Legal Opinion

Estate of Hauck

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1941PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

Appellant’s contention is based on the proposition that by attaching the condition that the share set apart for Anna Yunk “shall not be paid to her so long as she. lives with her present husband, but in case of her separation from him, or of his death, then the principal sum shall be paid to her; but the income from her proportionate share shall be given to her annually” the testator so far transgressed the rules of public policy as to make that limitation void. She insists that the legacy became effective free from any condition^ The question is presented: Is the condition void as against…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. In re Donges's EstateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Maxcy v. City of OshkoshWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Coe v. HillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
  4. Born v. HorstmannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Ransdell v. BostonIllinois Supreme Court · 1898

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Salvesen v. CordesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  2. WILL OF HELLER v. HellerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API