
    GENERAL COURT,
    OCTOBER TERM, 1795.
    William Goodwin’s Lessee against Henry Keerl.
    EJECTMENT for a tract of land called Ridgely’s Delight, containing 309 acres, lying in Baltimore county.
    By the case stated for the opinion of the court, it is agreed that Charles Ridgely, of Baltimore county, being seised in fee of a parcel of land, being part of a tract of land called Ridgely’s Delight, lying in the said county, on the 30th of May, 1748, by his deed indented, bearing date the same day and year, and duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, did, for the consideration of love and affection, and the further consideration of five shillings, convey to John Ridgely the tract of land called Ridgely’s Delight, containing 260 acres : “To have and to hold the said tract to the said John and his heirs, for the use of the said John, for and during his natural life, and after the death of the said John, to and for the use of Charles Ridgely, son of the said John, and his heirs for ever.”
    It is also agreed that John Ridgely in the said deed named, was the son of the said Charles Ridgely, lawfully begotten of Rachel his wife, and that Charles Ridgely the younger, in the said deed named, was the son of the said John Ridgely, lawfully begotten of Mary his wife, and was living at the time of the execution, acknowledgment and recording of the said deed.
    It is also agreed that immediately after the execution of the said deed, and in virtue thereof, the said John Ridgely entered into the land and premises therein mentioned, and was thereof seised as the law requires; and that being seised and possessed thereof, the aforesaid 
      Charles Ridgely the younger, on or about the 30th of August, departed this life intestate, and without issue, leaving a sister named Achsah, then living, who was the daughter of the said John Ridgely, lawfully begotten of his wife aforesaid.
    It is also agreed that the said John Ridgely had no issue except the said Charles Ridgely the younger, and the said Achsah, until the birth of the son hereinafter mentioned ; and that the said Achsah, after the death of the said Charles Ridgely the younger, was married to William Goodwin, by whom she had issue William Goodwin, junior, the lessor of the plaintiff, her only son and heir at law, and shortly thereafter died.
    It is also agreed that after the death of the said Charles Ridgely the younger, and before the death of the said Achsah Goodxvin, the said John Ridgely, still seised of the land and premises in said deed mentioned, had issue lawfully begotten of his wife aforesaid, a son named Charles Ridgely; and some time after the birth of the said son, to wit, in or about the year 1770, departed this life. That the said last-mentioned Charles Ridgely, after the death of the said John Ridgely, entered into the said land and premises, and was thereof seised as the law requires, and being so seised and possessed, did, on the 11th of December, 1786, duly make his last will and testament in writing, whereby he directed fifty acres of the land called Ridgely’s Delight, part of the sanie land con» tveyed by the deed before mentioned, to be sold for the payment of his debts by his executors, Rebecca Ridgely and John Ridgely, (son of JohnJ named as such in the will aforesaid.
    That after the making of the said last will and testamentj to wit, on the 15th of December, 1785, the said testator, f'harles Ridgely, departed this life, and that the executors named in the will took upon themselves the burden and .execution of the trust reposed in' them in and by the said last will and testament.
    It is further agreed that on the petition of the said Rebecca and John Ridgely, executors as aforesaid, it was, on the 24th of May, 1787, ordered and adjudged by the high court of chancery of this state, that the said Rebecca and John be appointed trustees to convey the said fifty acres of land, (being part of the tract of land called Ridgely’s Delight,) when sold to the purchaser or purchasers thereof, agreeably to the last will and testament of the said Charles Ridgely.
    
    It is further agreed that the said Rebecca and John, according to the last will and testament of the said Charles, and in pursuance of powers in them vested by the said will and decree aforesaid, did duly sell and convey by deed duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, bearing date on the 4th of September, 1790, to the defendant, Henry Keerl, part of the said SO acres of land, being the same land in the declaration mentioned; and that under the said deed, the defendant entered into the land thereby conveyed, and was seised as the law requires.
    It is also agreed that William Good-win the younger, the lessor of the plaintiff, at the time of the death of the said John Ridgely, was a minor under the age of twenty-one years, and that at the time of the commencement of this suit, he was only of the age of twenty-three years.
    It is further agreed that the said lessor of the plaintiff executed a lease of the land and premises in the said declaration mexitioned to the plaintiff; that the said plaintiff, by virtue thereof, afterwards entered into the said land and premises, and was of the same possessed; and that the defendant in this cause afterwards entered upon the possession of the plaintiff and ejected him from his tex-m.
    
      And if the court shall be of opinion, upon- the whole matter, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, then judgment to b.e entered for the said plaintiff for possession and costs; if otherwise, judgment of nonsuit to be entered.
    
      Alartin (Attorney-General) and Ridgely, for the plaintiff.
    Pinkney, for the defendant.
    On this case only one question can arise. Whether Achsah, or her brother Charles, was heir to their brother ?
    The case is briefly this : Land is conveyed to A. for life, the remainder in fee to B., who dies leaving a sister of the whole blood, and afterwards a brother of the whole blood is born. Is the sister or the afterborn brother heir to B. P
    
    The sister was heiress of B. until the birth of her brother,' and the remainder in fee descended on her till that event; but the instant her brother was born, the descent shifted from her to him. On the death of Charles Ridgely the younger, (say the first Charles,) the remainder in fee descended on, and became vested in, his sister Achsah, and there remained until the birth of her brother Charles, (the second Charles,) when by operation of law, her remainder in fee was devested, and shifted to, and descended on, her said brother. If he had died without issue and she had survived, the estate would again have descended on her; and on the birth of another brother, would again have been devested and shifted to him, Powell on Descents, 438. cites 5 Edw. IV. c. 6.
    The first general rule concerning descents is, that the law prefers the worthiest of blood, and therefore in descents, the male is preferred before the females, viz. the son before the daughter, the brother before the sister, and the uncle before the aunt. 2 Bl. Comm. 211, 212, 213, 214. 2 Bac. Abr. 27. 1 Wood’s Convey. 20. Co. Litt. 14. a.
    If a man dies seised of land, his wife pregnant, his land descends to his daughter, brother or uncle, and after-wards a son is bom, he shall enter on the daughter, brother or uncle. Co. Litt. 11. b. 2 Bl. Comm. 208.
    If husband and wife seised in tail general had issue a daughter, and afterwards the husband dies, his wife pregnant, and the wife aliens, and upon which the daughter enters by virtue of 11 Hen. VII. c. 20. and a son is afterwards born, he shall enter upon her; for by the statute the daughter was in quasi by descent. 3 Co. 61. b. 1 Co. 102, 103. It is otherwise if the estate vests in the daughter by purchase and not by descent, in which case, a brother bom afterwards would, not devest the estate. 14 Vin. Abr. tit. Heir, 263. pl. 16. 3 Mod. 256. 3 Wils. 516. 2 Cro. 161. 2 Roll. Abr. 709. Co. Litt. 15. b. 2 Bac. Abr. 28. 30. Gilb. Evid. 245. 248. 3 Bac. Abr. 639. Cro. Car. 87. 1 Co. 99. b. 100. a. Co. Litt. 11. b. 1 Co. 55. a. 5 Term Rep. 60. 64. 8 Vin. Abr. tit. Descent, 10. (N. 13.) Powell on Desc. 438.
   The Court

gave judgment, on the case stated, for the defendant.  