Pike v. Stephenson

99 Mass. 188
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 99 Mass. 188 (Pike v. Stephenson) 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
Pike v. Stephenson, 99 Mass. 188 (Mass. 1868).

Opinion

Gray, J.

The ordinary presumption is, that all devises and bequests vest upon the death of the testator; and there is nothing in the provisions of this will to control that presumption.

The devise, in the fourth article of the will, of the use and [190]*190improvement of the land in question to Mrs. Pike was a devise of the estate to her for life ; and the devise over to her children and to the children of any deceased child by right of representation, gave the children of Mrs. Pike, living at the death of the testator, vested remainders in fee. The devise over is not restricted to such of her children or grandchildren only as may survive her, but is to all her children and the children of any deceased child. The words, “ in the event of her decease, I do then give,” do not express a contingency which may or may not happen, but an event which is sure to arrive, sooner or later; and define, not the time when the remaindermen are to be ascertained, or when their titles are to begin, but when they are to receive the possession, use and enjoyment of their shares. Brown v. Lawrence, 3 Cush. 390. Wight v. Shaw, 5 Cush. 56. White v. Curtis, 12 Gray, 54. Womrath v. McCormick, 51 Penn. State, 504. Doe v. Considine, 6 Wallace, 458.

The language of the ninth article of the will tends rather to confirm than to weaken this conclusion. That article contains a residuary devise and bequest to Mrs. Pike in fee; but in case she shall die before the testator, then, instead thereof, a like devise and bequest is made to her children “who shall then be living,” and the children of any deceased child. The words “ who shall then be living ” in this article, refer to the time of the testator’s death, and their insertion here gives to the omission of any like words in restriction of the remainder clause in the fourth article the marks of deliberate intention.

Judgment for the petitioner.

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

Related

Barker v. Monks
53 N.E.2d 696 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Maynor v. Vaughn
17 S.W.2d 910 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1929)
Welch v. Colt
117 N.E. 834 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Yeager v. Farnsworth
145 N.W. 87 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1914)
Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Nevin
98 N.E. 1051 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)
Jacobs v. Whitney
91 N.E. 1009 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Gray v. Whittemore
78 N.E. 422 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Raymond
1 Davis. L. Ct. Cas. 236 (Massachusetts Land Court, 1906)
Lombard v. Willis
16 N.E. 737 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Cummings v. Cummings
16 N.E. 401 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Scott v. West
24 N.W. 161 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1885)
Gibbens v. Gibbens
3 N.E. 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Hatfield v. Sohier
114 Mass. 48 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1873)
Wilmarth v. Bridges
113 Mass. 407 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1873)
Darling v. Blanchard
109 Mass. 176 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1872)
Hill v. Bacon
106 Mass. 578 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1871)
Gardiner v. Guild
106 Mass. 25 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 Mass. 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pike-v-stephenson-mass-1868.