William King, Appellant v. John Mitchell Et Al Appellees
Decision Date | 01 January 1834 |
Citation | 8 Pet. 326,33 U.S. 326,8 L.Ed. 962 |
Parties | WILLIAM KING, APPELLANT v. JOHN MITCHELL ET AL., APPELLEES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ON appeal from the district court of the United States for the western district of Virginia.
At January term 1830, the case of Alexander Finlay and John Mitchell v. William King's Lessee, came before this court on a writ of error to the district court of the United States for the western district of Virginia, 3 Peters 346. That was an action of ejectment, and the question involved, and decided by this court in it was, as to the construction of the will of William King, deceased, formerly of Abingdon, Virginia. The suit was instituted against the present appellees, to recover a part of the real estate of the testator, William King, which the defendants claimed, as two of the co-heirs of the testator, and on which they had entered with the consent of all the co-heirs, for the purpose of trying the title of the plaintiff, now appellant, as devisee under the will. In that action, judgment for the land in controversy, was given by the district court in favour of the plaintiff, on a case stated.
On the removal of the case to this court, the judgment of the district court was affirmed, and the court held, that all the real estate of William King, deceased, is devised to William King, the appellant; but the possession of part of it, which is given to his wife and others, is postponed until her death. The court also proceeded to say, that 3 Peters 383.
The appellees, as heirs at law of William King deceased, in September 1830, filed a bill in the district court of western Virginia, against the appellant, William King; in which they alleged, that the estate so devised was held by the appellant, William King, as a mere trustee, holding the beneficial interest for the testator's heirs at law; and they pray, that the said William King may be compelled to execute the trust confided to him by the said will, in such manner as the court may think proper; that the proceedings on the said judgment may be stayed, until the case can be fully heard, and that a perpetual injunction may be directed; and that such other and further relief, in the premises may be given, as their case may require, and as may be consistent with the principles of equity.
The bill also prayed for an injunction to stay proceedings on the judgment in the ejectment.
The district court gave a decree, according to the requirements of the bill, and the defendant appealed to this court.
The case agreed in the suit at law, and upon which the questions argued before the court in this case were presented, was as follows.
'We agree that William King departed this life on the 8th day of October 1808, having first made and published his last will and testament, which was afterwards admitted to record in the county court of Washington county, in Virginia, where he resided, and is in the words and figures following:
'WILLIAM KING.
'WILLIAM KING.'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ensor v. Ensor
...See Rosenthal v. Miller, 148 Md. 226, 129 A. 28; Latrobe v. American Colonization Society, 134 Md. 406, 106 A. 858; King v. Mitchell, 8 Pet. 326, 349, 8 L.Ed. 962; Oakhurst Land Co. v. Newell, 185 N.C. 410, 117 S.E. 341; 54 Am.Jur. p. 154 sec. 197; Pomeroy Equity Jurisprudence 4th ed. sec. ......
-
Schwarz v. United States
...See Rosenthal v. Miller, 148 Md. 226, 129 A. 28; Latrobe v. American Colonization Society, 134 Md. 406, 106 A. 858; King v. Mitchell, 8 Pet. 326, 349, 8 L.Ed. 962; Oakhurst Land Co. v. Newell, 185 N.C. 410, 117 S. E. 341; 54 Am.Jur. p. 154 sec. 197; Pomeroy Equity Jurisprudence 4th ed. sec.......
-
Mirman v. Clements
...identifies a trustee responsible for holding and distributing the trust corpus to the applicable beneficiaries. See, e.g., King v. Mitchell, 33 U.S. 326, 352 (1834) (concluding, with respect to the phrase "in trust," that "the ordinary sense of the term is descriptive of a fiduciary estate ......
-
Festorazzi v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile
...(appellants) were 'in trust.' In discussing the meaning of the words 'in trust' appearing in a will, the court in King v. Mitchell, 33 U.S. 326, 8 L.Ed. 962, 'There is no doubt that the words 'in trust', in a will, may be construed to create a use, if the intention of the testator or the na......