Blackstone Bank v. Davis

Wilde J. delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action of trespass quare clausum fregit; and the only question submitted by the facts agreed is the question of title, the breaking and entering of the close by the defendant being admitted. It is not questioned that the devise respecting the Bartlett farm is a good devise to pass the farm to the devisee. By the devise of the profits, use or occupation of land, the land itself is devised. Whether the defendant took an estate in fee oi for life only, is a question not material in the present case. The sole question is,, whether the estate in his hands was liable to attachment and to be taken in execution as his property. The plaintiffs claim title under the levy of an execution against the defendant, and their title is valid if the estate was liable to be so taken. That it was so liable, notwithstanding the proviso or condition in the will, the Court cannot entertain a doubt. A condition in a grant or devise, that the grantee or devisee shall not alienate, is void because repugnant to the estate. Co. Lit. 223 a. And so it is as to a condition annexed to a gift or sale of a term for years, or any other chattel real or personal. A condition or proviso to restrain or prohibit the operation of an attachment and levy of an execution, is void for the same reason, and because it is contrary to law, which makes a man’s property liable for the payment of his debts. A condition that the grantee or devisee shall not alienate for a particular time or to a particular person or persons, is good. [44] So, in a devise to a minor provided he shall not comb into possession, occupy, or have any advantage of the estate during his minority except through his guardian, who is to lease, occupy, and improve the estate, the proviso is good and valid in law. Smithwick v. Jordan, 15 Mass. R. 113. The clause in the devise under consideration is without any limitation, and declares that the property devised shall not be subject to conveyance or attachment perpetually. Such a declaration or provision the testator had no authority to make. It was an attempt to impose a restraint upon property which the law will not allow, and the provision is clearly void. Defendant defaulted.