Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

48 Cal. 568

Cutter v. Hardy

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1874

California Supreme Court · decided 1874-07-01

John H. Cutter, a resident of Hew Hampshire, was, and had been for many years, the owner of ,a trade-mark used to designate a certain… Held: invested and managed for the benefit of my son, John P. Cutter, in such manner .as they shall judge to be most for the interest of my said son, until he shall arrive at the age of thirty years, and to pay over to him or expend for him the income, or such part thereof as said trustees shall deem necessary or suitable until he shall…

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1939

4 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court:

¶1The answer denies that the trade - mark in controversy has, at any time, been part of the assets of the estate of J. H. Cutter, deceased, and denies the allegation that the said decedent bequeathed any interest in the trade-mark to the plaintiff. Under the terms of the will of J. H. Cutter, deceased, the plaintiff took no interest in the property capable of assertion in this action. The title to the two undivided nineteenths of the trade-mark in controversy is vested in the trustees named by the testator. Nor can there be any doubt that the trust in this respect is valid in point of law. Its duration cannot, under any circumstances, exceed the life-time of the plaintiff; and upon the happening of the contingency named in the will it may terminate sooner. Eor these reasons we think that plaintiff was correctly non-suited at the trial, and the judgment is affirmed.

¶2Remittitur forthwith.

/48/cal/568 · .json · Public domain