Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Vermont opinions name it 2 courts 1865–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Vermont 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kipp v. Chips Estategreen2 sentences2026The court’s narrow focus on the habendum clause is incompatible with our precedent, which instructs that in interpreting a deed, “[w]e read the entire written instrument as a whole, giving effect to every part so as to understand the words in the context of the full deed.” Kipp, 169 Vt. at 105 , 732 A.2d at 129 (quotation omitted). 2026The court’s narrow focus on the habendum clause is incompatible with our precedent, which instructs that in interpreting a deed, “[w]e read the entire written instrument as a whole, giving effect to every part so as to understand the words in the context of the full deed.” Kipp, 169 Vt. at 105 , 732 A.2d at 129 (quotation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Aiken v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2026That is, we “read[] not simply a single clause of the instrument, but the entire context.” Aiken v. Clark, 117 Vt. 391, 393 , 92 A.2d 620, 621 (1952). 2026That is, we “read[] not simply a single clause of the instrument, but the entire context.” Aiken v. Clark, 117 Vt. 391, 393 , 92 A.2d 620, 621 (1952). | 2 | 2 |
Therrien v. Therriengreen1 sentence2026Compare Gagnon, 71 A.2d at 748-49 (declining to find joint tenancy where survivorship language only appeared in granting clause), with Palmer, 161 A.2d at 838 (holding joint tenancy between two then-married individuals was created where “granting and habendum clauses . . . both” contained phrase “ ‘as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common, to them and their assigns and to the survivor, and the heirs and assigns of the survivor forever’ ” (emphasis added)), and Therrien v. Therrien, 46 A.2d 538, 538 (N.H. 1946) (concluding valid joint tenancy was conveyed where granting clause read “ ‘in | 1 | 1 |
Palmer v. Flintgreen1 sentence2026Compare Gagnon, 71 A.2d at 748-49 (declining to find joint tenancy where survivorship language only appeared in granting clause), with Palmer, 161 A.2d at 838 (holding joint tenancy between two then-married individuals was created where “granting and habendum clauses . . . both” contained phrase “ ‘as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common, to them and their assigns and to the survivor, and the heirs and assigns of the survivor forever’ ” (emphasis added)), and Therrien v. Therrien, 46 A.2d 538, 538 (N.H. 1946) (concluding valid joint tenancy was conveyed where granting clause read “ ‘in | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Bardengreen2 sentences1999See, e.g., In re Estate of Fleck, 154 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa 1967); see also Johnson v. Barden, 86 Vt. 19, 24 , 83 A. 721, 723 (1912) (it is proper office of habendum to define quantity of estate granted). 2 Defendant argued that plaintiff’s evidence was also inadmissible under 12 KS.A. § 1603 because that statute prohibits a party, in a case against the executor of an estate, from testifying in his or her favor with respect to a contract with a person who is not living or competent to testify. 1999See, e.g., In re Estate of Fleck, 154 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa 1967); see also Johnson v. Barden, 86 Vt. 19, 24 , 83 A. 721, 723 (1912) (it is proper office of habendum to define quantity of estate granted). 2 Defendant argued that plaintiff’s evidence was also inadmissible under 12 KS.A. § 1603 because that statute prohibits a party, in a case against the executor of an estate, from testifying in his or her favor with respect to a contract with a person who is not living or competent to testify. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Fleckgreen1 sentence1999See, e.g., In re Estate of Fleck, 154 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa 1967); see also Johnson v. Barden, 86 Vt. 19, 24 , 83 A. 721, 723 (1912) (it is proper office of habendum to define quantity of estate granted). 2 Defendant argued that plaintiff’s evidence was also inadmissible under 12 KS.A. § 1603 because that statute prohibits a party, in a case against the executor of an estate, from testifying in his or her favor with respect to a contract with a person who is not living or competent to testify. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bradley v. . Crane
green
2 sentences1956The defendants rely upon the case of Bradley v. Crane, 201 NY 14 , 94 NE 359, 363 , which held that a deed of land to a city conveyed only an easement. 1956The defendants rely upon the case of Bradley v. Crane, 201 NY 14 , 94 NE 359, 363 , which held that a deed of land to a city conveyed only an easement. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
State v. Woodward
neutral
1 sentence1956In State v. Woodward, 23 Vt. 92 , this Court was called upon to construe a deed. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Stark v. Mansfield
green
2 sentences1932The words are ‘to have and to hold the said privileges unto the said John Blake; his heirs and assigns shall hold and enjoy the said premises without the let or eviction of him the said Jeremiah Leeds,’ etc. All the words following the name John Blake belong to the covenants rather than to the habendum clause.” See Stark v. Mansfield, 178 Mass. 76, 81 , 59 N. E. 643 . 1932The words are ‘to have and to hold the said privileges unto the said John Blake; his heirs and assigns shall hold and enjoy the said premises without the let or eviction of him the said Jeremiah Leeds,’ etc. All the words following the name John Blake belong to the covenants rather than to the habendum clause.” See Stark v. Mansfield, 178 Mass. 76, 81 , 59 N. E. 643 . | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Chamberlin v. Estate of Chamberlin
neutral
1 sentence1914In Chamberlain v. Chamberlain’s Est., 16 Vt. 532 , the propriety of the commissioners looking to the will to locate the land they were required to set out is recognized; but that is quite another thing from construing the will with reference to the kind of an estate acquired by the allotee, where the will specifies the location of the land the commissioners very properly look to it for their guide in determining its location, and, to that extent, they may be said to have authority to construe the will; but having no concern with the kind of an estate in the land they were called upon to divide | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Bush v. Whitney
neutral
1 sentence1865If the real character of these instruments was that of conveyances in fee, they were undoubtedly void, as was held in Bush v. Whitney, 1 D. | 1 | 1865–1865 |
Lampson v. Town of New-Haven
green
1 sentence1865In Lampson et al. v. Town of New Haven, 2 Vt. 14 , it is said (p. 16) that “the conveyance from the selectmen to Lampson may operate as a license fár Lampson to occupy, so as not to leave him a trespasser upon the town, but as a conveyance of the land, for which it was intended, it is void both upon principal and authority.” The plaintiff also claims that, as the habendum clause of both leases was “ to have and to hold as long as grass grows and water runs,” the leases were equivalent to conveyances in fee, and that an authority given to the selectmen of Belvidere and the Trustees of The Lamoi | 1 | 1865–1865 |
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.