Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Stewart v. Griffith — Opinion of the Court

We are not inclined to disagree with the court of appeals in its opinion that the words, taken with the whole will, imply a devise of the legal title to his executor, and an authority sufficient to warrant his carrying out the sale. It is urged that the probate of the will does not establish it conclusively as to real estate, and that the heirs might attack it hereafter; but it is answered that, by the contract, the land had become personalty as against them, and that therefore, so far as this land is concerned, the will is safe from collateral attack.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Stewart v. Griffith — Opinion of the Court

And by § 81 of the same article, the executor of a person who shall have made sale of real estate, and has died before receiving the purchase money, or conveying the same, may convey said real estate to the purchaser, and his deed shall be good and valid in law, and shall convey all the right, title, claim, and interest of such deceased person in such real estate as effectually as the deed of the party so dying would have conveyed the same
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Stewart v. Griffith — Opinion of the Court

Stewart v. Griffith
Argued: April 8, 11, 1910. --- Decided: April 25, 1910
This is a bill in equity, brought by the executor of one Ball for the specific performance of a contract made by the appellant to purchase certain land. The plaintiff had a decree in the court of appeals for the District of Columbia, and the defendant appealed. 31 App. D. D. 29. defendant appealed. 31 App. D. C. 29.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature