Thomson v. Ludington

104 Mass. 193
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 104 Mass. 193 (Thomson v. Ludington) 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
Thomson v. Ludington, 104 Mass. 193 (Mass. 1870).

Opinion

Gray, J.

The devise at the death or marriage of the widow “to and among such of my children as shall then be living, share and share alike,” gives a contingent remainder to such of the children as shall be living when the contingency of such death or marriage happens. Olney v. Hull, 21 Pick. 311. In the next clause, the testator gives the names of “ my said children,” that is, of all those already described as “ my children ; ” for he could not foretell which of them would be living at a future time; and this clause does not extend the effect of the previous one, by which such of them only as shall be living upon the happening of the contingency are to take. The further words “to them and their heirs and assigns forever” do not describe the devisees, but the quantity of their estate, or, in other words, merely-show that the estate to be taken by virtue of the previous words is an estate in fee. The daughter who died after the testator and before his widow therefore took nc estate, and none passed to her child.

Judgment for the defendants,

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

Related

Binney v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation
199 N.E. 528 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Williams v. Taylor
177 N.E. 553 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Harrison v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation
172 N.E. 605 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1930)
Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Ireland
167 N.E. 261 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
Miller v. Oliver
202 P. 168 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
Carr v. New England Anti-Vivisection Society
234 Mass. 217 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Dexter v. Attorney General
224 Mass. 215 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1916)
Smith v. Chester
272 Ill. 428 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1916)
Bullock v. Wiltberger
142 P. 950 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1914)
Wilde v. Wilde
95 N.E. 295 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Clarke v. Fay
91 N.E. 328 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
Frosch v. Monday
34 App. D.C. 338 (D.C. Circuit, 1910)
Higgins v. Washburn
106 P. 415 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)
Dickerson v. Dickerson
110 S.W. 700 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1908)
Costello v. Pumarada
3 P.R. Fed. 308 (D. Puerto Rico, 1908)
Carter v. Davis
18 Haw. 439 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1907)
Ball v. Holland
75 N.E. 713 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Hale v. Hobson
45 N.E. 913 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Smaw v. Young
109 Ala. 528 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1895)
Owen v. Eaton
56 Mo. App. 563 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 Mass. 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomson-v-ludington-mass-1870.