TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brightman v. Brightman

Israel P. Brightman & another v. Ellery R. Brightman

Brightman v. Brightman, 100 Mass. 238 (1868)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1868
Judges
Chapman
Citations
100 Mass. 238
Headnotes
A testator who in one clause of his will devised land to D. and X, their heirs and assigns provided in a subsequent clause that, “if D. or X shall die leaving no issue of his body then what I have here devised to such one I here devise to the survivor thereof and his heirs and assigns.” SeZcZ, that this was an executory devise limited upon a fee simple, and upon the death of either D. or X, leaving issue, in the lifetime of the other, the contingency became impossible and the estate in fee simple remained.
Summary
Writ of entry dated May 27, 1867; submitted to the judgment of the court on agreed facts of which the following is the substance: Israel Brightman, by his will, proved and allowed in 1838, devised “ to Daniel and John Brightman and to their heirs and assigns” land in Westport, on condition that the said Daniel and John should pay certain amounts to certain persons; bequeathed to them personal property; and further provided: “ If the said Daniel or John shall decease leaving no issue of his body lawfully begotten, then what I have here given and devised to such one I here devise to the survivor thereof and his heirs and assigns.” Of the amounts to be paid by Daniel and John under the condition, each paid his part; and they held and occupied the. land together, without partition, until 1846, when Daniel died leaving, as his children and only heirs, the demandants, both of whom were born after 1838. In 1848 an undivided half of the land was sold, under a decree of the probate court, to pay Daniel’s debts, and bought by Benjamin Church; and later in the same year, by an indenture executed by Church and John Brightman, they divided' the land and each set off to the other one half of it by metes and bounds. The half set off to John (being the demanded premises) he conveyed in fee simple by deed with covenants of full warranty to the tenant, in 1860, and died in 1861, leaving no issue whereupon the demandants laid claim to it.

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

Opinion of the Court — Chapman

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

Chapman, C. J.

The clause in Israel Brightman’s will devising certain real estate “ to Daniel and John Brightman and to their heirs and assigns,” taken by itself, gave them an estate in fee simple. The subsequent clause providing that “ if the said Daniel or John shall decease, leaving no issue of his body lawfully begotten, then what I have devised to such one, I here devise to the survivor thereof and his heirs and assigns,” created an executory devise limited upon that fee simple. Richardson v. Noyes, 2 Mass. 56 . But the contingency did not happen; for Daniel died first, and left issue; and when John died Daniel did not survive him. Upon the decease of Daniel leaving issue, the contingency mentioned became impossible, and the estate in fee simple remained. Judgment for the tenant.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 17 cases

View all citing references →
1869–1870: 11875–1876: 11877–1878: 11881–1882: 21883–1884: 11891–1892: 11897–1898: 21903–1904: 11905–1906: 21911–1912: 21915–1916: 11919–1920: 11957–1958: 118692026peak 1881 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Welch v. Brimmer47 N.E. 699 (Mass. 1897)
  2. Hooper v. Bradbury133 Mass. 303 (1882)
  3. Allen v. Trustees of Ashley School Fund102 Mass. 262 (1869)
  4. Whitcomb v. Taylor122 Mass. 243 (1877)
  5. Schmaunz v. Göss132 Mass. 141 (1882)
  6. Post v. Rohrbach32 N.E. 687 (Ill. 1892)

Most recent

  1. Hayes v. Hammond143 N.E.2d 693 (Mass. 1957)
  2. Hull v. Calvert226 S.W. 553 (Mo. 1920)
  3. Hall v. Beebe111 N.E. 899 (Mass. 1916)
  4. Lovering v. Balch96 N.E. 142 (Mass. 1911)
  5. Meins v. Pease94 N.E. 845 (Mass. 1911)
  6. Raymond1 Davis. L. Ct. Cas. 236 (1906)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Richardson v. Noyes, 2 Mass. 56 (1806) 43

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