Fisher v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 03 July 1829
• Citation: 2 Rawle 33
• Parties: FISHER v. TAYLOR and others.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

2 Rawle 33

FISHER v. TAYLOR and others.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 3, 1829

IN ERROR.

Testator directed his executors to purchase a tract of land to be conveyed to them, in trust for his son, who was to have the rents, issues, and profits thereof, but the same was not to be liable to any debts contracted, or which might be contracted by his said son, at whose death, the land was to vest in the heirs of his body; and, if he should die without heirs of his body, then to vest in the right heirs of the testator. Held, that the son had not such an interest in the land as could be taken in execution, and sold for his debts.

EJECTMENT in the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin county removed to this court by writ of error.

Matthew Taylor, by his last will and testament dated the 16th of July, 1821, directed as follows:--

" I will and direct, that my son, John Taylor, pay out of the land devised to him six hundred and fifty dollars; and that my son, Henry Taylor, pay out of the land devised to him, thirteen hundred and fifty dollars, to, and for the following use and purpose:--My executors herein after mentioned shall, within one year after my decease, purchase a tract of land, at the price of two thousand dollars, four hundred dollars to be paid in hand, and the residue to be paid in four equal annual payments; and, the tract of land so purchased, shall be conveyed to my executors in trust for my son, Sample Taylor, the said Sample to have the rents, issues, and profits thereof, but the same not to be liable to any debts contracted, or which may be contracted by the said Sample, and at the death of the said Sample, the tract of land aforesaid, to vest in the heirs of the body of the said Sample, in fee; and if the said Sample shall die without heirs of his body, then the tract of land aforesaid, to vest in my right heirs."

The testator appointed his sons, John Taylor, and Henry Taylor, and his nephew, Samuel W. Taylor, his executors; and, letters testamentary were issued to them on the 20th of November, 1823. The executors, in pursuance of the said will, purchased, in the year 1824, of John Graham and wife, a tract of land, situate in Wayne township, Mifflin county, containing one hundred and eighteen acres, with a house, barn, and orchard thereon; for which a deed was made to the said executors, their heirs, and assigns, in trust, for Sample Taylor, to have the rents, issues, and profits, during life, but not subject to his debts; remainder to the heirs of his body, in fee; reversion to the heirs of Matthew Taylor.

The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, had a judgment in the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin county of August Term, 1825, on which a Fieri Facias was issued, and levied, by his directions, on the life estate of the defendant, Sample Taylor, in this tract of land. By virtue of a Venditioni Exponas, to November Term, 1825, the estate thus levied upon, was sold by the sheriff of Mifflin county to the plaintiff, and a deed for the same was duly executed and acknowledged. The plaintiff thereupon brought an ejectment against the defendant, to recover the estate sold and conveyed to him. In this action, Henry Taylor, John Taylor, and Samuel W. Taylor, executors of Matthew Taylor, deceased, came into court, and prayed to be admitted, and were admitted, as co-defendants.

On the trial of the cause, the court charged the jury as follows:--

Burnside, President.--" The plaintiff's counsel contend, that Sample Taylor had a life estate in the premises, which could be sold and conveyed by the sheriff, and he let into possession to take the rents and profits of the estate during the life of Sample Taylor, and insists, 1. That a judgment is a lien on every possible interest which a debtor has in land. 2. That a lease is subject to a judgment. 3. That a trust estate is liable for debts, and that this devise is within the statute of uses, and is subject to all the incidents of any other estate for life. 4. That the limitation is inconsistent with the estate granted, and that it is subject to the debts of Sample Taylor. These among others embrace the arguments of the plaintiff; and, however generally correct his propositions are, this court deny their application to the case before us. Matthew Taylor had a right to devise his estate to whom, and in what manner be pleased. He had a right to make a provision for his son, and such a provision as would not be subject to the claim of creditors; and, in the opinion of the court, by his will he has done so. The executors take the estate upon the special trust, to let Sample have the rents, issues, and profits for his life. They have a right to the occupation of the estate, to rent it, to have it farmed and worked, and to pay over the rents, issues, and profits to Sample --they may permit him to use it. This is not a use executed by the statute. Trust estates have been recognised by our own legislature; they are excepted out of the statute respecting joint tenancy. Trusts are often created for the best purposes: for the support of infants, the protection of females, and the maintenance of the unfortunate. This court deny the right of the plaintiff to recover; and, they instruct you, that the sheriff's sale did not devest the executors of Matthew Taylor of their legal right to use and occupy this estate, and to pay over the rents, issues, and profits, to Sample Taylor, and that the defendants are entitled by law to your verdict."

The jury accordingly found for the defendants, and the court thereupon entered judgment. To reverse that judgment, the plaintiff sued out the present writ of error.

The errors assigned were:--

" 1. The COURT erred in charging the jury, that the estate of Sample Taylor, was not executed by the statute of uses.

2. The COURT erred in saying, that it was not subject to the claim of creditors.

3. The COURT erred in charging, that the executors of Matthew Taylor had a right to the occupation of the estate, to rent it, to have it farmed and worked, and pay over the rents and profits to Sample Taylor.

4. The COURT erred in saying, that the executors of Matthew Taylor had the legal right to use and occupy the estate, and that the sheriff's sale did not devest them of it.

5. The COURT erred in denying the right of the plaintiff to recover."

The cause was argued in this court by W. M. Hall and Blythe, for the plaintiff in error, who insisted that Sample Taylor had such an interest in the land in dispute, as might be taken in execution, and sold for his debts: That he was to take the profits of the estate, was in the actual enjoyment of it, and...