Legal Opinion

Bisson v. Gosselin

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 6, 1939No. 3092Published

1Per curiam

The essential issue of construction is whether the will effectually disposes of the part of the residue not left to the nieces Anna and Olivine, and if so, whether all the nephews take it or whether it is left to Arthur Bisson as the only nephew anywhere named in the will.

A construction of the residuary clause by which the word “nephew” is read as though it were in the plural instead of the singular, is considered not to accord with the expressed purpose of the testatrix. It would amount to a conjectural, if plausible, conclusion. The testatrix is shown to have had no reason to favor her…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Barrett v. CadySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1915
  2. McAllister v. ElliotSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1928
  3. United Life & Accident Insurance v. North Atlantic Securities Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926

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

Powered by the Exa API