Fitzhugh v. Hubbard
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Phillip’s Circuit Court. Hon. J. N. Cypert, Circuit Judge. Parol evidence was incompetent and cannot be allowed to explain the will. The intention of the testator mast be derived from the terms of the will. Declarations by the testator of his intentions, whether made before or after making the will, are inadmissible. Robinson -v. Bishop, .23 Ark., 378; 1 Greenl.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Phillip’s Circuit Court. Hon. J. N. Cypert, Circuit Judge. Parol evidence was incompetent and cannot be allowed to explain the will. The intention of the testator mast be derived from the terms of the will. Declarations by the testator of his intentions, whether made before or after making the will, are inadmissible. Robinson -v. Bishop, .23 Ark., 378; 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 290; 3 Met., 423-426; 15 N. E., 317-330; 55 111., 514; 36 Iowa, 674. This case falls within the rule of ambiguitas patens, and ■cannot be helped by averment or evidence aliunde. . 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 297, et.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
wills. t?onftlu<i’ •Bloctl0ilWilliam St. John Hubbard died in the year 1878. Just before his death he made his will, which was afterwards duly proved, and which is in the words following:
“I bequeath and leave unto my brother, Edward L. Hubbard, the full amount of his indebtedness to me and the remainder of my property, both personal and real, to my sister, Mrs. Sarah L. Fitzhugh, after paying all of my debts and my sister to administer without bond.”
In point of fact Edward L. Hubbard was not then indebted to the testator. He had formerly owed the testator a debt of $4221.61, which was…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Booe v. VinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Beetson v. . StoopsNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
- McDonald v. ShawSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Herrick v. MillerWashington Supreme Court · 1912
- Bowen v. FrankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.