New Ingestion is live for the UK, the EU, US federal law and ~7M US decisions. Search the corpus ›

Lessee of Asheton v. Asheton

1 U.S. 4

How do we know? Taken from the published judgment; not rewritten by the platform.

This is a decision of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, given 1 April 1760, from Caselaw Access Project. No later decision here cites it — that does not show it is still good law.

No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.

Source

Published by
Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab
Source
Caselaw Access Project
Licence
Open — US judicial opinions are not copyrightable (government edicts doctrine)
Held here since
26 September 2026

Version

Decided
1 April 1760
Later treatment
Not cited by any later authority here
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania

Authority

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Citation
1 U.S. 4
Judges
Present, Lawrence Growden and William Coleman, Justices.
Unknown treatment 0 citing authorities

No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.

The decision

Read aloud by your browser
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided
1760-04-01

Headnote

The Lessee of Asheton v. Asheton. Present, Lawrence Growden and William Coleman, Justices. Devise to the first heir male of I. S., when he shall arrive to the age of twenty-one years, he paying to A. & B., daughters of I. S,, 401 each; after the testator’s death, I. S. had a son: Held, that he was entitled to recover, it being the intent of the testator, that the first son of I. S. should take. On special verdict. Devise to the first heir male of I. S., when he shall arrive at the age of twenty-one years, he paying to A. and B., the daughters of I. S., 401. each : after devisor’s death, I. S. had a son, who attained the age of twenty-one years, and paid his sisters the 401. each. Chew, pro Quer. Moland and Dickenson, pro Def. The question was, whether the son of I. S. could take by executory devise ? It was objected for the defendant — 1st. That this being a present devise, it could not take effect, because to a person not in esse. 2d. That though it might be construed a future devise, yet it was too remote ; for an executory devise must take effect within the compass of a life or lives in esse, or, at farthest, within nine months after : And in this case, I. S. might have had no son, but a daughter, who might have had a daughter, who might have had a son, who would have been the first heir male of I. S., which would have been too remote a contingency, and would have tended to a perpetuity. And the case must be considered as at the time of making the devise, that is, how it might be ; and not how it has actually happened. 3d. That the son of I. S. could not take ; because the limitation was to the first heir male, and nemo est hmres viventis. For the plaintiff,\ it was answered : 1st. That this was no present devise, the testator taking notice that I. S. had no son born, by the word first heir male, and using the words when and paying. 2d. That this contingency was not too remote ; because the testator by the words first heir male, must have meant first son ; and that such a construction must be made as to carry the intent of the testator into execution. 3d. First heir male are words of purchase and designatio personce, and the law will supply the words, of the body, in a will. See Seattergood v. Edges, 12 Mod. 279, 287; Co. Litt 24.

Judgment

Read from a scan

OCR confidence 0.453 is below 0.7. This text was read from a scan and contains transcription errors. It may be relied on for what the case decided, but must not be presented as a verbatim quotation.

¶ 1[majority — By the Court.]

¶ 2By the Court. The intent of the testator is clear, that the first son of I. S. should take : therefore, judgment, By the Court. Cases cited; 1 Lord Raym. 207; 1 Salk. 229; Talbot’s Cases 44, 50, 145; 1 Vern. 729; Vin., Dev. 315; 2 Vent. 311; 1 P. Wins. 229; 3 Co. 20; 2 P. Wms. 196; 2 Salk. 621.

AI summary

Choose who the summary is for. Every statement links to the paragraph it comes from — the summary is never the only way to read this.

Ask LawTAG

Sign in to ask your team's LawTAGs about this page.

What it relied on

No outbound citations have been extracted for this decision.

In the news

News coverage of “Lessee of Asheton v. Asheton” in the last three months, from GDELT.