Welles v. Olcott

Connecticut Superior Court

Welles v. Olcott

1 Kirby 118

DecidedSeptember 15, 1786

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Kirby 118 (Welles v. Olcott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Welles v. Olcott, 1 Kirby 118 (Colo. Ct. App. 1786).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Uniformity of decision is to be preserved. Tbe point in this case bath been twice recently adjudged, in tbe cases of Allen v. Bunce, and Devey v. Foot; and on [119]*119tlie following principles: Tbat the intent of the testator was to be pursued, where it did not interfere with the policy of law: That the intent in the present case obviously was to create an estate tail, and not a conditional fee. A limitation in tail, so far as related to the first donee in tail, might be for very good reasons; and it does not interfere with the policy of law, like perpetuities, or more than any life estate: And that the late statute, admitting limitations in tail, as relative to the first donee, might well be considered as in affirmance of the common law. Judgment was therefore for the plaintiffs. ,

N. B.— Judge Pitkin excused himself from judging in this case, being related to one of the parties.

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

By the Court.

Uniformity of decision is to be preserved. Tbe point in this case bath been twice recently adjudged, in tbe cases of Allen v. Bunce, and Devey v. Foot; and on [119]*119tlie following principles: Tbat the intent of the testator was to be pursued, where it did not interfere with the policy of law: That the intent in the present case obviously was to create an estate tail, and not a conditional fee. A limitation in tail, so far as related to the first donee in tail, might be for very good reasons; and it does not interfere with the policy of law, like perpetuities, or more than any life estate: And that the late statute, admitting limitations in tail, as relative to the first donee, might well be considered as in affirmance of the common law. Judgment was therefore for the plaintiffs. ,

N. B.— Judge Pitkin excused himself from judging in this case, being related to one of the parties.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Kirby 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welles-v-olcott-connsuperct-1786.