Allyn v. Mather
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of ejectment for two tracts of land in Windsor. The cause came on for trial, at Hartford, February term, 1831, before Peters, J., when a case embracing the following facts, was agreed to. Both parties claimed title under •will of Pelatiah Allyn, who formerly owned the demanded premises, and died seised thereof, more than forty years ago.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment for two tracts of land in Windsor. The cause came on for trial, at Hartford, February term, 1831, before Peters, J., when a case embracing the following facts, was agreed to. Both parties claimed title under •will of Pelatiah Allyn, who formerly owned the demanded premises, and died seised thereof, more than forty years ago. The will was made in 1764. The clause which embraced these lands, andón which the title of the parties respectively depended, was as follows: “ Item, I give to my son, Samuel Wolcott Allyn, besides what I have given him, my dwelling-house…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
I will, in the first place, attend to the construction of the will, and the application of it to the claims of the parties, respectively, in this case.
It is on both sides admitted, and requires no discussion, that the son and the grandsons of the testator took estates for life in the premises ; the former by close implication, and the two latter by the express words of the device.
I now come to the clause, on Inch the controversy between the parties depends. It is expressed in the following wo; *133“ And after their decease, (that is, the death of the testator’s grandsons,) to each…
2Cited by58 opinions
- Mays v. SudderthCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
- Hoppe v. KlapperichSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- Wall v. TrumbullMichigan Supreme Court · 1867
- Colt v. EvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
- Conner v. LongSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.