Hamlin v. United States Express Co.
Citations
- 107 Ill. 443
- 1883 Ill. LEXIS 282
Syllabus
<p>1. Will—limitation over repugnant to devise, is inoperative. Where there is a devise of an unlimited power of disposition of an estate in such manner as the devisee may think fit, a limitation over is inoperative and void, by reason of its repugnance to the principal devise.</p> <p>2. Same—when power of disposition carries a fee. If an estate be given to a person, generally or indefinitely, with a power of disposition, it carries a fee, unless the testator gives to the first taker an estate for life only, and annexes to it a power of disposition of the reversion. In that ease the express limitation for life will control the operation of the power, and prevent it from enlarging the estate to a fee.</p> <p>3. Same—rule of construction—intention—how found. In construing a will, the intention of the testator, if not inconsistent with the rules of law, must govern; and this intention is to be ascertained from the whole will and all its parts taken together. Every clause and provision, if possible, should have effect given to it according to the intention of the maker. A later clause of a will, when repugnant to a former provision, is to be considered as intending to modify or abrogate the former.</p> <p>4. Same—power of disposition may be annexed to a life estate. It is not opposed to any rule of law to create a life estate with a power to sell and convey, and limit a remainder after its termination.</p> <p>5. Same—construed, as creating life estate with power of disposition. A testator devised all his estate, real and personal, to his wife, for her own irse and benefit, with full power to hold, use, enjoy or dispose of the same in any manner she might choose; and the will further provided, that if she so desired she should have full power and authority to convey any and all of the real estate by absolute conveyance in fee simple. By a subsequent clause the will provided, that after the wife’s death, all the real estate not conveyed by her should be sold at the best a
Judges: Scholpield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Orr v. YatesIllinois Supreme Court· 1904-04-20· cited 54×
- Walker v. PritchardIllinois Supreme Court· 1887-06-17· cited 53×
- Wilson v. TurnerIllinois Supreme Court· 1896-11-10· cited 33×
- Riddle v. KillianIllinois Supreme Court· 1937-02-18· cited 32×
- Summers v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court· 1889-04-05· cited 27×
- Robinson v. FinchMichigan Supreme Court· 1898-03-15· cited 18×
- Glass v. JohnsonIllinois Supreme Court· 1921-02-15· cited 16×
- Bateman v. CaseMichigan Supreme Court· 1912-06-01· cited 15×
- Barnes v. MarshallMichigan Supreme Court· 1894-09-27· cited 12×
- Drager v. McIntoshIllinois Supreme Court· 1925-04-24· cited 10×
- Coulson v. AlpaughIllinois Supreme Court· 1896-11-09· cited 10×
- Griffiths v. GriffithsIllinois Supreme Court· 1902-10-25· cited 10×
- Newlin v. PhillipsCourt of Chancery of Delaware· 1905-05-15· cited 9×
- Sondheim v. FechenbachMichigan Supreme Court· 1904-07-27· cited 9×
- Healy. v. EastlakeIllinois Supreme Court· 1894-04-02· cited 5×
- Pritchard v. WalkerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1887-01-22· cited 5×
- Bradley v. JenkinsIllinois Supreme Court· 1916-12-21· cited 4×
- Fecht v. HenzeMichigan Supreme Court· 1910-07-14· cited 4×
- Forbes v. ForbesIllinois Supreme Court· 1913-12-17· cited 2×
- Nowlan v. NowlanIllinois Supreme Court· 1916-04-20· cited 2×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.