TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Waring's heirs v. Reynolds

Waring's heirs v. Reynolds, &c.

Waring's heirs v. Reynolds, 42 Ky. 59 (1842)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Kentucky · State Appellate Courts
Decided
September 20, 1842
Judges
Marshall
Citations
42 Ky. 593 B. Mon. 591842 Ky. LEXIS 99
Headnotes
Infants’ estate. Descents. Jurisdiction. Under the2d sec. of the Statute of 1796, {Slat. Law, 565,) the Teal estate of infants s.n& femes covert, may be sold by the Chancellors decree. Six mos. shall be allowed after the removal of their disability, to show,cause against the decree. And a bill in Chancery is the proper mode of obtaining a conveyance, when onaccountofthe death of a party it has not been made.
Summary
Chancery. Error to the Madison Circuit. Case 19.

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

Opinion of the Court — Marshall

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

Judge Marshall

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We have no doubt that under the 20th section of the_ act of 1796,' regulating the course of descents, (Stat. Law, 565,) a decree regularly made for selling land descended to several heirs, some of whom may be infants or femes covert, is as obligatory upon infants and femes covert properly before the court, as it is upon adult males, except so far as the infants are, by law, allowed time after coming of age, to show cause against the decree. And we have as little doubt that a bill should be entertained to perfect a purchase regularly made under such a decree, but which, without the fault of the purchaser, has not been, or cannot be regularly consummated by conveyance, without further proceedings.

The death of a feme covert defendant, after a regular decree and sale, but before a conveyance to the purchaser, presents a proper case for such a bill. And as in this case, thefeme covert heir answered the petition, and under oath, admitted the facts which gave the Court plenary jurisdiction to decree the sale; we think it cannot be questioned, that though her title never was conveyed in consequence of her death, after the sale and before the Commissioner made his deed, yet, as it appears that the purchaser paid the purchase money to the Commissioner, her heirs are bound by the decree and the sale under it, and are, therefore, bound to convey to the purchaser or his alienee, the title which has descended to them from her.

Wherefore, the decree is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1881–1882: 11893–1894: 118812026peak 1881 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Beliveau v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.40 A. 734 (N.H. 1894)
  2. The Tubal Cain9 F. 834 (S.D.N.Y. 1881)

Most recent

  1. Beliveau v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.40 A. 734 (N.H. 1894)
  2. The Tubal Cain9 F. 834 (S.D.N.Y. 1881)

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