TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bryson v. Holbrook

Mary A. D. Bryson v. Silas P. Holbrook

Bryson v. Holbrook, 34 N.E. 270 (Mass. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 8, 1893
Judges
Field
Citations
34 N.E. 270159 Mass. 2801893 Mass. LEXIS 141
Headnotes
Lapsed Legacy — “ Heirs and Assigns ” as Words of Limitation. Where a legacy is given to one not a relative, and his "heirs and assigns,” the words “ heirs and assigns ” are to he construed as words of limitation, and will not carry the gift to the heirs of a legatee dying in the lifetime of the testator. .
Summary
Contract, against the executor of the will of William R. Holbrook, to recover the value of a legacy. The writ was dated November 14, 1892. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the defendant, to this court, on appeal, on agreed facts, which, so far as material to the point decided, appear in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court — Field

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

Field, C. J.

This is an action for a legacy by one of the children of Mrs. William M. Walker. Mrs. Walker is one of the legatees named in the will of William Reed Holbrook. She died on March 31, 1881, leaving the plaintiff as one of her heirs. William Reed Holbrook died on February 12, 1886. Mrs. Walker was not a relative of Mr. Holbrook. The legacy to Mrs. Walker is in these words: “ I give and bequeath to Mrs. William M. Walker, widow of the late William M. Walker of Cincinnati, the sum of one thousand dollars unto her and heirs and assigns. . . . Mr. Ambrose M. Bryson of Cincinnati can be informed of this bequest to Mrs. Walker of Cincinnati.” The contention of the counsel of the plaintiff is, that this clause should be construed as a gift to Mrs. Walker if she should be alive at the time of the testator’s death, but if she should not be alive at that time, then as a gift to her heirs. But we'see nothing in the will whereby the words “ heirs and assigns ” can be construed otherwise than as words of limitation. We are unable to distinguish this case from Wood v. Seaver, 158 Mass. 411 .

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1894: 11900: 11906: 11914: 11931: 11933: 118942026peak 1894 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Horton v. Earle38 N.E. 1135 (Mass. 1894)
  2. Farnsworth v. Whiting66 A. 831 (Me. 1906)
  3. Adams v. Jones57 N.E. 362 (Mass. 1900)
  4. Gomoll v. Temple27 P.2d 1018 (Or. 1933)
  5. State Street Trust Co. v. Morris105 N.E. 992 (Mass. 1914)
  6. Evers v. Williams29 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 197 (Oh. Ct. Com. Pl., Hamilton 1931)

Most recent

  1. Gomoll v. Temple27 P.2d 1018 (Or. 1933)
  2. Evers v. Williams29 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 197 (Oh. Ct. Com. Pl., Hamilton 1931)
  3. State Street Trust Co. v. Morris105 N.E. 992 (Mass. 1914)
  4. Farnsworth v. Whiting66 A. 831 (Me. 1906)
  5. Adams v. Jones57 N.E. 362 (Mass. 1900)
  6. Horton v. Earle38 N.E. 1135 (Mass. 1894)

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
Wood v. Seaver, 33 N.E. 587 (Mass. 1893) 13

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