TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

O'Rourke v. Beard

Daniel J. O'Rourke v. Robert Beard

O'Rourke v. Beard, 23 N.E. 576 (Mass. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 16, 1890
Judges
Holmes
Citations
23 N.E. 576151 Mass. 91890 Mass. LEXIS 126
Cited by 6
Headnotes
Trust in Fee — Uncertainty— “ Or ” — Substituted Gift. A testator devised “ his entire estate, whether real, personal, or mixed,” to trustees “for the benefit of my three children,” naming them, “or their heirs.” Held, that a valid trust was created.
Summary
Writ oe entry to recover a parcel of land. Plea, nul disseisin. At the trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Aldrich, J., the following facts were agreed. George Woollard died on June 25, 1888, seised of the demanded premises, and leaving a will, containing the following provisions, which alone are material: “ Item II. My entire estate, whether real, personal, or mixed, of which I die possessed, or which I may own at the time of my decease, I will and bequeath to Daniel V. Folts and Julius C. Folts, my trustees hereinafter named, for the benefit of my three children, Margaret Almira Beard, George Webb Woollard, and Mary Elizabeth Holmes, or their heirs. “ Item III. I hereby authorize and empower my said trustees to sell all my estate at public auction, and give proper deeds to all purchasers of such real estate.” The will was duly admitted to probate, and the trustees appointed under it subsequently sold the demanded premises in due form, and conveyed them to the demandant. The tenant was the husband of the testator’s daughter, Margaret A. Beard, named in the will, who died before the testator, and he claimed title to the demanded premises through his wife and their children. The tenant asked the judge to rule that no valid trust was created by the will, and that the sale and deed to the demand-ant were of no force. The judge refused so to rule, and found for the demandant; and the defendant alleged exceptions to the ruling.

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

Opinion of the Court — Holmes

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

Holmes, J.

This is a real action. The demandant claims title under a sale in due form by trustees having an express power to sell under the will of one who died seised of the premises. The only ground on which the validity of the sale is denied is that the trust is invalid. It is enough for us to say that we perceive no ground for doubting that the trust is valid. The trust is of the testator’s “ entire estate, whether real, personal, or mixed, . . . for the benefit of my three children [naming them] or their heirs.” There is no uncertainty, in the sense of Olliffe v. Wells, 130 Mass. 221 , cited for the tenant, although there might be a doubt as to the proper construction which it is not necessary for us to resolve.

In some cases, especially of devises of land, “or” has been read “ and,” so as to make “ heirs ” a word of limitation. Read v. Snell, 2 Atk. 642, 645. Wright v. Wright, 1 Ves. Sen. 409. Harris v. Davis, 1 Collyer, 416, 423. Lachlan v. Reynolds, 9 Hare, 796, 798. Greenway v. Greenway, 2 DeG., F. & J. 128, 139. Adshead v. Willetts, 29 Beav. 358.

A more likely construction, since words of inheritance are not now necessary in order to carry the absolute interest, is that *11 “ or ” makes a substituted gift, as is provided by the Pub. Sts. c. 127, § 23, in case either of the testator’s children should die before him, and as has been held in England with regard to gifts of personalty or of real and personal estate together. Grittings v. M'Dermott, 2 Myl. & K. 69, 75. Wingfield v. Wingfield, 9 Ch. D. 658. Keay v. Boulton, 25 Ch. D. 212. See Hall v. Hall, 140 Mass. 267, 270 . Probably the time of substitution is the testator’s death, so that any child who survived him took an absolute title. Montagu v. Nucella, 1 Russ. 165, 170, 171. Salisbury v. Petty, 3 Hare, 86, 93. Whitcher v. Penley, 9 Beav. 477.

We do not suppose that the counsel for the tenant meant seriously to suggest that a trust estate in fee simple is bad.

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1891: 11894: 11909: 11939: 11941: 11943: 118912026peak 1891 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sanders v. Jones147 S.W.2d 424 (Mo. 1941)
  2. Robertson v. Robertson48 N.E.2d 29 (Mass. 1943)
  3. New Haven Young Men's Institute v. City of New Haven22 A. 447 (Conn. 1891)
  4. Holcomb v. Palmer75 A. 324 (Me. 1909)
  5. Lee v. Welch39 N.E. 1112 (Mass. 1894)
  6. Shepard v. Newton22 N.E.2d 618 (Mass. 1939)

Most recent

  1. Robertson v. Robertson48 N.E.2d 29 (Mass. 1943)
  2. Sanders v. Jones147 S.W.2d 424 (Mo. 1941)
  3. Shepard v. Newton22 N.E.2d 618 (Mass. 1939)
  4. Holcomb v. Palmer75 A. 324 (Me. 1909)
  5. Lee v. Welch39 N.E. 1112 (Mass. 1894)
  6. New Haven Young Men's Institute v. City of New Haven22 A. 447 (Conn. 1891)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Olliffe v. Wells, 130 Mass. 221 (1881) 59
Hall v. Hall, 2 N.E. 700 (Mass. 1885) 30

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