Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chile v. Beck

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided November 16, 1982No. 80-35-AppealPublished

1DissentShea, Justice

I dissent. The clearest expression of intent in Mrs. Beck’s will, defining the nature of the estate she intended to leave Horace P. Beck, Jr., is contained in the language that devised “Bateman Farm” to Horace “absolutely and in fee simple.” In view of this clear expression of intent, I cannot join in the majority’s conclusion that the testatrix did not intend to leave her son a fee simple absolute.

The later language in the will, purporting to devise a life interest to Robert Adams Chile upon the occurrence of a condition precedent is completely at odds with the devise to Horace. Faced with…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Lux v. LuxSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1972
  2. Manierre v. WellingSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1911
  3. Washington Trust Co. v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1943
  4. Billings v. GladdingSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1937
  5. Re Will of Henry C. KimballSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1898

6 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