Loring v. Craft

Indiana Supreme Court

Loring v. Craft

16 Ind. 110, 1861 Ind. LEXIS 35

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMay 29, 1861

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 16 Ind. 110 (Loring v. Craft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Loring v. Craft, 16 Ind. 110, 1861 Ind. LEXIS 35 (Ind. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Bradley B. Loring made his last will, dis

posing of all of his property, and died. He left a widow, who, with others, was a devisee in the will. The widow took the provision made for her in the will; and she now sues the executor for the sum of $300, which she claims is vested in her by statute, over and above the provision made for her in the will. 1 R. S., § 21, p. 251.

With some hesitation, we have concluded she is entitled to recover. Cheek v. Wilson, 7 Ind. 354; 8 id. 71; 1 R. S., § 41, p. 255. See Collier v. Collier, 3 Ohio St. Rep. 369.

The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

.) By counsel for appellee : The will disposes of all the testator’s property, and the claim of the widow can not he allowed without defeating other bequests.

[111]*111“ A leading, if not the earliest decision as to election, is Noyes v. Mordaunt, a case of real estate, which was followed by Vincent v. Vincent, a case of personal estate, by French v. Standish, the case of a copy-hold estate, and by many other cases; the result of which appears to be, that a person shall not claim an interest under an instnment, whether a deed or a will, without giving full effect to that instrument as far as he can. This rule has been said to be universal, and without exception. It applies to interests of married women; interests immediate, remote, or contingent; of value or not of value.” 2 Maddock’s Chan. 47. See, also, 2 Story’s Eq. Jur. § 1075.

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

Per Curiam.

Bradley B. Loring made his last will, dis

posing of all of his property, and died. He left a widow, who, with others, was a devisee in the will. The widow took the provision made for her in the will; and she now sues the executor for the sum of $300, which she claims is vested in her by statute, over and above the provision made for her in the will. 1 R. S., § 21, p. 251.

With some hesitation, we have concluded she is entitled to recover. Cheek v. Wilson, 7 Ind. 354; 8 id. 71; 1 R. S., § 41, p. 255. See Collier v. Collier, 3 Ohio St. Rep. 369.

The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

.) By counsel for appellee : The will disposes of all the testator’s property, and the claim of the widow can not he allowed without defeating other bequests.

[111]*111“ A leading, if not the earliest decision as to election, is Noyes v. Mordaunt, a case of real estate, which was followed by Vincent v. Vincent, a case of personal estate, by French v. Standish, the case of a copy-hold estate, and by many other cases; the result of which appears to be, that a person shall not claim an interest under an instnment, whether a deed or a will, without giving full effect to that instrument as far as he can. This rule has been said to be universal, and without exception. It applies to interests of married women; interests immediate, remote, or contingent; of value or not of value.” 2 Maddock’s Chan. 47. See, also, 2 Story’s Eq. Jur. § 1075.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Ind. 110, 1861 Ind. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loring-v-craft-ind-1861.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack