Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

IN RE ESTATE OF EVANS: BALDUF, EXR., APPELLEE v. EVANS, APPELLANT; BALDUF, APPELLEE.

Wills — Construction — Speaks as of death of testator — Specific bequest — Plain and unambiguous, when — Bequest of money.

1. A will ordinarily speaks as of the death of the testator.

2. A specific bequest to a designated beneficiary of "all cash in the box on the desk in the back room of my home" is plain and unambiguous, and such beneficiary, on the death of the testator, takes such amount of cash as is in the box at that time.

ZIMMERMAN, J.

It may well be that the Court of Appeals arrived at a just result in its disposition of this cause, but is that disposition in accordance with settled legal principles and did not the Court of Appeals, in effect, make a will for the testator?

Item five of the will is plain and to the point; it creates a specific legacy and gives and bequeaths to Nell Balduf "all cash in the box on the desk in the back room of my home." And that is all. No extrinsic evidence is necessary or proper to explain that item.

A will ordinarily speaks as of the death of the testator. When the testator died there was but $7.50 in the box referred to, and that represents the extent of Nell Balduf's legacy.

Had the testator intended her to have $1,400, or a similar amount, he would have bequeathed her that sum in the same manner he bequeathed the $100 in item four of his will.

By item two of his will, the testator bequeathed his automobile, a specific item, to his brother. Had that automobile been wrecked before testator's death, the brother could hardly have claimed the value of the automobile before it was wrecked.

We think the judgment of the Probate Court herein rests on a sound legal foundation. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and that of the Probate Court affirmed.

Judgment reversed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., MATTHIAS, HART, STEWART, BELL and TAFT, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

IN RE ESTATE OF EVANS
(Mar 7, 1956)