Littlefield v. Sipper

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Littlefield v. Sipper

9 R.I. Dec. 208

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMay 10, 1933

DocketEq. No. 11959

StatusPublished

This text of 9 R.I. Dec. 208 (Littlefield v. Sipper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Littlefield v. Sipper, 9 R.I. Dec. 208 (R.I. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

TANNER, J.

This is a bill to restrain the respondents from selling at execution sale the property described in the complainant’s bill. The case is heard upon bill and answer.

The complainants seeks to enjoin the respondents from selling at execution sale this property as the property of a third party, Charles S. Read. The respondents claim a right to sell this property even if Charles S. Read has no title thereto.

The main question raised in the bill is whether or not a residuary clause in the middle of a will will vest the residue in the devisee although in a subsequent part of the will a portion of the property covered by this residuary clause is distinctly given to other devisees under a trust.

Under these circumstances we think it is clear that the testator did not intend that 'the residuary clause should cover the property subsequently devised.

We think, therefore, that the complainant is entitled to a decree and an injunction against a sale, since such sale would constitute a cloud upon his title.

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

TANNER, J.

This is a bill to restrain the respondents from selling at execution sale the property described in the complainant’s bill. The case is heard upon bill and answer.

The complainants seeks to enjoin the respondents from selling at execution sale this property as the property of a third party, Charles S. Read. The respondents claim a right to sell this property even if Charles S. Read has no title thereto.

The main question raised in the bill is whether or not a residuary clause in the middle of a will will vest the residue in the devisee although in a subsequent part of the will a portion of the property covered by this residuary clause is distinctly given to other devisees under a trust.

Under these circumstances we think it is clear that the testator did not intend that 'the residuary clause should cover the property subsequently devised.

We think, therefore, that the complainant is entitled to a decree and an injunction against a sale, since such sale would constitute a cloud upon his title.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 R.I. Dec. 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/littlefield-v-sipper-risuperct-1933.