10 E.H. Smith 399 - Paget v. . Melcher’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 17 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Upon referring to the deed, it will be observed that there is no provision in which the estate is granted to the children of Paran Stevens. It only contains a direction to the trustee to convey the premises to the children or their descendants, upon the termination of the lives of the persons for whoso benefit the trust was created. Upon the happening of that event, the trustee is directed to convey the premises to the children in fee, the issue of any child who shall have died leaving issue at the death of the survivor of Paran and Marietta to take the same share the parent would if living. Had the provisions of the deed stopped at this point, there might possibly he found some ground for the contention that a vested remainder was intended, notwithstanding the absence of a provision expressly granting the estate to the children; but that which follows we regard as decisive against that contention, ‘and, in default of issue of the said Paran living at the time of decease of the survivor of the said Paran and Marietta, then to convey the same to the heirs at law of the said Paran Stevens.’ Here we have an express provision in the deed disposing of the fee to the heirs at law of Paran Stevens, in case none of his children or of their issue survive himself and his wife. If each of his children took a vested remainder in one-third of the real estate, as is contended, then such estate would have been descendible and devisable, and, upon the death of a child, it would pass under h”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Rhoades

2. ““If it [the property] belonged to the children of Paran Stevens, subject only to the life use of their mother, or, if their interest in the estate had vested, then upon their death it would go to their legatees, or, in default of a will, to their next of kin. It could not possibly go to the residuary legatees named in the will of their father. It is therefore apparent that the concluding clause of the will of the father, providing that, if no descendants of his survive his wife, the property shall belong and be delivered over by his executors to the persons named by him, of necessity shows that he did not intend that his children should have such a vested interest in the property during the lifetime of his wife as to make it pass under their wills or go to their next of kin.” 1”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Rhoades