Taggard v. Piper

118 Mass. 315, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 364
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 13, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 118 Mass. 315 (Taggard v. Piper) 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
Taggard v. Piper, 118 Mass. 315, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 364 (Mass. 1875).

Opinion

Endicott, J.

By the thirteenth clause of the will, William T. Piper is entitled to receive one third of the residue of the testator’s estate.. By the twelfth clause, it is provided that if he shall decease leaving no issue, nor father, and no brother or sister living, the property bequeathed to him by the will shall descend in equal shares to his mother, and the children of any deceased brother or sister, by right of representation.

This bill is brought by the executors for instructions; and the question raised is, whether the executors shall pay over to William T. Piper one third of the personal property bequeathed to him under the thirteenth clause, or hold the same in trust during his natural life, or pay it over to trustees for him, and thus provide for the contingency mentioned in the twelfth clause. It is not alleged in the bill or answers, and no evidence was offered that there is danger that William T. Piper will waste, secrete or remove the property, if intrusted to his hands.

We are of opinion that no trust was created by these provisions. The case is governed by Fiske v. Cobb, 6 Gray, 144, where it was held that if a legacy is given generally, but subject to a limitation over, on the subsequent condition of the legatee dying without issue, it is to be paid to him without security [317]*317unless it is made to appear that there is danger of his wasting, secreting or removing the property. No such question is raised here. It.is therefore unnecessary to consider many of the points argued at the bar upon the effect to be given to the provisions of the twelfth clause.

As the case stands, the executors should pay over to William T. Piper, without security, his share of the residue of the personal estate of the testator. Decree accordingly. ‘

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

Related

Cotton v. Town of Danville
17 N.E.2d 209 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Holmes v. Dunning
157 N.E. 358 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Fairmont Trust Co. v. Arnett
81 S.E. 733 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1914)
Rhines v. Wentworth
95 N.E. 951 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Thissell v. Schillinger
71 N.E. 300 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)
Harris v. Dawley
49 A. 29 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1901)
In re Aymar
5 Dem. Sur. 428 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1887)
In re Fernbacher
17 Abb. N. Cas. 339 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1886)
Fernbacher v. Fernbacher
4 Dem. Sur. 227 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1885)
Hooper v. Bradbury
133 Mass. 303 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)
Quigley v. Gridley
132 Mass. 35 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)
Schmaunz v. Göss
132 Mass. 141 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)
Hyde v. Wason
131 Mass. 450 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1881)
Flanagan v. Flanagan
8 Abb. N. Cas. 413 (New York Supreme Court, 1880)
Stubbs v. Stubbs
4 Redf. 170 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1879)
Ratliff v. Warner
32 Ohio St. (N.S.) 334 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1877)
Proctor v. Robinson
35 Mich. 284 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
118 Mass. 315, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taggard-v-piper-mass-1875.