Legal Opinion

Cumston v. Bartlett

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 11, 1889PublishedCited by 20 opinions

Bill in equity, filed October 12, 1888, by tbe executors and to astees under the will of Charles L. Smith, against the trustees and beneficiaries under the will of Stephen Smith, for instructions. Hearing before W. Allen, J., who reserved the case for the consideration of the full court, in substance as follows.

Read the full summary

Bill in equity, filed October 12, 1888, by tbe executors and to astees under the will of Charles L. Smith, against the trustees and beneficiaries under the will of Stephen Smith, for instructions. Hearing before W. Allen, J., who reserved the case for the consideration of the full court, in substance as follows. Stephen Smith, who was the father of Charles L. Smith, died on April 14, 1875, leaving a will, which was duly admitted to probate, containing the following provisions: “ All of the rest, residue, and remainder of my estate, both real, personal, and mixed, of which I shall die seised…

1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.

The general rule is now well established in this Commonwealth, that a general residuary devise will operate as an execution of a power to dispose of property by will, unless there is something to show that such was not the testator’s intention. Amory v. Meredith, 7 Allen, 397. Willard v. Ware, 10 Allen, 263. Bangs v. Smith, 98 Mass. 270. Sewall v. Wilmer, 132 Mass. 131. The third article of the will of Charles L. Smith contained a general residuary devise, and the only question is whether there is anything sufficient to show that he did not thereby intend to execute the power given to him by…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Sewall v. WilmerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
  2. Bangs v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Stone v. ForbesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
  2. Pitman v. PitmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
  3. Johnston v. . KnightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  4. Chase National Bank v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
  5. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. PainterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1948

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API