Davis v. Mailey
| Decision Date | 06 April 1883 |
| Citation | 134 Mass. 588 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | Augustus L. Davis & others v. Susan Mailey |
Essex. Petition for partition of certain land in Lynn. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the respondent, to this court on appeal, upon agreed facts, in substance as follows:
The petitioners and the respondent are the heirs at law and next of kin of Joseph Davis, who died on June 3, 1871, seised of the premises described in the petition, and leaving a will which was duly admitted to probate, and which provided as follows: The testator left no children or issue but left a widow (who was the person named in the will), who died on October 19, 1879, leaving a will, which was duly admitted to probate, and by which she devised to her brother, John Mailey, and his wife Susan, the respondent, the premises in question for life, and, after the decease of both of them, to the heirs of John Mailey. The children of the respondent were also the children of John Mailey. Mrs. Davis never made any deed or other conveyance of the estate in question.
If, upon these facts, the petitioners were entitled to partition, judgment was to be entered accordingly; otherwise, the petition to be dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
C. P. Thompson & W. H. Niles, (G. J. Carr with them,) for the petitioners.
S. B. Ives, Jr. & G. B. Ives, for the respondent.
The construction we give to the will of Joseph Davis is that Emily Davis took all the estate in real property, which the testator could lawfully devise, for "her sole use benefit and disposal;" and that the expression of a desire on the part of the testator that "whatever may be left of my estate, if any, she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walton v. Drumtra
...v. Ide, 5 Mass. 500; Gifford v. Choate, 100 Mass. 343; Hale v. Marsh, 100 Mass. 468; Spooner v. Lovejoy, 108 Mass. 529; Davis v. Mailey, 134 Mass. 588; Kelly v. Meins, 135 Mass. 231; Jackson v. Robbins, 16 Johns. 587; Helmer v. Shoemaker, 22 Wend. 137; Van Horn v. Campbell, 100 N.Y. 287; Ho......
-
Minot v. Parker
...relations, are not applicable. See Wells v. Doane, 3 Gray, 201;Hess v. Singler, 114 Mass. 56;Wells v. Hawes, 122 Mass. 97;Davis v. Mailey, 134 Mass. 588; Bacon v. Ransom, ubi supra; Sturgis v. Paine, 146 Mass. 354, 16 N. E. 21;Durant v. Smith, 159 Mass. 229, 34 N. E. 190;Aldrich v. Aldrich,......
-
Aldrich v. Aldrich
......274; Spooner v. Lovejoy, 108 Mass. 529; Hess v. Singler, supra;. Sears v. Cunningham, 122 Mass. 538; Barrett v. Marsh, 126 Mass. 213; Davis v. Mailey, 134. Mass. 588; Sturgis v. Paine, 146 Mass. 354, 16 N.E. 21; Durant v. Smith, 159 Mass. 229, 34 N.E. 190;. Lambe v. Eames, supra; In re ......
-
Minot v. Parker
...... not applicable. See Wells v. Doane, 3 Gray, 201;. Hess v. Singler, 114 Mass. 56; Wells v. Hawes, 122 Mass. 97; Davis v. Mailey, 134 Mass. 588; Bacon v. Ransom, ubi supra; Sturgis v. Paine,. 146 Mass. 354, 16 N.E. 21; Durant v. Smith, 159. Mass. 229, 34 N.E. 190; ......