TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lessee of Davidson v. Heydom

Lessee of Semuel Davidson against James Heydom

Lessee of Davidson v. Heydom, 2 Yeates 459 (1798)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1798
Judges
Oil, Smith, Yeates
Citations
2 Yeates 459
Headnotes
Deed to A and B, their heirsand assigns, tenendum to A and B, their heirs and assigns, and to' the heirs and assigns of the survivor of them, forever, passes a j oint-tenanoy which may be severed either by A’s assignment of all his estate to trustees to enable them to pay his debts, or by a judgment and execution, had against him in his life-time, and the lands levied on.
Summary
Ejectment for one undivided half part of a lot of ground in the manor of Bedford, containing 17f- acres and 11 perches. John Penn, junior, and John Penn, senior, the late proprietaries, being seized of the premises, by deed dated 22d September 1786, in consideration of 71/. granted and conveyed to Bernard Dougherty and Mary Kinkade, their heirs and assigns, the same premises, bounded, &c. “to have and to hald the same “to the said Bernard Dougherty and Mary Kinkade, their heirs and assigns, and to the heirs and assigns of the survivor of them, forever.” The said Bernard Dougherty after-wards becoming embarrassed, by deed dated 23d June 1788, in consideration of the debts by him owing, and of os., granted and conveyed to Thomas Fitzsimons, Isaac Hazelhurst, Miers Fisher and Thomas Smith, their heirs and assigns, all and singular his lands and real estate whatever, and all his personal property, in trust, to sell and dipose thereof, and pay the moneys arising therefrom, to and among all his creditors, in proportion to their several debts ; and further appointed them his attornies, to all things necessary in the premises, &c. A judgment was afterwards entered up at the suit of Thomas Fitzsimmons and others, against the said Dougherty, and a fieri facias issued thereon, returnable to January term 1790, on which the lot in question, marked No. 23, was seized and taken in execution, but no writ of venditioni exponas was taken out. On the 27th June 1797, the trustees granted and conveyed to the lessor of the plaintiff one moiety of the said lot,' No. 23, in consideration of 500 dollars. Mary Kinkade survived Bernard Dougherty. On the 5th December 1789, she married James Heydon. He, together with his wife, on the 4thNovember 1794, conveyed the premises (inter alia) by deed to Patrick Campbell in fee, who afterwards on the same day re-conveyed the same to James Heydon, his heirs and assigns, in trust for the use of the said James and Mary his wife, during their joint lives and the survivor of them, remainder to the heirs of the body of the said Mary by the said James, remainder to the right heirs of the said James. She died shortly afterwards, and the defendant held the whole of the lot in question, under tbe deeds from Messrs. Penns and Campbell. Two questions of law arose on the trial. 1. Whether an estate in joint tenancy was conveyed by the deed of 1786 ? 2. And if so, whether it had been severed in the life time of Dougherty.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Yeates

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Yeates J.

My brother Smith being a nominal trustee in the deed of assignment, though wholly uninterested, utterly refuses taking any part in the cause. I for my own part, feel no difficulty on either question. The words made use of in the original deed correctly describe an estate in joint-tenancy. The expressions in the latter part of the clause of tenendum, about which the difficulty is raised, exclude any doubt respecting the grammatical construction, to whose heirs the ultimate fee is to go. — We need not on this occasion recur to feudal principles for the solution of the question. In fact, the superadded words mean no more than what the law would imply without them. They may be justly styled legal tautology, and fairly fall within the known maxim, “ eivpressio eorum auce, tacite insunt nihil operatur. ”

The cases read by the defendant’s counsel relating to baron and feme holding an estate in joint-tenancy, are exceptions to the general rule, and only prove it. Between them there are no moieties, being considered one person in law. 3 Bac. 191. A husband joint-tenant may not charge the lands held with his wife, by recognizance, but others may. Oo. Lit. 184, ó. His feoffment may not be good, but it will scarcely be asserted, that one joint-tenant may not determine the estate by his deed.

. The deed to the trustees vests in them all the real and personal estate of Dougherty, to enable them to discharge his debts, in proportion to the just demands of his several creditors. It does the same thing, as would be effected with more expense by the bankrupt laws, and is more beneficial in another light to the creditors, as there is no allowance to be made to the debtor, in case of his paying 10s. or 15s. in the pound. I agree, that during the operation of the bankrupt acts, the creditors would not be bound by this assignment but it lies only with them to impeach it. It is premature to decide how matters would be, in case the *463 debts were fully paid, and surplus examined. The assignment charges the legal estate and operates as a severance. The execution issued on the judgment has the same effect. If Dougherty had died immediately afterwards, a venditioni exponas might have been taken out and the lands sold forthwith, without any scire facias. On both points, therefore. 1 am of opinion with the plaintiff.

Verdict pro quer.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1926: 11927: 11938: 11939: 11943: 11945: 11970: 11979: 11982: 11992: 119262026peak 1926 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Grothe v. Cortlandt Corp.11 Cal. App. 4th 1313 (1992)
  2. Madden v. Glosztonyi Savings & Trust Co.200 A. 624 (Pa. 1938)
  3. American Oil Co. v. Falconer8 A.2d 418 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1939)
  4. Angier v. Worrell31 A.2d 87 (Pa. 1943)
  5. Larendon Estate266 A.2d 763 (Pa. 1970)
  6. Estate of Kotz406 A.2d 524 (Pa. 1979)

Most recent

  1. Grothe v. Cortlandt Corp.11 Cal. App. 4th 1313 (1992)
  2. Vargas v. Brinton451 A.2d 687 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982)
  3. Estate of Kotz406 A.2d 524 (Pa. 1979)
  4. Larendon Estate266 A.2d 763 (Pa. 1970)
  5. Hoffert v. Bastian54 Pa. D. & C. 146 (1945)
  6. Angier v. Worrell31 A.2d 87 (Pa. 1943)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list