Williams v. McCall
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of ejectment; tried at New-London, September term, 1836, before Bissell, J. The demanded premises were formerly the property of Vetch Williams, deceased.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment; tried at New-London, September term, 1836, before Bissell, J. The demanded premises were formerly the property of Vetch Williams, deceased. By his last will and testament, he devised as follows : “ I give to my son Andrew V. Williams all the land I have on the Easterly side of the road against my house, [the demanded premises] except what I give by my will to my sons William and Nathan, if my said son Andrew shall have a lawful heir ; but if he should have none, then after his decease, to be divided between his brothers and sisters —his brothers to have two…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
The only question in this case, is, what estate was devised to Andrew V. Williams, by the will of his father. The lands were given to him, if he should have a lawful heir; but if he should have none, then after his decease, they were to be divided between his brothers and sisters. In construing wills, it is well established, that the intent of the testator, collected from the whole instrument, is to govern, unless incon*330sistent with some settled rule of law. What then was the in-jent testat0L* in this case ?
The fee conditional of the common law of England, has been long abolished in that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hudson v. WadsworthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
- Hamilton v. HempstedSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1809
3Cited by2 opinions
- St. John v. DannSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
- Turrill v. NorthropSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1883