Peabody v. Brown
This text of 76 Mass. 45 (Peabody v. Brown) 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.
Opinion
Where two names are distinguishable, such as George and James, or even where the names are much alike, as Edward and Edwin, both popularly called Ned, still being well known distinct Christian names, it is not competent to go into direct paroi evidence that where Edward was written Edwin was intended. Crawford v. Spencer, 8 Cush. 418.
But where, taking the name and addition together, the deed fully applies to neither, it falls within the rule of a latent ambiguity.
Here it is “ Hiram Go wing, cordwainer,” and it is shown that the boy Hiram Go wing was only thirteen years old, not at the ordinary age even to commence an apprenticeship; it is in effect a latent ambiguity, and therefore opens the case for paroi evidence.
New trial ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
76 Mass. 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peabody-v-brown-mass-1857.