Hill v. Bowers
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Byington v. Fuller (Wyo. 1978)
- Gaughen v. Gaughen (Neb. 1961)
- Agricultural National Bank v. Schwartz (Mass. 1950)
- Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Doolan (Mass. 1940)
- Estate of Rauschenplat (Cal. 1931)
- Proctor v. Lacy (Mass. 1928)
- Estate of Backesto (Cal. Ct. App. 1925)
- Pratt v. Condon (Mass. 1921)
- Nirdlinger v. Stevens (District Court, D. New Jersey 1919)
- Leslie v. Wilder (Mass. 1917)
- Rogers v. Smith (Ga. 1916)
- Broermann v. Kessling (Ohio Ct. App. 1914)
- Kalbach v. Clark (Iowa 1907)
- Crapo v. Price (Mass. 1906)
- Follansbee v. Follansbee (D.C. Cir. 1895)
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 general rule is that by a bequest to the children of A. and to the children of B., the children take per capita and not per stirpes, in the absence of words indicating a different intention. There are no such words in this will. The repetition of the words “ and the survivors of them ” only makes clear the intention of the testator not to include any children, of either person named, who did not survive the testator. Upon his death, the children who should take were ascertained, and the residue of the estate was to be equally divided among them. Blackler v. Webb, 2 P. Wms. 383. Butler v. Stratton, 3 Bro. Ch. 367. Lincoln v. Pelham, 10 Ves. 166, 176. Heron v. Stokes, 2 Dru. & War. 89 ; S. C. l Con. & Laws. 270 ; 4 Irish Eq. 284, Collins v. Hoxie, 9 Paige, 81. Weston v. Foster, 7 Met. 297 Balcom v. Haynes, 14 Allen, 204. Decree accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.