Legal Opinion
Markham v. Hufford
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided March 27, 1900PublishedCited by 13 opinions
Error to Kent; Adsit, J. Almon L. Markham filed a petition in the probate court for an order requiring Silas L. Hufford and William Hoyle Jones, as executors of the last will and testament of Mary C. Jones, deceased, to pay him the amount of a certain legacy. The petition was denied in the probate court, and petitioner appealed to the circuit court. From a judgment for petitioner, defendants bring error.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
The testatrix, Mary C. Jones, left a will containing the following provisions:
“1. To Almon L. Markham, the son of my daughter, Julia J. Markham, deceased, I give and bequeath the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00), to be paid, to him at the expiration of two years from the date of my demise: Provided, that he shall be deemed a reformed man, in the judgment of the executors of this will.
“2. To my granddaughter, Mary Maud Markham, I give and bequeath the sum of five hundred dollars ($500), not to be paid to her until she has attained the age of twenty (20) years, unless it be necessary, in…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Finlay v. King's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Nicoll v. . the New-York and Erie Railroad Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Webster v. MorrisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
- Barnum v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1884
- Minot v. PrescottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1782
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Atlantic-Pacific Oil Co. v. Gas Development Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1937
- Kerens v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1920
- In Re Bem EstateMichigan Court of Appeals · 2001
- Hadley v. HendersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
- De Conick v. De ConickMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.