Polson v. Craig Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A testator’s will devised “four hundred shares” of stock she had received from her late husband. The court held this was a specific devise, not a general one, entitling the beneficiary to all additional shares created by stock splits that occurred over the years.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that the presumption favoring general legacies is rebutted when its purposes (avoiding ademption or ensuring contribution) are absent and even slight evidence indicates the testator’s intent to devise a specific, identifiable asset, thereby affecting rights to subsequent accretions.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
William Broadbent’s will devised 400 shares of Standard Oil of New Jersey stock to his wife, Martha Broadbent. His will included a request that if Martha had no need for the shares, she give them to his daughter, Norma Polson, upon her death. Years later, Martha executed a will devising “four hundred (400) shares of capital stock of Standard Oil Company” to Polson. By the time Martha died in 1997, Standard Oil had become Exxon Corporation, and the original 400 shares had multiplied significantly due to stock splits. Martha’s estate representative petitioned the court to determine whether Polson was entitled to only 400 shares or all the shares that resulted from the splits. Extrinsic evidence showed that Martha intended to return the specific stock she had received from William and that she kept this stock segregated from her other portfolio assets. The probate court found the devise was general, limiting Polson’s inheritance, but the circuit court reversed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the testator’s devise of ‘four hundred (400) shares of capital stock of Standard Oil Company’ constitute a specific devise, thereby entitling the beneficiary to additional shares resulting from stock splits under statute, or was it a general devise limited to only four hundred shares?
Yes, the devise was specific. The court held that the bequest of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did the testator’s devise of ‘four hundred (400) shares of capital stock of Standard Oil Company’ constitute a specific devise, thereby entitling the beneficiary to additional shares resulting from stock splits under statute, or was it a general devise limited to only four hundred shares?
Conclusion
This case provides a key precedent for interpreting bequests of securities, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exe
Legal Rule
Under S.C. Code Ann. § 62-2-605(a), if a testator intends a specific Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on whether the devise was specific or general, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laboru
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A devise of a specific number of shares is treated as