Schneider v. Harrington
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
320 Mass. 723, 71 N.E.2d 242 (1947)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Letitia Bliss crossed out one of three beneficiaries in her will and tried to increase the shares left to the two others from a third to half of her estate. Originally, the will devised her entire estate in one-third shares to a niece, Phyllis Schneider (plaintiff), and two sisters, Margaret Sugarman and Amy Harrington (defendant), without a residuary-estate clause. The will specifically said Bliss was intentionally omitting other siblings she considered better off. At some point, Bliss took a pencil and crossed out the provision for Harrington. Bliss crossed out the numeric 1/3 figures in the other two provisions and wrote in 1/2, but she did not cross out the words one third. But Bliss did not follow statutory formalities for authenticating the revised will. The will was submitted for probate, and the court decided to allow the will except for the devise to Harrington that had been crossed out and the written-in numeric 1/2 figures, which the court reasoned were not part of the will. Harrington appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Spalding, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
