Blanchard v. Blake

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Blanchard v. Blake

13 A.2d 155, 91 N.H. 28, 1940 N.H. LEXIS 6

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedApril 2, 1940

DocketNo. 3150.

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.2d 155 (Blanchard v. Blake) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blanchard v. Blake, 13 A.2d 155, 91 N.H. 28, 1940 N.H. LEXIS 6 (N.H. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has failed to live in the homestead given to him by the above clause in the will but has mortgaged it and the mortgage has been foreclosed, and that he has failed to keep the buildings in repair. The question is whether the words “to keep 'always for a home and in good repair” accompanying the above bequest operate to work its forfeiture under the situation alleged. In our opinion the words themselves, their context, and the fact that there is no specific disposition of the property in case of forfeiture (Ruel v. Hardy, 90 N. H. 240), all indicate that the words above quoted were intended to be of request and not of command, to be precatory not mandatory. It follows that the defendant’s devise is of a fee simple absolute and that the acts which he is alleged to have done in relation to the property bequeathed do not operate to forfeit the gift.

Case discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has failed to live in the homestead given to him by the above clause in the will but has mortgaged it and the mortgage has been foreclosed, and that he has failed to keep the buildings in repair. The question is whether the words “to keep 'always for a home and in good repair” accompanying the above bequest operate to work its forfeiture under the situation alleged. In our opinion the words themselves, their context, and the fact that there is no specific disposition of the property in case of forfeiture (Ruel v. Hardy, 90 N. H. 240), all indicate that the words above quoted were intended to be of request and not of command, to be precatory not mandatory. It follows that the defendant’s devise is of a fee simple absolute and that the acts which he is alleged to have done in relation to the property bequeathed do not operate to forfeit the gift.

Case discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.2d 155, 91 N.H. 28, 1940 N.H. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blanchard-v-blake-nh-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack