Coveny v. McLaughlin

2 L.R.A. 448, 20 N.E. 165, 148 Mass. 576, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 329
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 28, 1889·Published·Cited by 17 cases

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] of 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

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

2 L.R.A. 448 (Coveny v. McLaughlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bass v. Fall
15 Va. Cir. 285 (Chesterfield County Circuit Court, 1989)
Smith v. Harris
287 N.W. 255 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1939)
Forbes v. Commissioner
32 B.T.A. 139 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1935)
Callis v. Ripley
171 S.E. 497 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1933)
Brown v. Potter
159 A. 275 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1932)
Driskill v. Carwile
133 S.E. 773 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1926)
Mullaney v. Monahan
232 Mass. 279 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Alsman v. Walters
106 N.E. 879 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1914)
Spencer v. Adams
97 N.E. 743 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Sias v. Chase
93 N.E. 802 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Clarke v. Fay
91 N.E. 328 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Ball v. Holland
75 N.E. 713 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Lawrence v. Phillips
71 N.E. 541 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Pulse v. Osborn
64 N.E. 59 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1902)
Richardson v. Cincinnati Union Stockyard Co.
8 Ohio N.P. 213 (Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati, 1901)
Estate of Langdon
4 Coffey 357 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1899)
Bigelow v. Clap
43 N.E. 1037 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)