De Laurencel v. De Boom
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- O'Neil v. Ross (Cal. Ct. App. 1929)
- Sears v. Rule (Cal. 1945)
- Weinstein v. Moers (Cal. 1929)
- Temple v. City of Coleman (Tex. App. 1922)
- In re Estate of Lyon (Cal. 1912)
- Winder v. Scholey (Ohio 1910)
- Ahrens v. . Jones (N.Y. 1902)
- Orth v. Orth (Ind. 1895)
- Curdy v. Berton (Cal. 1889)
- Williams v. Vreeland (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1880)
- Clarke v. Ransom (Cal. 1875)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The letter from the testator, Jean Corneille De Boom,, dated on the same day on which the will was executed, and directed to the defendant, Romain De Boom, the sole devisee under the will, explains the trust upon which the testator intended to devise the estate; and we are of opinion that when the defendant, during the life-time of the testator, accepted, in writing, the terms of the trust, and bound himself to execute it faithfully, this created a valid trust, which a Court of equity will enforce. The presumption is, that the testator would have revoked or modified the will, except for the fact that the defendant, by a solemn instrument, ac
Order refusing .to dissolve the injunction-affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.