Peck v. Peck
Citations
- 76 Wash. 548
- 137 P. 137
- 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1857
Syllabus
<p>Wills — Devises—Distributive or Individual Devise — Construction. A devise to “my son H. E. P. and to his sons” Prank, Roy and Ora, of a two-thirds interest in certain realty, to be divided equally share and share alike, is not a gift to them collectively as a class which would survive unimpaired to the others in case of the death of one of them, but is a specific gift to each individually, and upon the death of one prior to the death of the testator, the same would lapse and fall into the residuum; in view of the rule that a gift to a class is to a number uncertain at the time of the gift, and the rule that a gift to persons indicated by name is prima facie a distributive gift and not a gift to a class.</p> <p>Same — Intention—Evidence—Sufficiency. In such a case no intention to make a distributive gift can arise from the fact that a one-third interest was devised to the widow, dividing the subject of the gift into two parts, where there was no provision for survivorship, and another clause gave the widow the residuum of the estate.</p> <p>Executors and Administrators — Nonintervention Will — Distribution of Estate — By Act of Parties — Evidence—Sufficiency. Under a nonintervention will, which made the widow executrix, and devised one-third of certain real estate to her, and two-thirds thereof to other named devisees in equal shares, the interest of one of whom lapsed by his death prior to the death of the testator, and fell to the widow under the residuary clause, making her the owner of half of the property, there is no distribution of the estate, one-third to her, and two-thirds to the other three devisees, by reason of the fact that she joined with them in a lease which provided that one-third of the rent be paid to her and two-thirds to the other devisees; nor by reason of the fact that she, by making an affidavit that the debts of the estate had been paid, facilitated the making of a loan by the other devisees, secured by a mortgage upon á two-thirds inter
Judges: Ellis
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Hoscheid v. BartholetWashington Supreme Court· 1914-02-28· cited 30×
- Bayer v. BayerWashington Supreme Court· 1915-01-08· cited 21×
- Johnston v. Seattle Taxicab & Transfer Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1915-05-22· cited 17×
- In Re Estate of CampbellCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1997-08-25· cited 12×
- Carney v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court· 1967-01-05· cited 12×
- Merritt v. MeisenheimerWashington Supreme Court· 1915-02-17· cited 10×
- Long Bell Lumber Co. v. GastonWashington Supreme Court· 1914-03-25· cited 8×
- Denton v. SchneiderWashington Supreme Court· 1914-07-22· cited 8×
- In Re Estate of NewbertCourt of Appeals of Washington· 1976-11-01· cited 5×
- Lichter v. BletcherSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1963-08-23· cited 5×
- Calvin Philips & Co. v. Newoc Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1918-04-18· cited 1×
- Langley v. DevlinWashington Supreme Court· 1916-10-24
Cites
18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Mutual Life Insurance v. PhinneySupreme Court· 1900-05-28· cited 74×
- Dulany v. MiddletonCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1890-02-06· cited 45×
- Butler v. Supreme CourtWashington Supreme Court· 1909-05-05· cited 40×
- Stedman v. PriestMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1869-11-15· cited 25×
- Lyman v. CoolidgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1900-03-28· cited 23×
- Swallow v. SwallowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1896-05-23· cited 22×
- Bolles v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1872-03-15· cited 18×
- Rockwell v. BradshawSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1895-11-22· cited 16×
- Murray v. BriggsWashington Supreme Court· 1902-07-26· cited 14×
- Springer v. CongletonSupreme Court of Georgia· 1860-06-15· cited 14×
- Talcott v. TalcottSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1872-02-15· cited 14×
- Auger v. TathamIllinois Supreme Court· 1901-06-19· cited 14×
- Sharpless's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1906-03-12· cited 11×
- Church v. ChurchSupreme Court of Rhode Island· 1885-07-25· cited 10×
- Warner's Appeal from ProbateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1872-06-15· cited 10×
- Daniel v. Gold Hill Mining Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1902-04-23· cited 8×
- Hughes v. New York Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court· 1903-05-04· cited 7×
- Griffith v. Seattle National Bank Building Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1897-01-19· cited 5×
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.