Stackhouse's Lessee v. Stackhouse

Headnote

September Term 1766. Stackhouse’s Lessee, versus Stackhouse. THIS was an Ejectment brought by Isaac Stackhouse, against his brother Joseph Stackhouse, for 215 acres and 74 perches of land, which he claimed instead of 100 acres, under the following clause in their father’s will: “ I do give and bequeath unto my son Joseph Stackhouse, his heirs and assigns, a certain piece of land, to be taken off the east end of my plantation, joining to William Paxton’s land, to be laid out as followeth; to begin at the said Paxton’s land and the south line, and to run along as it is laid out westward, until it come at the ditch of the meadow fence, then to follow the said sence as it now stands, to take in the little meadow and the field; then along the northward line of my land to William Paxton's land aforefaid; then by the said Paxton’s line to the place of beginning; supposed to be about 100 acres, be it more or less.” Isaac was willing to allow his brother Joseph. 171 acres and 90 perches; but Joseph insisted that he was also entitled, agreably to the designated boundaries of the devise, to include a piece of land, containing 43 acres and 144 perches, that jutted out to the southward of the meadow sence : And he offered parol testimony to explain the meaning of the will. For admitting the testimony, the following authorities were adduced: 2 Vern. 152. 648. 736. 517. 593. 5 Co. 68. Freeman 292. 477. (The judgment in Freeman were reversed 1 Vent. 341 : But for another reason) 9 Mod. 10., 2 P. Wms. 419. 135. In exclusion of the testimony were cited, 4. Rep. 4. Vin. title devise 188. 190. 195. Sra. 1262. 1 Salk. 234. 2 Vern. 625 2 Vern. 98. 5 Co. Cheyney’s case. 12 Mod. 183. 2 P. Wms. 318. 10 Mod. 98. 3 P. Wms. 51. L. Rayn. 438. 3 Ch. Rep. 170. 176. 183. 2 Bac. Abr. 309. 2 Vern. 98. 337. Ca. temp. Talb. 240. 1 Brownl. 132. 19 Ven. 195. 2 P. Wms. 419. 2 Eq. Ca. Abr. 426. 2 Barn. 118.

OCR confidence 0.617 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.