Board of Trustees v. Farrow
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
The county court considered the will ambiguous and therefore took testimony of Mr. Farrow in an attempt to determine the dominant purpose of Earl E. Berry. It then proceeded to apply the doctrine of cy pres to carry out what it considered to be the testator’s intent.
It is, however, error to construe a will to find an unexpressed intent of the testator when the terms of the will are unambiguous on their face and clearly express the testator’s purpose. This court has stated the rule in Will of Moran (1903), 118 Wis. 177, 196, 96 N. W. 367:
“Many . . . rules might be referred to, to which we…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- St. Joseph's Hospital v. BennettNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
- In re Moran's WillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Estate of BletschWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
- Osborn v. CurrieWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Estate of BriggsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Firstar Trust Co. v. First National Bank of KenoshaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1995
- Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Sioux City v. Staab's EstateSupreme Court of Iowa · 1970
- Simmons v. Parsons CollegeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1977
- ABC for Health, Inc. v. Commissioner of InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2001
- Burr v. BrooksIllinois Supreme Court · 1981
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.