Coit v. Comstock
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Suit for the determination of the validity and legal effect of certain provisions of the will of Seth .Smith; brdught to the Superior Court in New London Count}'. The plaintiff was administrator with the will annexed, and all the parties interested were made defendants. The will, after giving to Mary Comstock, the niece of the testator, one thousand dollars, which legacy was afterwards revoked by a codicil, proceeded as follows:— “ Second.
Read the full summary
Suit for the determination of the validity and legal effect of certain provisions of the will of Seth .Smith; brdught to the Superior Court in New London Count}'. The plaintiff was administrator with the will annexed, and all the parties interested were made defendants. The will, after giving to Mary Comstock, the niece of the testator, one thousand dollars, which legacy was afterwards revoked by a codicil, proceeded as follows:— “ Second. I give, devise and bequeath my house and lot on Granite street, in New London, and all my household furniture, wearing apparel, printed books and household…
1Opinion of the CourtPark, C. J.
The principal question in this case grows out of a devise and bequest in the will of the late Seth Smith, of New London, which is as follows: [Given in full in the statement of the ease, ante p. 353.]
Two questions are presented for the consideration and determination of this court regarding this bequest.
1st. Are the beneficiaries described sufficiently to enable, a court of chancery to carry it into effect?
2d. Is it obnoxious to our statute against perpetuities ?
*377The books are full of cases regarding the first question, ■wherein charitable uses have been discussed for centuries, by all grades…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Fellows v. MinerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Brewster v. McCall's deviseesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1842
- White v. FiskSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1852
- Jocelyn v. NottSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1876
- White v. HowardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1871
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Shannon v. EnoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Woodruff v. MarshSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
- In re John's WillOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Mitchell v. ReevesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Hoenig v. LubetkinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.