Kimball v. Sullivan

113 Mass. 345
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 113 Mass. 345 (Kimball v. Sullivan) 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
Kimball v. Sullivan, 113 Mass. 345 (Mass. 1873).

Opinion

Morton, J.

The devise in the fifth clause of the will of Reuben F. Foster, of all the residue of his estate to his wife Sarah, “to have and to hold the same forever,” is in apt words to give her a fee. It is not to be cut down to a lesser estate by the subsequent terms of the will, unless they show a clear intention of the testator to do so.

The proviso that if his wife “ at her decease should make no disposal of the property herein willed and bequeathed to her, and leave no child or children to heir the estate,” then the estate shall go to the three benevolent societies named, necessarily implies that she is to have the power of disposing of it by will. Bowen v. Dean, 110 Mass. 438. And we are of opinion that the reasonable inference from the proviso, construed in connection with the prior devise giving her a fee, is that the testator intended to give her a full power of disposal by will or deed, and, in case she should not have made any disposal of it at her decease, and should leave no children to inherit it, to devise it over to the three societies named. The language used is inartificial, but it is clear that the testator understood that he gave her an estate which her children would take by inheritance, if she did not dispose of it. It is not necessary to decide whether she took an absolute fee, the provisions subsequent to the gift in fee being repugnant and void, or a qualified fee, determinable if she died without children and without having disposed of the estate, with an executory devise over. In either case, as she had an absolute power of disposal, her deed conveyed a fee to the plaintiff. It follows that he can convey a good title to the defendant, and is entitled to a decree for a specific performance.

Decree for the plaintiff.

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

Related

Sherill v. Ouerbacker
206 S.W. 876 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1918)
Mooy v. Gallagher
90 A. 663 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1914)
Raymond v. Commonwealth
78 N.E. 514 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Fales v. Fales
19 N.E. 6 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Todd v. Sawyer
17 N.E. 527 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Kelley v. Meins
135 Mass. 231 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
Wead v. Gray
78 Mo. 59 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 Mass. 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimball-v-sullivan-mass-1873.