Hartman v. Pendleton
Oregon Supreme Court
From Umatilla: Gustav Anderson, Judge. Department 1. This is a suit primarily to have interpreted a certain clause in the will of Samuel P. Sturgis, deceased, and arises out of the following circumstances : On the seventh day of January, 1896, Samuel P. Sturgis executed in due form a will containing the' following provision: “I give and bequeath to James A. Fee and Edward D. Boyd, as trustees, the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars in trust, to be invested by them and…
Read the full summary
From Umatilla: Gustav Anderson, Judge. Department 1. This is a suit primarily to have interpreted a certain clause in the will of Samuel P. Sturgis, deceased, and arises out of the following circumstances : On the seventh day of January, 1896, Samuel P. Sturgis executed in due form a will containing the' following provision: “I give and bequeath to James A. Fee and Edward D. Boyd, as trustees, the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars in trust, to be invested by them and the annual income derived therefrom to be used by them for the benefit of the library of the Commercial Association of…
1Opinion of the CourtMcBRIDE, C. J.
This suit is not brought to correct an alleged mistake in the will of Samuel P. Sturgis. The plaintiffs claim that the testator made a perfect will, making it the beneficiary, and allege that defendants claim a different interpretation, whereupon it asks that the true purpose and intent *506of the document be judicially declared. The defendants, on the other hand, claim that the Pendleton Public Library was the beneficiary and that there are ambiguous terms used, and ask a decree construing the will to mean that the trust fund therein provided was bequeathed to and belongs to the Pendleton Public…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gilmer v. StoneSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Curtiss v. HoytSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1848
- Whipple v. ParkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
- Snowden v. Crown Cork & Seal Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1911
- Catlin v. Lyman & MarshSupreme Court of Vermont · 1844
3Cited by6 opinions
- Heimbigner v. U. S. National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1951
- Crow v. StromeOregon Supreme Court · 1958
- State v. Sunbeam Rebekah Lodge No. 180Oregon Supreme Court · 1942
- Pushor v. HiltonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1923
- Scarlett v. HopperCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.