James v. James
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
Ignoring for the moment the interpolated language found in this will, it is of course plain that the testator intended his son Martin to enjoy both a fee-simple interest in one-half of the real estate and an absolute interest in one-half of the personalty. The words “to them and their heirs for ever” and the provision for a possible appraisement and division are conclusive on that point.
Does the interpolated language have the effect of changing this plain meaning? If so, then Martin’s unequivocally absolute interest in both the realty and personalty is, according as this…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jamison v. CravenCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1872
3Cited by11 opinions
- Downs v. CaspersonCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1934
- Carrow v. ThroppCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1946
- Goldberger v. GoldbergerCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1954
- Lewis v. NovelloCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1937
- Craven v. Wilmington Teachers Ass'nCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1946
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.