Weed v. Donovan
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Bill in equity, filed September 12, 1872, to compel the specific performance of a written contract for the sale of a parcel of land on Heath Street, in that part of Boston which was formerly Roxbury. The answer admitted the allegations of the bill to be true, and averred that the plaintiff had not a good title to the land.
Read the full summary
Bill in equity, filed September 12, 1872, to compel the specific performance of a written contract for the sale of a parcel of land on Heath Street, in that part of Boston which was formerly Roxbury. The answer admitted the allegations of the bill to be true, and averred that the plaintiff had not a good title to the land. It was agreed by the parties that one Ebenezer Crafts died in 1863, seised of the land, leaving a widow, and, as his only heirs at law, a daughter Susan H. Gallup, and a son William A. Crafts; that Ebenezer Crafts, by his will, which was duly approved February 27,…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, C. J.
It is unnecessary to consider by whom the power of sale conferred by the testator upon the executors and trustee named in the will should properly have been executed after the former had declined to act as executors, and the latter had declined to act as trustee; for the persons so named as executors, the administrators with the will annexed, and the trustee appointed by the Probate Court in the place of the one who had declined the trust, all joined in conveying the land in question to the plaintiff, and the heirs at law of the testator at the same time released their interest therein.
The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wilkinson v. LelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Dresel v. JordanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Kearney v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
3Cited by4 opinions
- Forster v. ForsterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- McIntosh v. DillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
- Batt v. MallonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Nott v. C. T. Sampson Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886