Hatfield v. Sneden
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action to recover the possession of certain real estate described in the complaint. The premises in question formerly belonged to Mary Wood, who died in January, 1854, leaving a will, by which she devised as follows: “First.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action to recover the possession of certain real estate described in the complaint. The premises in question formerly belonged to Mary Wood, who died in January, 1854, leaving a will, by which she devised as follows: “First. After all my just and lawful debts are paid and discharged, I give, devise and bequeath to my beloved daughter, Elizabeth Ann Wood, all of my real estate that lays in the town of Horthfield, and in the town of Oastleton, with all my personal property of every description, for her to have,* her heirs and assigns forever, providing that my son Isaac Bogott…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
J. F. Barnard, J.
All parts of a will, or other instrument, must be taken together in ascertaining its meaning, and no part rejected if the whole can fairly stand. (Sweet v. Chase, 2 Comst. 73.)
A devise to one person in language which would ordinarily convey the whole estate, and a subsequent provision that upon a contingent event the estate thus given shall go to another person, is not repugnant. The latter clause controls the former, and the general words of conveyance are to be *622understood in a qualified and not in an absolute sense. (Norris v. Beyea, 3 Kernan, 273.)
[Kings…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hatfield v. . SnedenNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Dickison v. DickisonIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
- Bigart v. JonesNew York Supreme Court · 1885
- Cromwell v. KirkNew York Surrogate's Court · 1883
- Granger v. GrangerIndiana Supreme Court · 1896