From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gove v. Hammond

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Jan 12, 1982
430 N.E.2d 822 (Mass. 1982)

Opinion

January 12, 1982.

Edwin E. Kaarela for Louise E. Hardy others.

David L. Taylor for Marion F. Hammond another.



We granted the defendants' application for further appellate review in order to restate the rule: "Courts . . . `have no power to reform wills. Hypothetical or imaginary mistakes of testators cannot be corrected. Omissions cannot be supplied. Language cannot be modified to meet unforeseen changes in conditions. The only means for ascertaining the intent of the testator are the words written and the acts done by him.' Sanderson v. Norcross, 242 Mass. 43, 46 [1922]." Salter v. Salter, 338 Mass. 391, 393 (1959). A failure to provide for a contingency may lead to either a partial or complete intestacy. See Wright v. Benttinen, 352 Mass. 495 (1967).

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Gove v. Hammond

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Jan 12, 1982
430 N.E.2d 822 (Mass. 1982)
Case details for

Gove v. Hammond

Case Details

Full title:HENRY H. GOVE another , administrators, vs. MARION F. HAMMOND others

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Date published: Jan 12, 1982

Citations

430 N.E.2d 822 (Mass. 1982)
430 N.E.2d 822

Citing Cases

Schwartz v. Baybank Merrimack Valley, N.A.

(d) While the testimony of Mr. Schwartz may have been properly admitted to show the circumstances attendant…

Flannery v. McNamara

Sanderson v. Norcross, 242 Mass. 43, 46 (1922). See Gove v. Hammond, 385 Mass. 1001, 1001-1002 (1982)…