Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintifftrialwill
plaintifftrialwill

Related Cases

Heisinger v. Cleary, 323 Conn. 765, 150 A.3d 1136
View Case »
Minton v. Sackett, 671 N.E.2d 160
View Case »
Timberlake v. Munford, 267 Ga. 631, 481 S.E.2d 217, 97 FCDR 608
View Case »
In re Estate of Kissinger, 166 Wash.2d 120, 206 P.3d 665
View Case »
Castleton’s Estate v. Schlicht, 504 P.2d 1103
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Connelly v. O’Brien, 4 Bedell 406, 166 N.Y. 406, 60 N.E. 20

Facts

James B. Connelly brought an action to partition real property, claiming title by descent from his mother, who was a child of James Higgins. Higgins' will provided a life estate to his widow and then to his children. The plaintiff's mother died before the widow, leading to a dispute over whether the remainders were vested or contingent. The lower courts held that the remainders were contingent, vesting only in the children who survived their mother.

The courts below held that the remainders were contingent, vesting only in the children of the testator that survived their mother.

Issue

Whether the remainders in James Higgins' will were vested or contingent.

The plaintiff's title and right to maintain the action turns upon the question whether the remainders in this will are vested or contingent.

Rule

A remainder is not to be considered as contingent in any case where it may fairly be construed to be vested, since the law favors the vesting of estates.

A remainder is not to be considered as contingent in any case where in may fairly be construed to be vested, since the law favors the vesting of estates.

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of the will, emphasizing that the adverb 'then' referred to the time of enjoyment rather than the time of vesting. The court concluded that the remainders vested in the testator's children upon his death, as the intention of the testator was clear in providing a life estate to his widow with a remainder to his children, postponing enjoyment but not vesting.

Applying these principles to the will in question, it must be held, I think, that the remainders vested in the testator's children upon his death, and this construction does no violence to the language employed.

Conclusion

The court reversed the lower court's judgment, holding that the remainders vested upon the testator's death, and granted a new trial.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted; costs to abide the event.

Who won?

James B. Connelly prevailed in the case because the court found that the remainders in the will were vested, contrary to the lower courts' conclusions.

The intention of the testator manifestly was to give a life estate to his widow, with remainder to his children, postponing the enjoyment, but not the vesting, of the remainders till the termination of the life estate.

You must be