Packard v. Marshall

138 Mass. 301, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 174
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 8, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 138 Mass. 301 (Packard v. Marshall) 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
Packard v. Marshall, 138 Mass. 301, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 174 (Mass. 1885).

Opinion

Devens, J.

The devise to trustees “ in trust for the use and benefit of my son Charles T. Packard, to be applied and appropriated to the use and benefit of said Charles T., at the discretion of my said trustees,” was of an estate in fee. This, under the well-established rule, that, when the devise is in trust, and the trust is of such a nature that it does or by possibility may require a legal estate in the trustee beyond that of an estate for his own life, then, without words of limitation in the devise, the trustee shall take a fee. To accomplish its purposes, the trustee must have a legal estate coextensive with the trust, and, under this clause of the will, all that was devised thereby might have been appropriated to Charles T. Packard. Cleveland [303]*303v. Hallett, 6 Cush. 403. Even then, if the deed made to Howard of the land demanded in this action was void, and conveyed no title, and if the estate of the trustees and of the cestui que trust has not been barred by the statute of limitations, (upon which two propositions we do not intend to pass,) the demandants can only have an equitable title thereto, which will not enable them to maintain a writ of entry. In an action to recover land, alleging a legal title, such a title must be established. Chapin v. Chicopee Universalist Society, 8 Gray, 580. When the purposes of a trust have failed, or have been completely performed, the trustees then hold the estate for the benefit of the heirs at law as a resulting trust, and are answerable to them for it upon proper proceedings. Easterbrooks v. Tillinghast, 5 Gray, 17. Ackroyd v. Smithson, 1 Bro. Ch. 503. Cox v. Parker, 22 Beav. 168. Judgment for the tenant.

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

Related

Daley v. Daley
32 N.E.2d 286 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Haskell v. Haskell
125 N.E. 601 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1920)
Chase v. Dickey
99 N.E. 410 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Robinson v. Robinson
72 A. 883 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1908)
Taft v. Decker
65 N.E. 507 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902)
Steele v. Steele
57 P. 564 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Packard v. Old Colony Railroad
46 N.E. 433 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Saltmarsh v. Spaulding
17 N.E. 316 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Mixter
15 N.E. 141 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Chesman v. Cummings
7 N.E. 13 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1886)
Cowles v. Dickinson
5 N.E. 302 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 Mass. 301, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/packard-v-marshall-mass-1885.