Legal Opinion

Wintermute v. Heinly

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided October 17, 1890PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from Muscatine District Court. — How. A. How at, Judge. Actiow in chancery for the construction of a will. A demurrer to the petition was sustained. Plaintiff appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtBeck, J.

I. The petition alleges that plaintiff is an heir, devisee and legatee of Joseph Heinly, her deceased father. She sets out a copy of the will, which, she alleges, is uncertain and ambiguous in its provisions, and doubtful as to its interpretation. The will is shown to contain divers devises and bequests to the testator’s heirs, but provides that the executor, who is made a defendant, shall hold the share of one of the heirs in trust, and that the entire income of the estate be paid to testator’s wife; and that the devises and bequests take effect at the expiration of ten years after the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Chipman v. . MontgomeryNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  2. Wager v. . WagerNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
  3. Bailey v. . BriggsNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  4. Corry v. FlemingOhio Supreme Court · 1876

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of PierceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
  2. Wright v. CopelandSupreme Court of Iowa · 1950
  3. Heckmann Ex Rel. Heckmann v. Brenton State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1940
  4. Roberts v. RobertsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API