Huntington v. Lyman
138 Mass. 205, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 56
Opinion
Mary Frazier Curtis took a fee simple under the deed from Thomas B. and Daniel S. Curtis. The granting part clearly gives her a fee simple. The habendum is to her and “to the use of heir heirs and assigns forever.” Plainly the word “ heir ” is a clerical mistake for “ her.” The provision, that she is to hold the premises free from the control of any husband she may have, is surplusage, but it does not show any intention to cut down or limit the grant of a fee simple clearly made in the granting part of the deed.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Huntington v. Lyman, 138 Mass. 205, 1884 Mass. LEXIS 56 (Mass. 1884).
138 Mass. 205 (Huntington v. Lyman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Anderson & Kerr Drilling Co. v. Bruhlmeyer
136 S.W.2d 800 (Texas Supreme Court, 1940)
Wilson v. Terry
89 N.W. 566 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
Smith v. Smith
40 N.W. 21 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1888)