From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Clark v. Campbell
New Hampshire Supreme Court
133 A. 166 (1926)
Facts
Reasoning that his “trustees” were “competent by reason of familiarity with the property, my wishes and friendships, to wisely distribute” his personal property, the testator bequeathed in the ninth clause of his will all of his personal property to his trustees to be distributed “to such of my friends as they, my trustees, shall select.” While the will enumerated a list of examples of personal property to be distributed, it did not indicate any specific intended beneficiaries other than the “friends” to whom the trustees were to distribute these items “by the way of a memento from myself.” The will further provided that any property not distributed by the trustees to the testator’s friends was to be distributed as part of the residue of his estate. A question arose before the court of whether the testator’s bequest to his “friends” failed for lack of certainty in defining the beneficiaries of the trust that the terms of his will seemed to establish. The New Hampshire Supreme Court addressed the following arguments: (1) that the ninth clause of the testator’s will made an outright gift to the trustees rather than establishing a trust and (2) alternatively, that the ninth clause granted the trustees an optional power to distribute the property as they chose.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Snow, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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.
