Ham v. Twombly
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Writ of entry, dated July 20,1899, by Frank S. Ham, son and heir at law of Foster Ham, and writ of dower of the same date by Mary Jane Ham, widow of Foster, against Jennie S. Twombly, devisee under the will of Cyrus Ham, father of Foster. In the Superior Court Lawton, J. ordered a verdict for the tenant; and the demandants alleged exceptions. The sixth clause of the will of Cyrus Ham, under which the tenant claimed, is printed in Cowley v. Twombly, 173 Mass. 393.
1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.
These two cases were argued together. In each the title of the tenant is founded upon the sixth clause of the will of Cyrus Ham, who died seised of the land in controversy. The demandants are respectively the heir at law and the widow of the Foster Ham named in that clause. It already has been decided that, so far as appears upon its face, the clause is valid. Cowley v. Twombly, 173 Mass. 393.
The demandants however contend that it is invalid because, as they allege, there was an unlawful secret trust. As to this trust they offered at the trial “ to prove, by evidence extrinsic to the will of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Trustees of Amherst College v. RitchNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Matter of Will of O'HaraNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Fairchild v. . Edson Edson v. . BartowNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Cowley v. TwomblyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
3Cited by11 opinions
- Kerwin v. DonaghyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1945
- Kerr v. KerrMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Wolkovisky v. RapaportMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Sheehan v. SheehanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1910
- Moore v. MooreCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1919
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.