Viney v. Abbott
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Taylor v. Buttrick (Mass. 1896)
- Phelps v. State Street Trust Co. (Mass. 1953)
- Leahy v. Old Colony Trust Co. (Mass. 1950)
- National Shawmut Bank v. Joy (Mass. 1944)
- Gorey v. Guarente (Mass. 1939)
- Jones v. Old Colony Trust Co. (Mass. 1925)
- Sapp v. Houston Nat. Exch. Bank (Tex. Comm'n App. 1924)
- Jones v. Luplow (Ohio Ct. App. 1920)
- Gray v. Union Trust Co. (Cal. 1915)
- Sands v. Old Colony Trust Co. (Mass. 1907)
- Brown v. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co. (Md. 1898)
- Lovett v. Farnham (Mass. 1897)
- In re Thurston (Mass. 1891)
- Speakman v. Tatem (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1891)
- Parker v. Allen (New York Supreme Court 1890)
- Brison v. Brison (Cal. 1888)
- Minot v. Tilton (N.H. 1887)
- Sargent v. Baldwin (Vt. 1887)
- Keyes v. Carleton (Mass. 1886)
- Afong v. Chun Tung Afong (Haw. 1884)
- Apahu v. Feary (Haw. 1884)
- Sewall v. Roberts (Mass. 1874)
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 settlement in trust of the personal property of William Viney is admitted to have been voluntarily made by him, being of sufficient mental capacity, and without fraud or undue influence. There is no evidence of its having been executed under any mistake. It is not an assignment in trust for the benefit of creditors; but the trusts declared in it are, to apply the income during his life to the maintenance and support of himself and of such persons dependent upon him as he would by law be bound to support, and a portion thereof after his death to the benefit of his widow, if he should leave one, during widowhood, and to pay and distribute the residue to his sisters and their issue. Ho power of revocation is reserved. The instrument is not a mere executory agreement or covenant, but an executed conveyance under the seal of the settlor, and accepted by the trustee by becoming a party to the indenture of trust.
It is immaterial whether there was any other consideration „han appears upon the face of the indenture ; for even if the settlement was purely voluntary, the case falls within the doctrine, now well established in equity, that a voluntary settlement, completely executed, without any circumstances tending to show mental incapacity, mistake, fraud or undue influence, is binding and will be enforced against the settlor and his representatives, and
Bill dismissed, with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.