Legal Opinion

Gove v. Hammond

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 12, 1982PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

We granted the defendants’ application for further appellate review in order to restate the rule: “Courts . . . ‘have no power to reform wills. Hypothetical or imaginary mistakes of testators cannot be corrected. Omissions cannot be supplied. Language cannot be modified to meet unforeseen changes in conditions. The only means for ascertaining the intent of the testator are the words written and the acts *1002done by him.’ Sanderson v. Norcross, 242 Mass. 43, 46 [1922].” Salter v. Salter, 338 Mass. 391, 393 (1959). A failure to provide for a contingency may lead to either a partial or complete…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sanderson v. NorcrossMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
  2. Wright v. BenttinenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1967
  3. Salter v. SalterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Flannery v. McNamaraMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2000
  2. Schwartz v. BayBank Merrimack Valley, N.A.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API