This was a petition for partition of certain lands, in which the petitioners each claim to be seised in common and undivided of one seventh part, with other persons to them unknown. Upon general notice having been given in manner required by law, Samuel Reed came in, claimed to be sole seised during the life of Hannah Reed, and traversed the seisin of the petitioners.
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“a devise of the income of lands is the same in its effect as a devise of the lands.”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1812-10-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1928
18 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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.
¶1The devise is direct to the widow. A devise of the income of lands is the same in its effect as a devise of the lands. The petitioners have, however, mistaken their rights. During the life of their mother, they are entitled to no more than two seventh parts of two thirds of the land described in their petition.
Curia.
¶2Let the widow’s appearance be entered; and let the petitioners alter their petition as moved for.
¶3As to the question of costs referred to us by the parties, the provincial statute giving this process (3) made no provision for costs in any case; and. the statute now in force gives them only *333upon the determination of an issue either of law or fact. (4) No such issue has been joined in this action. No costs can, therefore, be allowed. If parties, agreeing to cases stated for the opinion of the Court, would have costs await the decision, it must be made part of their agreement. The agreement in the present case is not sufficient, and no costs can be taxed for either party. Let a warrant issue for partition, as prayed for in the amended petition, without costs, (a)
