
    Stewart vs. Collier's Lessee.
    Appeal from Somes-set County Court. Ejectment for ail undivided eighth part of a tract of latid called The Ferry Quarter. The facts were these; Col. John Stewart died intestate in 1794, seized in fee simple, as well of the land above mentioned as of other lands, leaving two children, viz. Alexander Stewart and Jane Gale, to whom said lands descended, as his heirs at law, under the act of 1786, ch. 45. A division was made of the lands after the death of Col. Slewart, between Alexander and Jane, and the land « . ¡ 1 1 . above mentioned, with other lands,'were allotted to Alex* ¿nd'er, whij died seized thereof in 1810, intestate, am! withotit issue, ¿bother, brother or Sister,or any descendants from either. Col. John Stewart had one brother and three sisters, to wit; William Sleivart, Betty Wailes, Nancy Porter and Sarah JWMurray. William Stewart died in 1808, leaving issue John Stewart, William Stewart, Robert' Stewart^ Betsey Evans, Nitncy Stewart, and Matilda Stewart, all of whom are now living. The Said William Stewart had also tw6 other daughter’s, viz. Rebecca Büsheill and Sarah Jones. Rebecca Dasheill died in 1800, leaving issue who are still living, and Sarah Jones died in 1794, leaving issue who are also ribw alive. Betty Tdailes died in 1785, leaving two children, viz. Helena Collier, (the lessor of the plaintiff,) and Joseph Wailes. Joseph Wailes died in 1796, leaving issue, who are now alive. Nancy Porter diecf in Í775, leaving one child, Rebecca Cothcl, who died in 1806, leaving issue now living. Sarah M Murray died in 1764, leaving issue Nancy Russell and Rebecca Denwood. Nancy Russell died in 1800, and Rebecca Denwood in 1804, both leaving issue, no# living. The question was, whether Helena Collier was entitled to one undivided eighth part of the lands of which Alexander Stewart died seized? The county court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to this court.
    
      « A S died in 1S10W intestate, & with- . out issue, seized of lands which du- ¡ seended to him oik 1 the part of his father, leaving no mother,brother or sister, or any descendants from ei * ther} hut leaving the children ami grandchildren, of 1 an uncle and . aunts, the brother and sr-icrs of* his father — -field* that the children of the deceased untdejuad aunts tools fi*r cnplid) and not per #Urpt\*¡ to the exclusion of the grantl^bUdmiy
    
      The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Bu chanan, Nicholson, and Johnson, J. by
    
      Martin, W. B. Marlin, J. Bayly, and Whittington, for the Appellant;
    and'by
    Bullitt, T. Bayly, and Wilson, for the Appellee.
    The questions argued were — 1. Whether under the act to direct descents, (1786, ch. 45,) the estate of Alexander Stewart must be divided into four parts, and each of those" parts should descend to the representatives as if the unplea and aunts of A. Stewart were living? 2. Whether the word» of that act will authorise the construction that the representatives must claim per capita or per stirpes? The counsel for the appellant referred to Dig. Chan. Ca. 121, 213, 270, 276. Butler vs. Stratton, 3 Brown's Chan. Ca. 367. Walsh vs. Walsh, Prec. in Chan. 54. Davers vs. Dewes, 3 P. Wms. 50. Durand vs. Prestwood, 1 Atk. 454. Bowers vs. Littlewood, 1 P. Wms. 595; and Stanley vs. Stanley, 1 Atk. 455.
    
   JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  