Laing v. Barbour
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for breach of an agreement to purchase a parcel of land in Newton. The answer admitted the agreement, but alleged that the plaintiff was not seised m fee of the land.
Read the full summary
Contract for breach of an agreement to purchase a parcel of land in Newton. The answer admitted the agreement, but alleged that the plaintiff was not seised m fee of the land. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff, to this court, on appeal, on agreed facts, in substance as follows: In May, 1862, Sarah H. Ward bought and became possessed of this land of the assignee in insolvency of the estate of her husband, Andrew H. Ward, and she held it until her decease October 6, 1873. She left a husband and several children. Her will, dated July 22, 1862,…
1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.
That it was the intention of the testatrix to dispose of both her real and personal estate, is sufficiently indicated by the clauses of the will which dispose of the property bequeathed to her by her brother and “ any other property that may come ” into her possession. The word “ property ” includes real estate, and there was real estate upon which the first of these clauses could operate. Nor would the use of the word “bequeathed,” in describing the property which came to her from her brother, instead of the words “ devised and bequeathed,” show an intention to confine the operation of the…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Morton v. . WoodburyNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- City of Worcester v. QuinnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Gannon v. AlbrightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- Ellet v. McCordCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1931
- Weigel v. GreenIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.