Hill v. Bowers

120 Mass. 135, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 132
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 3, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 120 Mass. 135 (Hill v. Bowers) 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
Hill v. Bowers, 120 Mass. 135, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 132 (Mass. 1876).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The general rule is that by a bequest to the children of A. and to the children of B., the children take per capita and not per stirpes, in the absence of words indicating a different intention. There are no such words in this will. The repetition of the words “ and the survivors of them ” only makes clear the intention of the testator not to include any children, of either person named, who did not survive the testator. Upon his death, the children who should take were ascertained, and the residue of the estate was to be equally divided among them. Blackler v. Webb, 2 P. Wms. 383. Butler v. Stratton, 3 Bro. Ch. 367. Lincoln v. Pelham, 10 Ves. 166, 176. Heron v. Stokes, 2 Dru. & War. 89 ; S. C. l Con. & Laws. 270 ; 4 Irish Eq. 284, Collins v. Hoxie, 9 Paige, 81. Weston v. Foster, 7 Met. 297 Balcom v. Haynes, 14 Allen, 204. Decree accordingly.

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

Related

Byington v. Fuller
587 P.2d 636 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1978)
Gaughen v. Gaughen
107 N.W.2d 652 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1961)
Agricultural National Bank v. Schwartz
91 N.E.2d 195 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Doolan
29 N.E.2d 844 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Estate of Rauschenplat
297 P. 882 (California Supreme Court, 1931)
Proctor v. Lacy
160 N.E. 441 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
Estate of Backesto
235 P. 670 (California Court of Appeal, 1925)
Pratt v. Condon
131 N.E. 304 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Wooley v. Hays
226 S.W. 842 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1920)
Nirdlinger v. Stevens
262 F. 591 (D. New Jersey, 1919)
Leslie v. Wilder
117 N.E. 342 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Rogers v. Smith
88 S.E. 963 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Hoadley v. Beardsley
93 A. 535 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1915)
Broermann v. Kessling
6 Ohio App. 7 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1914)
Guesnard v. Guesnard
55 So. 524 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1911)
Kalbach v. Clark
110 N.W. 599 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1907)
Crapo v. Price
76 N.E. 1043 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Follansbee v. Follansbee
7 App. D.C. 282 (D.C. Circuit, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 Mass. 135, 1876 Mass. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-bowers-mass-1876.