Legal Opinion

Mauk v. Irwin

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided February 3, 1940PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Chambliss

This is another of those numerous border line cases in which we are called upon to construe a will and determine whether or not the testator, who has devised his property for life in the opening clause, has defeated the effect of this provision by the use of language in a succeeding clause which confers an unlimited power of disposition and thereby vests in the first taker an estate in fee.

In Magevney v. Karsch, 167 Tenn., 32, at page 54, 65 S. W. (2d), 562, at page 569, 92 A. L. R., 343, Chief Justice Green quotes from Bradley v. Carnes, 94 Tenn., 27, 27 S. W., 1007, 45 Am. St. Rep., 696,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Magevney v. KarschTennessee Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Meacham v. GrahamTennessee Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Bradley v. CarnesTennessee Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Fidelity Trust Co. v. Service Laundry Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Waller v. SprolesTennessee Supreme Court · 1929

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Fell v. RamboCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2000
  2. Crutcher v. JoyceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1943
  3. Redman v. EvansTennessee Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Caruthers Ewing, of the Estate of Bessie W. Ewing, Deceased v. J. M. Rountree, District Director of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1965
  5. Ewing v. RountreeDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1964

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API