Stewart v. Brady
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
CASE 41 — PETITION EQUITY — APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. CITED— Civil Code, sec. 540. 3 J. J. Mar., 321; Berry vs. Headington. 2 B. Mon., 462 ; Pattie vs. Hall. 1 Rcdfield on Wills, pp. 445-6, 431-433, and paragraphs 1, 6, 2, of sec. 17. 17 B. Mon., 740 ; 3 Metcalfe, 159. 18 B. Mon., 375; Williamson vs. Williamson. ■ ■■ Revised Stat., 426-7, Myers’ Sup. Revised Statutes, chap. 86, sec. 6, art. 5. Civil Code, sec. 540.
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE ROBERTSON
delivered ote opinion oe the court:
The solution ibf the radical question in this case depends on the constructive effect of the following devise in the will of Elizabeth .Tunstall, deceased :
“ I devise to my daughter, Adeline B. Tunstall, forty-two acres of land whereon I reside, to hold to herself, said Adeline, and her heirs, in fee simple, subject to the following conditions and instructions : the forty-two acre tract shall, in no way, be disposed of, by deed of gift or sale, by her, until she .arrives at the age of thirty-five years.”
Some years after the date of the .will,…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Mandlebaum v. McDonellMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
- Kentland Coal & Coke Co. v. KeenCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- Laval v. StaffelTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Kessner v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Harkness v. LisleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.