TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Minot v. Prescott

Minot and Others versus Prescott

Minot v. Prescott, 14 Mass. 496 (1782)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1782
Judges
Cushing
Citations
14 Mass. 496
Cited by 22
Summary
This was an ejectment for land in Middlesex, wherein a special verdict was found; that one J. Betton, on the 17th of July; 1776, being seised of the premises, made his last will, and devised to his wife Mary the income of his real and personal estate during life; and if not sufficient to support her comfortably, then power to sell any of his estate for that purpose ; and to will and dispose of all the wearing apparel, plate, and furniture, of which he should die possessed. It was further found that, on the 11th of December, 1776, the said Mary granted the premises in fee unto the defend ant, for a valuable consideration; and that, if evidence could be admitted (notwithstanding the deed to the defendant) to prove the income, &c., sufficient, &c.,- then that it was sufficient for her comfortable support. And whether, on the whole matter, the demandants could recover, the jury prayed the advisement of the Court, &c.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Cushing

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Cushing, C. J.

This is not a fee simple. The power is not to dispose at will and pleasure, as in the case cited from Wilson, but on the happening of a particular event, viz., the income proving insufficient to support the wife comfortably. This is a precedent condition; and was so adjudged in the * case of. Dike vs. Ricks, where the clause in the will' was substantially the same with that in the present case. The happen ing of this condition ought to have been stated in the deed to Picscott, as well as shown in the verdict, in order to entitle the defendant to judgment. It is a matter which can be traversed ; and as the jury have found that there was a sufficiency of personal estate for the comfortable support of the widow, this conveyance cannot be supported. I am therefore clearly of opinion that the demandants ought to have judgment on this special verdict And so adjudged per Cunarn una voce.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →
1806–1807: 31808–1809: 11818–1819: 11820–1821: 11832–1833: 11866–1867: 21872–1873: 11876–1877: 11884–1885: 11886–1887: 11888–1889: 11890–1891: 11896–1897: 11900–1901: 11914–1915: 11920–1921: 11924–1925: 11938–1939: 11984–1985: 118062026peak 1806 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Morford v. Dieffenbacker20 N.W. 600 (Mich. 1884)
  2. Townshend v. Goodfellow3 L.R.A. 739 (Minn. 1889)
  3. Lovett v. Farnham47 N.E. 246 (Mass. 1897)
  4. Cook v. Higgins235 S.W. 807 (Mo. 1921)
  5. Larsen v. Johnson47 N.W. 615 (Wis. 1890)
  6. Bamforth v. Bamforth123 Mass. 280 (1877)

Most recent

  1. Ware v. Green691 S.W.2d 167 (Ark. 1985) · Dissent
  2. Williams v. Spears180 So. 266 (Ala. 1938)
  3. Birge v. Westport Bank & Trust Co.124 A. 846 (Conn. 1924)
  4. Cook v. Higgins235 S.W. 807 (Mo. 1921)
  5. Robbins v. Thornton145 N.W. 891 (Iowa 1914)
  6. Markham v. Hufford48 L.R.A. 580 (Mich. 1900)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list