Devine v. Deckrow
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | DOLAN |
| Citation | Devine v. Deckrow, 299 Mass. 28, 11 N.E.2d 596 (Mass. 1937) |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1937 |
| Parties | DEVINE v. DECKROW et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petition for partition by Ruth E. Devine against Anna D. Deckrow and others. From an interlocutory decree entered in the probate court for the County of Dukes County, ordering partition, respondent B. M. C. Durfee Trust Company, trustee, appeals.
Reversed and rendered.Appeal from Probate Court, Dukes County; Davis, Judge.
J. A. Kerns, of Fall River, for Ruth E. Devine and Ann D. Deckrow.
W. E. Fuller, of Fall River, for B. M. C. Durfee Trust Co., trustee.
F. Kavolsky, of Fall River, for Refina Estes and others.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree (see Joyce v. Dyer, 189 Mass. 64, 75 N.E. 81,109 Am.St.Rep. 603) of the Probate Court for the county of Dukes County, dated July 9, 1937, ordering the partition and sale of certain real estate situated at Vineyard Highlands, Oak Bluffs, county of Dukes County, among certain persons named in the petition for partition and alleged to have derived their common title as heirs at law of Sarah Etta Chace (hereafter called the testatrix), late of Taunton in the county of Bristol, deceased. The persons therein named as tenants in common and their alleged respective shares are as follows: Anna D. Deckrow, one sixth; Ruth E. Devine, one sixth; Harrison M. Douglas, one third; Florence Borden, one sixth; Refina Estes, one sixth. Anna D. Deckrow, who assented to the petition, is called in the will Annie D. Hutchinson and in the ‘answer’ of the respondent trust company, Anna Deckrow. The petition was heard upon an agreed statement of facts signed by counsel not only for those named in the petition as heirs at law of the testatrix or claiming through them, but also for those representing the trustee named in her will. The real estate which is the subject of the partition proceedings was owned by the testatrix at the time of her death and will be hereafter referred to as the Oak Bluffs real estate.
The will of the testatrix was executed on November 14, 1934. She died January 13, 1935. Her will was duly proved and allowed by the Probate Court for the county of Bristol and letters testamentary issued thereon to the B. M. C. Durfee Trust Company, the executor and trustee therein named, on May 3, 1935. At her death her heirs at law were as follows:
The disposing parts of the will read as follows:
Frank L. Deckrow and Fidelia H. Clark, named in the will, survived the testatrix but died prior to the filing of the petition for partition. The respondent trust company was duly appointed trustee under the will of the testatrix by the Probate Court for the county of Bristol on March 26, 1937, under separate appointments for the benefit of Wesley Hutchinson and George Hutchinson respectively...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Rolland v. Hamilton
...the interposition of a trustee. Only a legal estate is the subject of partition, G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 241, § 1, Devine v. Deckrow, 299 Mass. 28, 33, 11 N.E.2d 596, and if there is a trust this proceeding cannot be maintained. But no words of trust are used in the devise in question. To find a t......
-
Holmes v. Welch
...by the language. Casey v. Genter, 276 Mass. 165, 170, 176 N.E. 782;Weeks v. Pierce, 279 Mass. 108, 118, 181 N.E. 231;Devine v. Deckrow, 299 Mass. 28, 31, 11 N.E.2d 596;Robertson v. Robertson, 313 Mass. 520, 48 N.E.2d 29. But if the specific directions of the will cannot be carried out, or w......