Coveny v. McLaughlin

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Coveny v. McLaughlin

2 L.R.A. 448, 20 N.E. 165, 148 Mass. 576, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 329

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 2 L.R.A. 448 (Coveny v. McLaughlin) 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

Coveny v. McLaughlin, 2 L.R.A. 448, 20 N.E. 165, 148 Mass. 576, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 329 (Mass. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

The testator devised his dwelling-house to his wife for her life, and added, “ but on her decease I give' and devise the same to my surviving children, to be divided equally between them.” Five children survived the testator, but only two survived the wife; and the question is whether the word “ surviving ” relates to the time of the testator’s death or to that [578]*578of his wife’s death. According to the natural use of language, it has reference to the latter event. It is placed in close connection with her decease. Ho reference is made to the time of his own death in any part of the will. The word “ surviving ” would be unnecessary and meaningless if he meant to give the remainder of the estate to all of his children. The children surviving on her decease must be taken to be the devisees intended. See Denny v. Kettell, 135 Mass. 138, and cases there cited.

Petition dismissed.

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

C. Allen, J.

The testator devised his dwelling-house to his wife for her life, and added, “ but on her decease I give' and devise the same to my surviving children, to be divided equally between them.” Five children survived the testator, but only two survived the wife; and the question is whether the word “ surviving ” relates to the time of the testator’s death or to that [578]*578of his wife’s death. According to the natural use of language, it has reference to the latter event. It is placed in close connection with her decease. Ho reference is made to the time of his own death in any part of the will. The word “ surviving ” would be unnecessary and meaningless if he meant to give the remainder of the estate to all of his children. The children surviving on her decease must be taken to be the devisees intended. See Denny v. Kettell, 135 Mass. 138, and cases there cited.

Petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 L.R.A. 448, 20 N.E. 165, 148 Mass. 576, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coveny-v-mclaughlin-mass-1889.

Opinion

C. Allen, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack