Chase v. Chase
This text of 132 Mass. 473 (Chase v. Chase) 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.
Opinion
C. Allen, J.
Ordinarily, an unqualified gift of the use, income and improvement of personal estate vests an absolute interest. Adamson v. Armitage, 19 Ves. 416. Blann v. Bell, 5 DeG. & Sm. 658. Hatch v. Bassett, 52 N. Y. 359. Theobald’s Law of Wills (2d ed.) 374. 4 Kent Com. 536, n. It is true that this rule may be controlled, if a different intention appears; but this will does not show a different intention. There is no gift over. A partial intestacy is not favored. Given v. Hilton, 95 U. S. 591. Pub. Sts. c. 127, § 24. The [475]*475testator apparently meant to give only one thousand dollars for the direct benefit of his son, and his wife takes absolutely the rest of the personal estate. Under this petition, we cannot decide as to real estate. Decree as to personal estate affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
132 Mass. 473, 1882 Mass. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-v-chase-mass-1882.