Legal Opinion · Dissent

Simerson v. Simerson

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1910Published

Submission on Agreed Eaots.

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION OP

PERRY, J.

It is clear to my mind that the actual .intent of the grantors, inartificially expressed, was in effect (1) to retain a life tenancy for the term of the life of the survivor of them, (2) to give Mary a life tenancy for the term of her life and (3) to give the remainder to Mary’s son William and to such other children, if any, as might be born to her after the date of the deed. The general rule seems to be undoubted that in deeds 'as well as in other instruments the intent of the parties, when ascertained, is to be given effect unless it is in conflict with some…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rines v. MansfieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
  2. Maker v. LazellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1891
  3. Honolulu Investment Co. v. RowlandHawaii Supreme Court · 1902

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

Powered by the Exa API