Author : Austin Abbott
Publisher : Rarebooksclub.com
Page : 382 pages
File Size : 21,77 MB
Release : 2013-09
Category :
ISBN : 9781230091372
Book Description
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1918 edition. Excerpt: ...200. The intention must be gathered from the will and not from extrinsic evidence. Extrinsic evidence may aid in reading the intention out of the will. Duensing r. Duensing, 112 Ark. 362, 165 S. W. Rep. 956; La Tourette v. La Tourette, 15 Ariz. 200, 137 Pac. Rep. 426, Ann. Cas. 1915, B. 70. Verbal testimony which is admissible in the case of an ambiguity will not be admitted if it has the effect of changing the testamentary disposition. Quinlan's Succ., 118 La. 602, 43 So. Rep. 249. The declarations of the testator are not admissible on any question involving the construction of his will. App. v App, 106 Va. 253, 102.--Aid in Applying to the Property Intended. The same principles which regulate the resort to extrinsic evidence to aid in applying the language to the person, regulate it in applying the language to the property. Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to change a specific and explicit designation of the property given in the will, so as to substitute a different subject, although part of the description be equally applicable to either piece of property; M and it cannot be made admissible even by showing that the testator did not own the parcel designated in the will, and did own another, and that the draftsman made the mistake, --for instance, to show that he designated the west half instead of the east half, or section 1 instead of section 2. Nor can an explicit and sufficient designation be enlarged by extrinsic 55 S. E. Rep. 672; Shipley v. Mercantile Trust, etc., Co., 102 Md. 649, 62 Atl. Rep. 814. 0 Robinson v. Williams, 1 Weekly Notes (Pa.), 337. Extrinsic evidence cannot be introduced where there is no ambiguity in the will. Scott v. Roethlisberger, 178 Mich. 581,146 N. W. Rep. 307; In re McVeigh, 181 Mo. App....