Connecticut Superior Court, 1786

Chappel v. Brewster

Chappel v. Brewster
Connecticut Superior Court · Decided November 15, 1786
1 Kirby 175

Counsel

Mr. Larrabee and Mr. Bissel, for tbe plaintiffs,, It was contended, by Mr. Huntingtomand Mr. Tisdale, for tbe defendant

Chappel v. Brewster

Opinion of the Court

Tbat tbe doctrine of fee-simple conditional, and fee-simple absolute, as they were anciently held in England, and entail-ments,' by virtue of tbe statute de donis, could never bave *177any force in tbis state, being opposed to the nature of our tenures, and against tbe reason and policy of our law. 2 Blackstone’s Com. 110, 118.— 2 Bacon’s Abrid. 79, 80.

That estates tail are always descendible, but confined to a. particular line of descent, which, is not the present case; but the estate devised is to all the male heirs of the name of Chappel; therefore it cannot be made to take effect in the latitude here contended: And that estates tail.are always divided from the feeMmple, and there always is a reversion, until the particular estate is united with the reversion, and so again becomes a fee-simple: But there is no reversion or remainder in this case, the whole estate continues entire, and carries the fee-simple with it; therefore, this is not that kind of estate, which, even by the British law, would be unalienable. 1 Bacon’s Abrid. 400.

Judgment was for the defendant by the whole court.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.