Amerige v. Attorney General
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
88 N.E.2d 126 (1949)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Timothy Leeds’s will left property in trust for his brother, James Leeds, for his life. The will stated that upon James’s death, the property would go to whomever James appointed by his will. James combined his property with that received from Timothy, and James’s will left that property in trust for his daughter, Mary Elizabeth Williams, for her life. James’s will stated that upon Mary’s death, the property would go to whomever Mary appointed by her will. Mary combined her property with that received from James, and Mary’s will left the residue of her estate in trust for her two children for their life and then to their issue. If the children did not have any surviving issue, the will stated that the residue was to go to certain charities. Mary was survived by her two children who were not living at the time of Timothy’s death. Upon Mary’s death, Mary’s trustees (plaintiffs) filed a petition to construe Mary’s will. The charities that Mary appointed under her will claimed that none of the property that Mary appointed in her will was derived from Timothy. They argued that the doctrine of selective allocation applied to James’s dispositions and that Timothy’s property was exhausted by such dispositions, leaving only James’s property to distribute.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Spalding, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.