Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

79 Miss. 193

Halsey v. Gee

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1901

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1901-10-15

From the chancery court of, first district, Carroll county. Hon. A. Mo. Kimbrough, Chancellor. Halsey, and others, appellants, were complainants in the court below; Gee and others, appellees, were defendants there. The object of the suit was to confirm the complainant’s title to the lands in controversy, known as the “Big Sand Place,” and to vacate and annul the deeds under which defendants claimed the plantation as clouds upon complainant’s title.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1901-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 1931

1 district · 4 state decisions

301901191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Teebal, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The fifth clause of the will of Greenwood Leflore vested the fee simple to the Big Sand place in the two devisees as tenants in common, with cross remainders over, contingent on the death of either without issue, and with an ulterior limitation if both should die 'without issue. Their joint conveyance vested in their grantee the fee as held by them — that is, subject to be divested and vested in the ulterior limitees if both devisees should die without issue. The death of John B., one of the devisees, leaving issue, destroyed the ulterior limitation by making impossible the contingency on which it was to take effect, with the result that the fee was absolute and unconditional, instead of contingent. The complainants took by descent, and subject to the incumbrance of their ancestors; wherefore they are not entitled to have the deed of trust canceled. Jarman on Wills, secs. 6, 7(c.) 17, p. 519 et seq.; Nellis v. Nellis, 99 N. Y., 505 (3 N E., 59); Buel v. Southwick, 70 *201N. Y., 581; Code 1892, §§2435, 2436; Jarman on Wills, seo. 3 (c.) 29, p. 946 et seq.; Busby v. Rhodes, 58 Miss., 237; Carr v. Porter, 1 McCord Eq., 60.

¶3Decree affirmed.

/79/miss/193 · .json · Public domain