Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

113 Mass. 407

Wilmarth v. Bridges

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 15, 1873

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1873-11-15

Petition for partition of land in Georgetown. Trial by jury was waived in the Superior Court, and the case was heard by Brigham, C. J., who found the following facts.

Relies on Plympton v. Boston Dispensary · Pike v. Stephenson · Eldredge v. Forrestal

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Estate For Life”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2014

7 state decisions

30187318801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gray, C. J.

¶1By the will of Ezra Wilmarth, his widow took an estate for life in all his real property ; and the interest given to his daughter Mary therein, though subject to be terminated by her ceasing to occupy, was also a life estate. Plympton v. Boston Dispensary, 106 Mass. 544, 548. The remainder expectant upon these two life estates was, by the express terms of the will, to be divided among all the testator’s children, including his two sons and each of his daughters. This devise in remainder *411of the real estate is not limited, like the bequest of the personal property after the death of the widow, to the other children by name, excluding Mary, but includes her as well as them. The persons who were thus to take were ascertained at the death of the testator, and each of them took a vested remainder at that time, and might dispose of it by deed or devise. Pike v. Stephenson, 99 Mass. 188. Bowditch v. Andrew, 8 Allen, 339. It follows that Mary’s share in the remainder passed by her will to her husband, and the share of Ezra Wilmarth, Jr., by his will to Louisa C. Brocklebank. As said Ezra was never actually seised nor entitled to the immediate seisin of this share, his widow has no right of dower therein. Eldredge v. Forrestal, 7 Mass. 253. Blood v. Blood, 23 Pick. 80.

¶2Exceptions overruled.

/113/mass/407 · .json · Public domain