Cummings v. Shaw

108 Mass. 159
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 108 Mass. 159 (Cummings v. Shaw) 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
Cummings v. Shaw, 108 Mass. 159 (Mass. 1871).

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

The ability of the plaintiff to perform his contract to convey the real estate described, by an absolute title, is derived from the residuary clause in the will of his wife, Mary H. Cummings. The clause is as follows : “ Fifth. All the rest, residue and remainder of my property of which I may die possessed, both real and personal, wearing apparel, silver ware, jewelry, watches, household furniture, horse, carriage, &c., I give and bequeath unto my beloved husband, Humphrey Cummings, for and during his natural life, with the right to dispose of the same as he shall think proper.”

“ The right to dispose of the same ” clearly refers to the property itself, and not merely to the estate in it. It includes the real as well as the personal property, and there is no devise over.

This clause gives to the plaintiff either an estate in fee, on the ground that power to convey an absolute estate is an attribute of ownership, and carries with it a fee, or it gives an estate for life, with a power to convey an absolute estate ; and upon either construction the plaintiff is able to convey to the defendant a fee [160]*160simple, and thus perform his contract. If a question had arisen as to the validity of a devise over, it might be important to determine whether the plaintiff took an estate for life or in fee, but it cannot be so in this case. Jackson v. Robins, 16 Johns. 537, 588. Ramsdell v. Ramsdell, 21 Maine, 288, 295. Shaw v. Hussey, 41 Maine, 495. Hale v. Marsh, 100 Mass. 468.

Decree for the plaintiff, with costs.

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

Related

Megathlin v. Stearns
136 N.E. 80 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Tillett v. . Nixon
104 S.E. 352 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Peters v. Abbott
109 A. 131 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1920)
Goodrich v. Henderson
108 N.E. 1062 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Bragg v. Litchfield
98 N.E. 673 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Parks v. Robinson.
50 S.E. 649 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Woodbridge v. Jones
67 N.E. 878 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Woodbridge v. Jones
1 Davis. L. Ct. Cas. 103 (Massachusetts Land Court, 1902)
Veeder v. Meader
32 N.E. 358 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Pope v. Sullivan
31 N.E. 684 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Carroll v. Shea
21 N.E. 373 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1889)
Todd v. Sawyer
17 N.E. 527 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
VanGorder v. Smith
99 Ind. 404 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)
Gibbins v. Shepard
125 Mass. 541 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1878)
Lewis v. Palmer
46 Conn. 454 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 Mass. 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-v-shaw-mass-1871.