Reed v. Reed
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision.
- Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1895)
- Ladies Benevolent Society v. Orrell (N.C. 1928)
- Wickizer v. Wickizer (Kan. 1928)
- Powe v. Payne (Ala. 1922)
- Paxton v. Benedum-Trees Oil Co. (W. Va. 1917)
- Perry v. . Hackney (N.C. 1906)
- Perry v. Hackney (N.C. 1906)
- Bertelman v. Kahilina (Haw. 1902)
- Stein v. Gordon (Ala. 1890)
- Traphagen v. Levy (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1889)
- Williams v. Owen (Ind. 1888)
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Gates (Iowa 1888)
- Greene v. Wilbur (R.I. 1886)
- Post v. Rivers (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1885)
- Swallow v. Swallow (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1879)
- Mott v. . Richtmyer (N.Y. 1874)
- Drusadow v. Wilde (Pa. 1870)
- Diament v. Lore (N.J. 1865)
- Bird v. Davis (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1862)
- Bird v. Davis (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1862)
- Settle v. Settle (Tenn. 1850)
- Settle v. Settle (Tenn. 1850)
- Settle v. Settle (Tenn. 1850)
- Potter v. Gardner (Supreme Court of the United States 1831)
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 devise is direct to the widow. A devise of the income of lands is the same in its effect as a devise of the lands. The petitioners have, however, mistaken their rights. During the life of their mother, they are entitled to no more than two seventh parts of two thirds of the land described in their petition.
Let the widow’s appearance be entered; and let the petitioners alter their petition as moved for.
As to the question of costs referred to us by the parties, the provincial statute giving this process
Mass. Laws, vol. ii. 1040.
Stat. 1786, c. 52.
[Rob. on Wills, 404. —Ed.]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.