Wilder v. Thayer
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Petition for partition, alleging that the petitioner was seised in fee of an undivided fifth part of certain lands in Braintree. The respondents denied that she was so seised. At the hearing in this court, before Hoar, J., the facts appeared as follows : Both parties claimed title under Levi Thayer, who died seised of the premises on May 4, 1853. He- had made his will on May 22, 1848, which, shortly after his death, was duly proved and allowed.
Read the full summary
Petition for partition, alleging that the petitioner was seised in fee of an undivided fifth part of certain lands in Braintree. The respondents denied that she was so seised. At the hearing in this court, before Hoar, J., the facts appeared as follows : Both parties claimed title under Levi Thayer, who died seised of the premises on May 4, 1853. He- had made his will on May 22, 1848, which, shortly after his death, was duly proved and allowed. He had originally five children, Ira, Amasa, Sarah, Maria, and Harriet N. Of them, two, Sarah and Maria, died before he made his will, each leaving…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
The petitioner, a grandchild of the testator, claims under the provisions of the Rev. Sts. c. 62, § 21, (Gen. Sts. c. 92, § 25,) on the ground that the will has omitted to provide for her, the issue of a deceased daughter who died after the execution of the will but in the lifetime of the testator. The petitioner was living when her grandfather’s will was made. The question is, whether “it appears that such omission was intentional and not occasioned by accident or mistake.”
If there had been no will, the real estate would have descended in equal shares to the children and “ to the issue of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Newman v. WatermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Hurley v. O'SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- Branscombe v. JenksMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
- Prentiss v. PrentissSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869