Rose v. Porter

5 N.E. 641, 141 Mass. 309, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 191
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 2, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 5 N.E. 641 (Rose v. Porter) 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
Rose v. Porter, 5 N.E. 641, 141 Mass. 309, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 191 (Mass. 1886).

Opinion

Field, J.

We think that, by the terms of the will, the oldest son was not to take an interest in the property, and that it was left to the discretion of the two younger sons to do for him and his family whatever in their judgment “fraternal regard ” might [311]*311require. The testator has not made it imperative that the two younger sons shall do anything for their older brother or his family, and has not defined what they shall do, if they choose to do anything; and there is clearly no trust for him or his family.

It is conceded that the wife of the testator deceased before the parties entered into the agreement, and it is unnecessary to determine whether, by the will, a trust was created for her during her life.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Poor v. Bradbury
81 N.E. 882 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Orth v. Orth
42 N.E. 277 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1895)
Estate of Whitcomb
2 Coffey 279 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 N.E. 641, 141 Mass. 309, 1886 Mass. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-porter-mass-1886.