New England Trust Co. v. Scheffey
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtWait, J.
The law applicable to this case is stated in Temple v. Russell, 251 Mass. 231, and Crowell v. Chapman, 257 Mass. 492, 495. The intent of the testator is to be given effect; but an intent is not to be called into being where none existed. Some of the words of a will are not to be permitted to contravene an intent fairly deduced from a study of the whole will in the light of the circumstances in which it was executed.
The testator by his will, executed in 1872, gave to trustees “for my grand daughters Emma G. Lund and Mary E Lund Eleven thousand dollars that is, to said Emma ten thousand dollars…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Temple v. RussellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Crowell v. ChapmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Bailey v. BaileyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. DwellyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Cavan v. WoodburyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Beals v. MagenisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- Hull v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Goodwin v. New England Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
- Old Colony Trust Co. v. ShackfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Welch v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933