auxiliary rule (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

auxiliary rule in Missouri

5 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2002 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Tindall v. Tindallgreen
mo · 1902 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1955–2002
2 sentences

2002First, employing an auxiliary rule of construction, we note that as a general rule, “[t]he law favors vested estates, and the rule is that estates shall be held to vest at the earliest possible period, unless a contrary intention is clearly manifested in the grant.” Tindall v. Tindall, 167 Mo. 218 , 66 S.W. 1092, 1094 (1902) (emphasis added).

2002First, employing an auxiliary rule of construction, we note that as a general rule, “[t]he law favors vested estates, and the rule is that estates shall be held to vest at the earliest possible period, unless a contrary intention is clearly manifested in the grant.” Tindall v. Tindall, 167 Mo. 218 , 66 S.W. 1092, 1094 (1902) (emphasis added).

12
Commerce Trust Company v. Weedgreen
mo · 1958 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1965–1966
2 sentences

1966“Where, as in the instant case, the intent may be clearly ascertained from the will itself, rules of that kind have little, if any, application.” Commerce Trust Co. v. Weed, Mo.Sup., 318 S.W.2d 289 [3].

1965Tapley v. Dill, 358 Mo. 824 , 217 S.W.2d 369, 374 [10]; Commerce Trust Co. v. Weed, Mo.Sup., 318 S.W.2d 289, 294 [1, 2].

12
Tapley v. Dillgreen
mo · 1949 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1965–1965
2 sentences

1965Tapley v. Dill, 358 Mo. 824 , 217 S.W.2d 369, 374 [10]; Commerce Trust Co. v. Weed, Mo.Sup., 318 S.W.2d 289, 294 [1, 2].

1965Tapley v. Dill, 358 Mo. 824 , 217 S.W.2d 369, 374 [10]; Commerce Trust Co. v. Weed, Mo.Sup., 318 S.W.2d 289, 294 [1, 2].

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Hahn v. Forest Hills Construction Company green
moctapp · 1960
1 sentence

1970Hahn v. Forest Hills Const. Co., Mo.App., 334 S.W.2d 383 .

11970–1970
Sanders v. Jones green
· 1941
2 sentences

1955Sanders v. Jones, 347 Mo. 255 , 147 S.W.2d 424 ; Garrett v. Damron, Mo.Sup., 110 S.W.2d 1112 ; Tindall v. Tindall, 167 Mo. 218 , 66 S.W. 1092 .

1955Sanders v. Jones, 347 Mo. 255 , 147 S.W.2d 424 ; Garrett v. Damron, Mo.Sup., 110 S.W.2d 1112 ; Tindall v. Tindall, 167 Mo. 218 , 66 S.W. 1092 .

11955–1955

Where else courts name it

MD 8 (1965–2018) OR 8 (1954–2017) MO 5 (1955–2002) OK 4 (1956–2000) SD 3 (1955–2020) IL 2 (1972–1974)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check