Brainard v. Darling

132 Mass. 218, 1882 Mass. LEXIS 53
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 30, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 132 Mass. 218 (Brainard v. Darling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brainard v. Darling, 132 Mass. 218, 1882 Mass. LEXIS 53 (Mass. 1882).

Opinion

Endicott, J.

The defendant’s testatrix gave to the plaintiff in her will a legacy of “ one hundred dollars, including money trusteed at the Union Savings Bank.” When the will was made, an action was pending wherein the plaintiff sought to recover from the testatrix the sum of eighty-two dollars; and [219]*219the Union Institution for Savings, where the testatrix had a deposit of $545, was summoned therein as trustee. Before the death of the testatrix, “neither party” was entered in the action, and the trustee was discharged. The plaintiff contends that the word “including” means, in this connection, “in addition to,” and that the testatrix intended to give the plaintiff not only one hundred dollars, but in addition to that sum all the money she had in the bank; the words “ money trusteed at the Union Savings Bank” being descriptive of, and intended to identify, the whole amount which she had then on deposit. But this is a forced construction, inconsistent with the meaning of the words used by the testatrix; and we can have no doubt, from the language of the bequest, taken in connection with the facts existing at the time the will was made, that she intended a gift to the plaintiff of one hundred dollars only, which sum was to include the amount for which the bank might be held liable as trustee; or,- in other words, that the one hundred dollars was to include the amount which the plaintiff claimed to be due from her. No question is made that the Union Institution for Savings is the bank described in the legacy as the Union Savings Bank.

F. F. Heard, for the plaintiff. B. L. M. Tower, for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Patteson v. City of Peoria
47 N.E.2d 867 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1943)
United States ex rel. Lyons v. Hines
103 F.2d 737 (D.C. Circuit, 1939)
Red Wing Malting Co. v. Willcuts
15 F.2d 626 (Eighth Circuit, 1926)
Miller v. . Johnston
91 S.E. 593 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Blanck v. Pioneer Mining Co.
159 P. 1077 (Washington Supreme Court, 1916)
Sloan v. . Baird
56 N.E. 752 (New York Court of Appeals, 1900)
Lansburgh v. Wimsatt
7 App. D.C. 271 (D.C. Circuit, 1895)
Benjamin v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
50 Mo. App. 602 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 Mass. 218, 1882 Mass. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brainard-v-darling-mass-1882.