Todd v. Gambrill
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
In the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, there is no doubt upon this, viz., that Clara Yeatman’s children could not under any theory be brought into the group of residuary legatees. Being only grandnieces, they could not answer to the description of nieces, nor could they indirectly share in the residue through the instrumentality of an administrator for their mother’s estate, because at the date of the will their mother was dead. If the testator, when he made his will had thought he was including her among the nieces and nephews described, yet, she being dead…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Pimel v. . BetjemannNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Guitar v. GordonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Kehl v. TaylorIllinois Supreme Court · 1916
- Brewer v. CurtisSupreme Court of Delaware · 1920
- Spencer's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Stiegler v. HibbertCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1929
- University of Delaware v. Equitable Trust Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1932
- Ackerman v. HughesConnecticut Superior Court · 1942
- Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. v. HolmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1933