Gove v. Hammond

385 Mass. 1001
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 12, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 385 Mass. 1001 (Gove v. Hammond) 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
Gove v. Hammond, 385 Mass. 1001 (Mass. 1982).

Opinion

We granted the defendants’ application for further appellate review in order to restate the rule: “Courts . . . ‘have no power to reform wills. Hypothetical or imaginary mistakes of testators cannot be corrected. Omissions cannot be supplied. Language cannot be modified to meet unforeseen changes in conditions. The only means for ascertaining the intent of the testator are the words written and the acts [1002]*1002done by him.’ Sanderson v. Norcross, 242 Mass. 43, 46 [1922].” Salter v. Salter, 338 Mass. 391, 393 (1959). A failure to provide for a contingency may lead to either a partial or complete intestacy. See Wright v. Benttinen, 352 Mass. 495 (1967).

Edwin E. Kaarela for Louise E. Hardy & others. David L. Taylor for Marion F. Hammond & another.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Flannery v. McNamara
432 Mass. 665 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2000)
Schwartz v. BayBank Merrimack Valley, N.A.
456 N.E.2d 1141 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
385 Mass. 1001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gove-v-hammond-mass-1982.