Charles Williamson and Catharine, His Wife, Plaintiffs v. Joseph Berry
Citation | 49 U.S. 495,8 How. 495,12 L.Ed. 1170 |
Parties | CHARLES A. WILLIAMSON AND CATHARINE, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS, v. JOSEPH BERRY |
Decision Date | 01 January 1850 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
THIS case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof.
It was an action of ejectment for one third of eight lots of land in the city of New York. Mrs. Williamson was the daughter of Thomas B. Clarke, being one of three children who survived him, the other two being Mrs. Isabella M. Cochran and Bayard Clarke.
In the year 1802, Mary Clarke died, leaving a will, from which the following is an extract:——
'Item, I give and devise unto the said Benjamin Moore and Charity, his wife, and to Elizabeth Maunsell, and their heirs forever, as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common, all that certain lot of land number eight, in the said thirteenth allotment of the said patent, containing one hundred acres; also that part of my said farm at Greenwich aforesaid, called Chelsea, lying to the northward of the line herein before directed to be drawn from the Greenwich road to the Hudson River, twelve feet to the northward of the fence standing behind the house now occupied by John Hall, bounded southerly by the said line, northerly by the land of Cornelius Ray, easterly by the Greenwich road, and westerly by the Hudson, including that part of my said farm now under lease to Robert Lenox; also all my house and lot, with the appurtenances, known by number seven, within the limits of the prison, and now occupied by Thomas Byron; to have and to hold the said hereby devised premises to the said Benjamin Moore and Charity, his wife, and Elizabeth Maunsell, and to the survivor or survivors of them, and the heirs of such survivor, as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common, in trust to receive the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and to pay the same to the said Thomas B. Clarke, natural son of my late son Clement, during his natural life, and from and after the death of the said Thomas B. Clarke, in further trust to convey the same to the lawful issue of the said Thomas B. Clarke living at his death in fee; and if the said Thomas B. Clarke shall not leave any lawful issue at the time of his death, then in the further trust and confidence to convey the said hereby devised premises to my said grandson Clement C. Moore, and to his heirs, or to such person in fee as he may be will appoint, in case of his death prior to the death of the said Thomas B. Clarke.'
On the 2d of March, 1814, Thomas B. Clarke presented a petition to the legislature of New York, stating the will; that the trustees had signed a paper agreeing to all such acts as the legislature might pass, and requesting to be discharged from the trust; that Clement C. Moore, the devisee in remainder, had also consented to such acts; and that the estate could not be so improved and made productive as to answer the benevolent purposes of the testatrix. The prayer was for general relief.
On the 1st of April, 1814, the legislature passed an act, entitled, 'An act for the relief of Thomas B. Clarke.' It recited the facts above mentioned, and then provided, in the first section,
The second, third, fourth, and fifth sections prescribed minutely what should be done by the trustees, and authorized them to sell and dispose of a moiety of the estate, and invest the proceeds in some productive stock, the interest, excepting a certain portion, to be paid to Mr. Clarke, and the principal to be reserved for the trusts of the will.
The sixth section was as follows:——
It did not appear that any proceedings took place under this act.
On the 1st of March, 1815, Clarke presented another petition to the Legislature, stating that Clement C. Moore, the contingent devisee, had released all his interest in the property to Clarke and his family, whereby the petitioner and his infant children had become the only persons interested in the estate. He stated also, that he had been unable to prevail upon any suitable person to undertake the performance of the trust.
On the 24th of March, 1815, the legislature passed an act supplemental to the This act being a very important part of the case, it is proper to recite it.
'An Act supplemental to the passed April 1, 1814.
'Whereas, since the passing of the act entitled 'An act for the relief of Thomas B. Clarke,' Clement C. Moore, in the said act named, by an indenture duly executed by him, and recorded in the office of the Secretary of this state, and bearing date the 21st day of February, in the year 1815, hath, for the consideration therein expressed, and in due form of law, released and conveyed unto the said Thomas B. Clarke, his heirs and assigns, forever, all the estate, right, title, interest, property, claim, and demand whatsoever, of the said Clement C. Moore, of, in, and to the real estate mentioned in the said act, whereby the said real estate became exclusively vested in the said Thomas B. Clarke and his children. And whereas the said Thomas B. Clarke hath prayed the Legislature to alter and amend the said act, particularly in relation to the interest of the said Clement C. Moore, and the execution of certain trusts in the said act mentioned, therefore,——
On the 28th of June, 1815, Clarke presented a petition to the Chancellor. It recited the will and the two acts of the Legislature; stated that he had a large and expensive family and no means of maintaining them except from the rents and income of the devised property, which were then and always had been insufficient for the purpose; that he had been compelled to resort to loans and incur debts; that he had borrowed, in order to meet the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hill v. Atl. & N. C. R. Co
...to rights claimed under another private statute, although the language of the two may be similar, or even identical. Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. (U. S.) 495, 12 L. Ed. 1170; Hatch v. Burroughs, 1 Woods (U. S.) 439, Fed. Cas. No. 6, 203; Barber v. Railroad, 166 U. S. 83, 17 Sup. Ct. 48S, 41 ......
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Brown
...it is a contract 'to pass rights of property for money,—which the buyer pays or promises to pay to the seller * * *,' Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495, 544, 12 L.Ed. 1170. Compare the definition of 'sale' in § 1(2) of the Uniform Sales Act and in § 2—106(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code. Th......
-
Heady v. Crouse
...of the infants so to do." And the Supreme Court of the United States, in discussing this question in the case of Williamson v. Berry, 49 U. S. 556, 12 L. Ed. 1170, said: "The management and disposition of the estates of infants are among the mass of powers upon this subject which belong to ......
-
Scott v. Royston
...v. Cobb, 15 Tex. 500; Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328-340, 7 L. Ed. 164; Hickey v. Stewart, 3 How. 750, 11 L. Ed. 814; Williamson v. Berry, 8 How. 495-550, 12 L. Ed. 1170; Webster v. Reid, 11 How. 437-460, 13 L. Ed. 761. But in our opinion it would be unwise to overturn the rule before annou......
-
Fault lines in the Clean Water Act: criminal enforcement, continuing violations, and mental state.
...whether the court should infer a time limitation for a federal statute, that the statute was remedial in nature); and Williamson v. Berry, 49 U.S. 495, 521 (1850) (arguing, in an ejectment case, that because the statutes at issue were remedial, "they are to receive an equitable interpretati......