Richardson v. Noyes
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was a writ of error, brought in the county of Middlesex, to reverse a judgment rendered in this Court, April, 1795, on a writ of formedon in remainder, wherein the said John and William de manded and recovered against the said Mary, then Mary Noyes widow,- the seisin of sundry parcels of lands in Sudbury. The original declaration contained three counts.
Read the full summary
This was a writ of error, brought in the county of Middlesex, to reverse a judgment rendered in this Court, April, 1795, on a writ of formedon in remainder, wherein the said John and William de manded and recovered against the said Mary, then Mary Noyes widow,- the seisin of sundry parcels of lands in Sudbury. The original declaration contained three counts. The first states that John Noyes, deceased, father of the demandants, devised the demanded premises to his son James in tail, remainder to the demandants in tail. The second states the remainder to be devised to the demandants in fee.…
1Opinion of the Court
The question was, what estate did James Noyes take under the will, and upon this question the following opinion was now delivered by
Sedgwick, J.
In every question arising on the construction of a will, it is alike dictated by justice, common sense, and the rules of law, that the first inquiry shall be, What was the true intention of the testator? And if that can be satisfactorily discovered, the next is, Can such intention be carried into effect, consistently with the rules of law ? And if so, such must be the decision.
The question on which this case depends is, What estate did James take…
2Cited by43 opinions
- Lowell Bar Ass'n v. LoebMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- Bassett v. NickersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Brown v. BrownTennessee Supreme Court · 1888
- Moody v. WalkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1840
- Hooper v. BradburyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.