O'Rourke v. Beard

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

O'Rourke v. Beard

23 N.E. 576, 151 Mass. 9, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 126

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 16, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 23 N.E. 576 (O'Rourke v. Beard) 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

O'Rourke v. Beard, 23 N.E. 576, 151 Mass. 9, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 126 (Mass. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Holmes, J.

This is a real action. The demandant claims title under a sale in due form by trustees having an express power to sell under the will of one who died seised of the premises. The only ground on which the validity of the sale is denied is that the trust is invalid. It is enough for us to say that we perceive no ground for doubting that the trust is valid. The trust is of the testator’s “ entire estate, whether real, personal, or mixed, . . . for the benefit of my three children [naming them] or their heirs.” There is no uncertainty, in the sense of Olliffe v. Wells, 130 Mass. 221, cited for the tenant, although there might be a doubt as to the proper construction which it is not necessary for us to resolve.

In some cases, especially of devises of land, “or” has been read “ and,” so as to make “ heirs ” a word of limitation. Read v. Snell, 2 Atk. 642, 645. Wright v. Wright, 1 Ves. Sen. 409. Harris v. Davis, 1 Collyer, 416, 423. Lachlan v. Reynolds, 9 Hare, 796, 798. Greenway v. Greenway, 2 DeG., F. & J. 128, 139. Adshead v. Willetts, 29 Beav. 358.

A more likely construction, since words of inheritance are not now necessary in order to carry the absolute interest, is that [11]*11“ or ” makes a substituted gift, as is provided by the Pub. Sts. c. 127, § 23, in case either of the testator’s children should die before him, and as has been held in England with regard to gifts of personalty or of real and personal estate together. Grittings v. M'Dermott, 2 Myl. & K. 69, 75. Wingfield v. Wingfield, 9 Ch. D. 658. Keay v. Boulton, 25 Ch. D. 212. See Hall v. Hall, 140 Mass. 267, 270. Probably the time of substitution is the testator’s death, so that any child who survived him took an absolute title. Montagu v. Nucella, 1 Russ. 165, 170, 171. Salisbury v. Petty, 3 Hare, 86, 93. Whitcher v. Penley, 9 Beav. 477.

We do not suppose that the counsel for the tenant meant seriously to suggest that a trust estate in fee simple is bad.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Holmes, J.

This is a real action. The demandant claims title under a sale in due form by trustees having an express power to sell under the will of one who died seised of the premises. The only ground on which the validity of the sale is denied is that the trust is invalid. It is enough for us to say that we perceive no ground for doubting that the trust is valid. The trust is of the testator’s “ entire estate, whether real, personal, or mixed, . . . for the benefit of my three children [naming them] or their heirs.” There is no uncertainty, in the sense of Olliffe v. Wells, 130 Mass. 221, cited for the tenant, although there might be a doubt as to the proper construction which it is not necessary for us to resolve.

In some cases, especially of devises of land, “or” has been read “ and,” so as to make “ heirs ” a word of limitation. Read v. Snell, 2 Atk. 642, 645. Wright v. Wright, 1 Ves. Sen. 409. Harris v. Davis, 1 Collyer, 416, 423. Lachlan v. Reynolds, 9 Hare, 796, 798. Greenway v. Greenway, 2 DeG., F. & J. 128, 139. Adshead v. Willetts, 29 Beav. 358.

A more likely construction, since words of inheritance are not now necessary in order to carry the absolute interest, is that [11]*11“ or ” makes a substituted gift, as is provided by the Pub. Sts. c. 127, § 23, in case either of the testator’s children should die before him, and as has been held in England with regard to gifts of personalty or of real and personal estate together. Grittings v. M'Dermott, 2 Myl. & K. 69, 75. Wingfield v. Wingfield, 9 Ch. D. 658. Keay v. Boulton, 25 Ch. D. 212. See Hall v. Hall, 140 Mass. 267, 270. Probably the time of substitution is the testator’s death, so that any child who survived him took an absolute title. Montagu v. Nucella, 1 Russ. 165, 170, 171. Salisbury v. Petty, 3 Hare, 86, 93. Whitcher v. Penley, 9 Beav. 477.

We do not suppose that the counsel for the tenant meant seriously to suggest that a trust estate in fee simple is bad.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 N.E. 576, 151 Mass. 9, 1890 Mass. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orourke-v-beard-mass-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack