Legal Opinion

Cromwell v. Converse

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided September 28, 1928PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

The testator gave no part of the principal of his residuary estate to any beneficiary until his last descendant living at his death deceased. His undoubted purpose in deferring the vesting of the principal to the latest possible day within the rule against perpetuities was to maintain control over the principal as long as he legally could, through trustees named by himself. The residuary article, quoted in the footnote, does not indicate, by express provision, an intention on the part of the testator to accumulate the income of the residuary trust fund, or that of the trust fund under the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Union Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. DudleySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1908
  2. Carter v. BrownellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
  3. Welch v. ApthorpMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Estate of MarreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Zeoli v. Commissioner of Social ServicesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
  3. Bridgeport-City Trust Co. v. BeachSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
  4. Willis v. HendrySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
  5. Reilly v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API