Viney v. Abbott

109 Mass. 300
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 109 Mass. 300 (Viney v. Abbott) 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
Viney v. Abbott, 109 Mass. 300 (Mass. 1872).

Opinion

Gbay, J.

The settlement in trust of the personal property of William Viney is admitted to have been voluntarily made by him, being of sufficient mental capacity, and without fraud or undue influence. There is no evidence of its having been executed under any mistake. It is not an assignment in trust for the benefit of creditors; but the trusts declared in it are, to apply the income during his life to the maintenance and support of himself and of such persons dependent upon him as he would by law be bound to support, and a portion thereof after his death to the benefit of his widow, if he should leave one, during widowhood, and to pay and distribute the residue to his sisters and their issue. Ho power of revocation is reserved. The instrument is not a mere executory agreement or covenant, but an executed conveyance under the seal of the settlor, and accepted by the trustee by becoming a party to the indenture of trust.

It is immaterial whether there was any other consideration „han appears upon the face of the indenture ; for even if the settlement was purely voluntary, the case falls within the doctrine, now well established in equity, that a voluntary settlement, completely executed, without any circumstances tending to show mental incapacity, mistake, fraud or undue influence, is binding and will be enforced against the settlor and his representatives, and [303]*303cannot be revoked, except so far as a power of revocation has been reserved in the deed of settlement; and that the fact that by the terms of the deed the income of the property is to be applied by the trustee to the benefit of the settlor during his lifetime does not impair the validity or effect of the further trusts declared in the instrument. Ellison v. Ellison, 6 Ves 656. Kekewich v. Manning, 1 De Gex, Macn. & Gord. 176. Re Way's Trusts, 2 De Gex, Jones & Smith, 365. Hildreth v. Eliot, 8 Pick. 293. Stone v. Hackett, 12 Gray, 227. Falk v. Turner, 101 Mass. 494. Bunn v. Winthrop, 1 Johns. Ch. 329. Dennison v. Goehring, 7 Barr, 175.

Bill dismissed, with costs.

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

Related

Phelps v. State Street Trust Co.
115 N.E.2d 382 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1953)
Leahy v. Old Colony Trust Co.
93 N.E.2d 238 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
National Shawmut Bank v. Joy
53 N.E.2d 113 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Gorey v. Guarente
22 N.E.2d 99 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Jones v. Old Colony Trust Co.
146 N.E. 716 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Sapp v. Houston Nat. Exch. Bank
266 S.W. 141 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1924)
Jones v. Luplow
13 Ohio App. 428 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1920)
Gray v. Union Trust Co.
154 P. 306 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
Sands v. Old Colony Trust Co.
81 N.E. 300 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Love v. Love
17 Haw. 206 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1905)
Carter v. Carter
53 A. 160 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1902)
Crumlish v. Security Trust & Safe Deposit Co.
8 Del. Ch. 375 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1899)
Brown v. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co.
40 A. 256 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1898)
Lovett v. Farnham
47 N.E. 246 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Taylor v. Buttrick
43 N.E. 507 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)
Alliance Milling Co. v. Eaton, Guinan & Co.
24 L.R.A. 369 (Texas Supreme Court, 1894)
In re Thurston
29 N.E. 53 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)
Speakman v. Tatem
48 N.J. Eq. 136 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1891)
Parker v. Allen
14 N.Y.S. 265 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)
Brison v. Brison
17 P. 689 (California Supreme Court, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 Mass. 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viney-v-abbott-mass-1872.