Legal Opinion
Beardsley v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided July 30, 1926PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.
The questions of law concerning the will we are asked to give our advice upon arise under Article III, and Codicil B, (quoted in the footnote) being a substitute for Article Y of the will as first written. They all relate to the identical words— “lawful heirs”—found in this article and codicil. “Heirs” or “lawful heirs,” as used in a will may have several meanings. In the connection “lawful heirs” are here used the parties concede they must mean either those who inherit, that is descendants of any degree, or children. If they mean the former they are within the statute of perpetuities,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- White v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1914
- Allen v. AlmySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1913
- Hoadley v. BeardsleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
- Wolfe v. HathewaySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
- Russell v. HartleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Swole v. BurnhamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Hartford HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- Hershatter v. Colonial Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1950
- Warren v. DuvalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. Yearly MeetingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.