The complainants are the administrator de bonis non of Samuel D. Morgan, deceased, and the children and heirs at law and widow of the intestate, citizens of North Carolina. The female defendants are the children and heirs at law of John G. Morgan, deceased, sued with their husbands, and all citizens of Arkansas.Morgan v. Hamlet, 113 U.S. 449 (1885) Justia.
|
|
They afterwards re-elected him to the pastoral office. Their good intentions were however defeated by the heirs-at-law, who disputed the legality of the bequest in the court of Chancery on the statute of mortmain, and gained their suit. Alderson was shortly after taken ill while preaching, and died on reaching his home.
|
|
625] were: Donald Crerar, Peter Crerar, Mary Crerar, Catherine Cramb, Elizabeth McGregor, Duncan Stewart, Alexander Stewart, Peter Stewart, Margaret Crerar, Elizabeth Menzies, Catherine Forsythe, and Elizabeth McIntosh. They filed their suit on 28 May 1891, claiming in the writ to be "heirs at law of and next of kin to John Crerar, dec'd". The legal battle was fierce and protracted. The will was defended by the law firms of Williams, Holt and Wheeler, and Lyman and Jackson.
|
|
Samuel D. Morgan died in January 1864. John G. Morgan died in 1875, the defendants, his heirs at law, having come into possession of the property in his possession at his decease, more than sufficient to satisfy the claim of the complainants. Of the complainants, Samuel T. Morgan became of age September 8, 1876, and William W. Morgan in May 1878. They never had a guardian, and allege their ignorance of the frauds charged to have been practiced against them by John G. Morgan until in 1879.
|
|
A person who deals with a deceased person's property without proper authority is known as an executor de son tort. Such a person's actions may subsequently be ratified by the lawful executors or administrators if the actions do not contradict the substantive provisions of the deceased's will or the rights of heirs at law. When there is no will, a person is said to have died intestate—"without testimony." As a result, there is no tangible "testimony" to follow, and hence there can be no executor.
|
|
After the surrender she appears to have spent her remaining years at Aylesbury at the home of her father, Sir John Baldwin, who both by deed and in his will left her well provided for with a life estate in his lands. Sir John Baldwin died on 24 October 1545, and Alice survived him by only a few months; her will was proved on 2 March 1546. After Alice's death Sir John Baldwin's heirs at law, Sir Thomas Pakington and John Borlase (c.1528 – 6 May 1593) inherited the Baldwin estates.
|
|
In May 2019, the University continued to negotiate with interested parties on Yerkes' future, primarily with the Yerkes Future Foundation. It was announced in November 2018 that a sticking point has been the need to include the Yerkes family in the discussions. Mr. Yerkes' agreement in making his donation to the University transfers ownership “To have and to hold unto the said Trustees [of the University of Chicago] and their successors so long as they shall use the same for the purpose of astronomical investigation, but upon their failure to do so, the property hereby conveyed shall revert to the said Charles T. Yerkes or his heirs at law, the same as if this conveyance had never been made.” For the closing, there is a new gate with a sign that reads "Facilities Closed To The Public" since October 1, 2018.
|
|
But within the next few months he encountered a more serious reverse of fortune; for in 1689 the Duke of Southampton was advised to claim a life- interest in the estates of his deceased wife and filed a bill in Chancery to enforce his rights. The Lords Commissioners made in 1692 a decree in favour of the Duke. Sir Caesar appealed to the House of Lords and in the same year they pronounced final judgment; declaring that the Duke's interest had determined on his wife's death, and that in the actual state of facts (which had not been provided for by Sir Henry Wood) the right of Sir Caesar under the Will did not accrue until the Duke's death, and in the meantime the rents and profits belonged to Sir Henry's heirs-at-law (then only the sons of Sir Henry's two sisters, Lady Chester and Mrs. Webb, were alive).
|
|
334; Brearly v. Norris, 23 Ark. 771. In 84 U. S. 530, in a like case, it was held by this Court that the failure to present the claim is, in the absence of circumstances constituting an excuse, fatal to the bill for relief in equity. It is sought in argument on behalf of the appellants to distinguish their case--at least the case of the two infant children of Samuel D. Morgan--from any case within the statute of nonclaim on the ground that at the death of their father, his title to the real estate, which constituted the plantation, descended to them as his heirs at law, and thereafter, as to the operations conducted by John Morgan in 1864 and 1865, having no guardian, the latter was in equity their representative and guardian de son tort and trustee, so that upon his death and until they arrived at age, there was no one competent to make a demand against his administrator, within the terms of the statute.
|
|
The financial well-being of a deceased person's children was safeguarded in the Custom by the legitime, a sum equal to half of what each child would have received in an equitable division of the marital community property if no gifts or bequests had previously diminished it. Every child heir of the deceased parent had a right to that minimum amount of inheritance, and children who had been previously gifted from the family estate to the detriment of the legitime of one of their siblings would have to compensate that sibling appropriately. Accordingly, a parent had the right to bequeath property in a written will only if such action did not infringe on the legitimes of heirs-at-law and only for the value of movable property and one fifth of immovable property. The community property could remain unpartitioned after the death of one spouse if all interested parties consented so that the estate could be dissolved and its components divided later, usually after the death or remarriage of the surviving parent.
|
|
The undivided moiety, deemed to be the estate of John Chichester and Elizabeth, in the right of Elizabeth, of and in the manors of Molland Botreaux and Knowstone Beaples, in Molland, Knowstone, East and West Ansty, and Bishops Nympton; and of and in the manors of Molland Champson, alias Champeaux [in Molland], and Martinhoe, alias Martinshow, alias Mattinhoe [Martinhoe] and Ruccombe, in Cruwys Morchard. Also of and in other lands in Molland, Twitchen, Bishops Nympton, West Ansty, Knowstone, Rose Ash, Rackenford (all the above in Devon); and in Sampford Bret, Saint Decumans, Stoke Gumber, Cuttcombe, Winford, Dullverton, Timbercombe, Luckham, all in Somerset" and marriage settlement of lease and release North Devon Record Office 50/11/27/6 17,18 May 1748 21 George II "Marriage Settlement, by Lease and Release (1) John Chichester of Arlington, alias Athrington, esq. Elizabeth, his wife (one of the 2 daughters of John Courtenay, the elder, late of West Molland, esq., dec'd, and one of the 2 sisters and heirs at law of John Courtenay, the younger, late of West Molland, esq.
|
|