
    Watson v. Powell.
    [Wednesday, October 27th, 1802.]
    What Words Pass a Fee in a Will.
    
    In ejectment brought by Watson against the Powells, the jury found a special verdict, stating: That Levi Watson being on the day of anno domini 1776, seised in his demesne as of fee, in thirteen acres of land, being the premises in the declaration mentioned, and of no other visible property or estate, did, on the day and year aforesaid, duly make and publish his last will and testament in writing, the material parts of which are as follows. “I Levi Watson, have thought it suitable to settle these my affairs on this side of the grave, and all this my temporal estate, which it hath pleased God to endow me with, which I will and require to be in manner and form following: I give my soul to God, &c. aijd all my just and lawful debts to be discharged in a legal manner, &c. 2dly, I give and bequeath unto my sister Rosy Watson, 13 acres of land adjoining the place called Bell-haven, to her, and 21. 15s. that is due for the rent of the thirteen acres, and 61. 12s. Od. in the hands of Thomas Addison, and I do appoint my brother in law, Churchill Ames for to be my whole executor, to this my last will and testament. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal, this 20th day of September, 1776.” That the testator died in 1778, without issue, leaving William Watson his brother and heir at law. That the said William Watson also died the same year, intestate, leaving the plaintiff, his son, and heir at law. That the said Rosy Watson entered on the lands, by virtue of the said will, and was seised as the law requires. That she married Littleton Addison, and together with him conveyed the said lands, on the 26th day of March, 1782, to Underhill. *That she died in 1795. That Underhill conveyed to Henry, who devised it to Susanna Henry, who intermarried with Stratten ; and with him conveyed to James Powell, who devised it to the defendants. The District Court gave judgment for the defendants; and the plaintiff obtained a writ of supersedeas thereto from this Court.
    Call, for the plaintiff,
    contended that the devise to Rosy Watson carried only an estate for life; that the reversion, after her death, descended on William Watson the heir at law; and that the plaintiff claiming under him, became entitled to the land, on the death of the devisee for life.
    George K. TajTor, for the defendant,
    insisted that the question was completely decided by the cases ofKennon v. M’Roberts, 1 Wash. 96, and Davies v. Miller, 1 Call, 127: Particularly the latter, in which it was held, that the word estate might be taken from the preamble, or other parts of the will, and united to the devise, so as to convey a fee.
    Cur. adv. vult.
    
      
       Will-Construction — What Words Pass Fee — “Estate.’’--See foot-note to Davies v. Miller, 1 Call 127. The principal case is cited and approved in Wyatt v. Sadler, 1 Munf. 543, 548, 549; Goodrich v. Harding, 3 Rand. 283; Engle T. Burns, 5 Call 478.
      Same — Same—intention of Testator.- The principal case is cited in Wyatt v. Sadler, 1 Munf. 541.
    
   PENDLETON, President,

delivered the resolution of the Court as follows:

This was an ejectment brought in the District Court of Accomack, by Watson against Powell, for 13 acres of land in that county; in which there is a special verdict, stating, that Levy Watson being seised in fee of the lands in question, and having no other visible property, made his will, in 1776; wherein, after declaring in the preamble. that he thought it suitable to settle his affairs and all this his temporal estate, which he wills and requires shall be in manner following : He devises the land in question, with two small sums of money, to his sister Rosy Watson, and made no other bequest. That he died without issue, and the plaintiff *is his nephew and heir at law. That Rosy Watson, the devisee, intermarried with Littleton Addison, and with her husband, by deed in 1782, conve3red the land to Amos Underhill, under whom the defendant claims. Upon this verdict the District Court gave judgment for the defendants, and to that judgment there is a supersedeas.

Although there are no words of limitation in the devise, yet it has been decided in this Court, conformably to modern decisions in England, that the word estate in the preamble, shall be incorporated in the devise, and pass a fee. In Kennon v. M’Roberts et ux. [1 Wash. 96,] I delivered my opinion fully on this point, the other Judges suspended theirs as unnecessary, all concurring in opinion that the residuarj’ clause in that will did not comprehend the reversions, if there were any; but subsequent judgments have confirmed the opinion I then delivered, on that point; which is considered as settled ; and on that ground, there is no error in the judgment.

We discover an apparent defect in the defendant’s title, as Rosy Addison does not appear to have been privily examined. This, however, may not be real, (since the Clerk’s certificate of the probat is not annexed to the deed;) but whether so or not, is of no importance, upon this verdict, as the lessor of the plaintiff, who must recover upon the strength of his own title, is not stated to be heir at law to Rosy; who, for any thing which appears to the contrary, may have left children. Upon the whole, the judgment is affirmed.  