchased after a Devise of Lands made may pass by that Devise or not 7. Several Cases in Law referring to this Subject 1. ALthough Lands made Devisable by Statute cannot be Devised otherwise then by Will in Writing yet Lands and Tenements Devisable by Custom may be Devised by a Nuncupative Will without any Writing But Copy-hold Land is not Devisable nor can Tenants in Tail or pur auter vie or Joynt-Tenants Devise their Eestate in the Land they so hold no more then they could before the making of the said Statute which doth not impower them thereunto But such as are Seized of Land in Common or Coparcenary may devise the same And if there be Two Joynt-Tenants for Life and the Fee-simple to one of them he that hath the Fee-simple may Devise his Fee-simple after the death of the other Joynt-Tenant for Life And in such places where Lands were Devisable by Custom before the making of the Stat. of 32. H. 8. a Devise of Lands may be good against the Heir for the whole but by the Stat. impowering to dispose of Lands by Will a Devise of Land is not good against the Heir save only for Two parts in Three 2. He that Deviseth Land ought to have a Right to and possession of the Land he Deviseth otherwise the Devise is not good and therefore if

remembred them But for the foresaid Reasons it was adjudged for the Plaintiff That those Lands well passed by the Will Suppose a Man hath Two Sons both named John and conceiving his Eldest Son to be dead he Deviseth his Land by his Will to his Son John generally when in Truth the Eldest Son is living In this Case the Younger Son may alleadge and give in Evidence the Devise to him and may produce Witnesses to prove the Intent of his Father And if no Proof can be made the Devise shall be void for the uncertainty of it Glanvile Serjeant prayed the Opinion of the Court in this Case A Man had Issue a Son and a Daughter and Devised his Lands to his Son in Tail and if he dyed without Issue That it should remain to the next of his Name and dyed The Son dyed without Issue the Daughter being then Married whether she should have the Land was the Question And held per Curiam That she should not For she had lost her Name by her Marriage but it should go to the next Heir-male of the Name But if she had not been Married at the Time of her Brothers death the Daughter should have had it for she was the next of the Name One Devised certain Lands in N. in Tail the Remainder to the next of the Kin of his Name and at the Time of the Devise the next of his Kin was his Brothers Daughter who was then Married to I. S. the Devisor dyed The Tenant in Tail dyed afterwards without Issue Whether the Daughter should have the Land was the Question upon a special Verdict and adjudged without Argument that she should not For she is not now of the Name of the Devisor but of her Husbands Name But if she had been unmarried at the Time of the Devise and death of the Donor although she had been Married at the Time of the death of the Tenant in Tail without Issue yet she should have had the Land Wherefore it was adjudged accordingly Ejectione Firmae For certain Lands in A. upon Evidence to a Jury a Devise was shewn of an House with the Appurtenances and thereby Land in the Field was claimed And Popham doubted whether it should pass But Fenner said That it well might pass And that upon Demurrer in 28. Eliz. it was adjudged accordingly The Defendant then to make it clear shewed That the House was Copyhold and the Land Freehold And the whole Court thereupon conceived That it could not be said Appurtenant although it had been used with it Wherefore the Plaintiff was Nonsuited In the Case between H. and H. all agreed the Case of 13. H. 7. That a Testators Devise to his Heir of his Land after the death of his Feme is a good Devise by Implication to the Feme of that Land during her life for it appears he intended his Heir should not have it until the death of his Feme And none other can have it besides the Feme And therefore it is a good Devise to the Feme by Implication But if such a Devise had been to a Stranger after the death of his Feme it might peradventure have been otherwise for the Heir in the Interim might have had it Note That the Opinion of all the Justices was That if one make his Testament wherein are these words viz. I Release all my Lands c. to A. and to his Heirs It is a good Devise of the said Lands to A. and his Heirs Upon a special Verdict the Case was this A Woman Seised of Lands made her Will and devised the same to one and his Heirs after they Intermarry After Marriage the Woman intending to revoke her Will doth revoke it by words after Marriage and saith That her Husband shall not have the Land by her Will and after dyes Whether the Husband by that Will or the next Heir to his Wife shall have the Land was the Question The Case was Argued Pro Con several Arguments on both sides In fine it was Adjudged That the Will was void and that the Husband could take nothing thereby A Man Devised his Lands to his Wife from Year to Year until his Son I. come to the Age of 20. Years and dies the Wife enters I. dies before he attain the Age of 20. Years And it was moved by Harper whether her Interest were thereby determined And it was held by all the Justices That by the death of the Son the Estate of the Wife was determined and that she had no longer any Estate therein For it is to be intended that the Will of the Devisor was That his Wife should have the Land during the Minority of his Son for that he himself could not Legally dispose of the Land being within Age. And Dyer said That by these words de anno in annum It is intended that the Will of the Devisor was That the Interest of the Wife should determine by the death of his Son But if the Words had been until his Son should Come or might Come to that Age of 20. Years then notwithstanding his death the Estate of the Wife had continued A. Seised of the Mannor of Chessam extending into Chessam and the Town of Hertford and also of Lands in Hertford Devised by Will the Mannor of Chessam to B. his Eldest Son in Tail and the Lands in Hertford to C. his Younger Son It was held by all the Justices That the Younger Son should have all that part of the Mannor of Chessam which lay in the Town of Hertford A. Devised that his Lands should descend to his Son but Willed That his Wife should take the Profits thereof until the full Age of the Son for his Education and bringing up and dyed The Wife Married another Husband and dyed before the full Age of the Son It was the Opinion of the Justices in this Case That the second Husband should not have the Profits of those Lands till the full Age of the Son For nothing is Devised to the Wife but a Confidence and she is a Guardian or Bailiff for to help the Infant which by her death is determined and the same Confidence cannot be transferred to the Husband A Man Seised of a Messuage to which a Garden and a Curtilage did belong Enclosed with a Wall and there was no way to the Garden but through the Messuage He Devised the Messuage to his second Son in Fee not mentioning the Garden nor Curtelage nor saith cum pertinentijs It was Adjudged in this Case That the Garden and Curtelage did pass by this Devise They said a Curtelage is parcel of the House as a Stable and a Dovehouse and the Garden shall pass because it is as well for Necessity to it as for Pleasure A. Seised of Lands had Two Daughters and Devised the Lands to the Eldest and her Heirs that she pay to her Younger Sister yearly 30 l. It was the Opinion of all the

to rest in Peace Vide 4. Ed. 6. tit Estates 78. 29. H. 8. Br. Testam 18. Dyer 371. Wellock Hamonds Case 32. 33. Eliz. Cited in Borastons Case Co. 3. 20 21. And Colliers Case Co. 6. 16. A Man by the Premises of his Will Deviseth his Land to I. S. in Fee and by the Sequele he Deviseth the same Land to I. N. in Fee they both shall take by this Testament and shall be Joynt-Tenants A Devise made Canonicis Ecclesiae Catholicae Pauli Lond. in perpetuum is a good Devise to all the Canons joyntly in Fee and the Survivor shall have the Entierty the Law is otherwise in Case of a Devise made Civitati Lond. in perpetuum the Corporation of the Mayor and Commonalty shall take by this Devise A Man hath Two Wives and he Deviseth his Land to his latter Wife in Fee the first Wife shall have it Likewise if one hath Two Sons called I. and one of them is a Bastard and Born before Marriage and he makes a Devise to his Son I. the Legitimate I. shall have it and not the Bastard A Man hath Issue a Son and Land is Devised to the Father Habend sibi Haered de corpore suo Legitime procreand and after the Devisee hath Issue another Son the second shall have the Land A Man Seised of Three Messuages Devised by his Testament to his Son A. one of them Naming it and A. to enter after his Wives death and Devised another of the Messuages to his second Son paying 10 l. to his Sister and he to enter at his Age of 21. Years and Devised the Third Messuage to his Third Son in like manner as to his Second Son And after in his Testament willed That if either of his Sons dyed before 21. Years of Age that then his part should be divided among the Survivors and each of them to be the others Heir they all attain to the full Age and the Two Younger Sons paid their Sister the several Sums as was appointed in the Will The Question being what Estate the Two Younger Sons had in those Messuages Devised them by the Will it was held a Fee-simple CHAP. X. Certain Cases touching Devises of Land by way of Entail 1. How Lands Devised by way of Entail may happen to be devested out of one and be vested in another upon the birth of an Issue in Tail 2. Tenant in Tail may not by any Devise Condition or Limitation be Barred from Alienating by suffering a Common Recocovery 3. A Difference in Point of Entail between Devises by Will and Grants by Deed. 4. The several ways of Entails by Devise with the difference between Devising Semini suo and Sanguini suo 5. The Question whether Issue born or not at the time of making the Devise may put a difference between an Estate-Tail and Joynt-Tenancy 6. What shall be a Fee-simple by Deed which is but an Estate-Tail by Devise 7. In what Case the Younger Son may have Fee-simple and the Elder but an Estate-Tail 8. Otherways how an Estate-Tail may be Created by Devise 9. Instances of Law for further illustration of Entails by way of Devise 10. In what case the Word Or shall be taken for And to Create an Estate-Tail by Devise 11. Other Cases of Estates-Tail by Devise with Cross-Remainders 12. An Estate-Tail by Devise with implyed Remainder 13. How there may be a Devise of an Estate-Tail of Rent as well as of Land and how a Tail limited to some Lands shall not extend to others therewith Devised 1. A Man Seised of Lands in Fee Devised them to his Wife for life and after to his Two Sons if they had not Issue Males for their lives and if they had Issue Males then to their Issue Males and if they had not Issue Males then if any of them had Issue Male to the said Issue Male The Wife dyed the Sons entred into the Lands and then the Eldest Son had Issue Male who afterwards entered the Younger Son put out the Issue In this Case the Lands by the birth of the Issue Males are divested out of the Two Sons and vested in the Issue Male of the Eldest and he hath an Estate-Tail therein 2. A Man Seised of Lands in Capite Devised them to his Wife for life and after her decease his Son John to have it and if his Son John marry and have by his Wife any Issue Male of his Body Lawfully begotten then his Son to have it if no Issue Male then his Son Thomas to have the House and if Thomas marry having Issue Males of his Body his Son to have the House after his decease And if any of his Sons or Issue Males go about to Alien or Mortgage the House then the next Heir to enter c. In this Case it was 1 Resolved That the Sons had an Estate-Tail in them severally and to the Heirs Males of their Bodies for that these words if he have no Issue Male his Son Thomas to have it are sufficient to create Tail to John and so of the rest 2 Resolved That no Condition or Limitation be it by Act Executed or by Limitation of Use or by Devise by last Will can Bar Tenant in Tail to Alien by suffering a Common Recovery 3. If a Devise be made of Land to A. B. and the Heirs Males of his Body and he hath Issue only a Daughter who hath Issue a Son the Son shall not take by this Devise Or if such Devise be made to him and the Heirs Females of his Body and he hath Issue only a Son who hath Issue a Daughter she shall not take by this Devise And here Note That in point of Entails there is a Difference between Devises by Will and Grants by Deed for if a Devise of Land be made to A. B. and to his Heirs Males by this Devise A. B. hath an Estate-Tail Otherwise it is if such a Limitation be made by Deed for if one by Deed give Land to another and his Heirs Males by this the Donee hath a Fee-simple and his Heirs General shall have it But if a Devise of Land be to A. B. and to the Eldest Heirs Females of his Body by this Devise all his Daughters and not one of them only shall have it And if a Man Devise his Land to his Wife for life and after to his own right Heirs Males and he hath Issue Three Daughters whereof one after his death hath a Son In this Case and by this Devise the next Collateral Heir Male of the Devisor and not the Son of the Daughter shall have the Land If a Man Devise his Land to A. B. and to his or to the Heirs Males or Heirs Females of his Body or of his Body begotten or to him and his Issues Male or his Issues Female or to him and the Heirs Male of his Body begotten on M. or to him and E. his Wife and the Heirs