Holmes v. Williams
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Appeal from an order of the Court of Probate, in refusing to appoint freeholders to distribute a, part of the estate of William Wheeler Sr. deceased, to his six sons-in-law and their heirs. The case was as follows, viz. William Wheeler, Sr. was seized of said premises, and on the 13th of August A. D. 1747 made his will and devised as follows, viz.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the Court of Probate, in refusing to appoint freeholders to distribute a, part of the estate of William Wheeler Sr. deceased, to his six sons-in-law and their heirs. The case was as follows, viz. William Wheeler, Sr. was seized of said premises, and on the 13th of August A. D. 1747 made his will and devised as follows, viz. I give and bequeath to my grandson William Wheeler the farm I now live on, with the buildings, bounded as follows, viz. [bounds it out] to him my said grandson, his heirs and assigns forever; upon condition he pays to my granddaughter Hannah Wheeler…
1Opinion of the Court
The court are of opinion — That William the grandson had an absolute fee vested in him, and affirm the doings of the Court of Probate.
It is an agreed principle of law as well as of reason, that in the construction of wills, the intent of the testator is to govern, provided his intent is consistent with the general policy of the law; and that his intent is to be collected from the will. 1st. It is evident from the will, that William the grandson was the principal object of the testator’s bounty; and that the testator intended him a benefit at all events, by this devise. 2d. To make a provision…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Glover v. CondellIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Hudson v. WadsworthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
- Clarke v. TerrySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1867
- Kellogg v. MixSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1870
- Bridgeport-City Trust Co. v. LeedsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947