Schulz v. Garmany
Texas Commission of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtNickels, J.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the honorable Court of Civil Appeals (285 S. W. 911), and will not be restated here except in so far as may be necessary in the course of the opinion to illustrate the matters discussed.
The rights of the parties involve construction of the two provisions of the will excerpted in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. Purpose of the testator is, of course, the primary consideration. Gallagher v. Redmond, 64 Tex. 626; Lake v. Copeland, 82 Tex. 464, 468, 17 S. W. 786. The distinctions erected as between demonstrative and specific legacies are…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Stephens County v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1923
- Spann v. City of DallasTexas Supreme Court · 1921
- Spann v. City of DallasTexas Supreme Court · 1921
- Joe Lake and Wife v. CopelandTexas Supreme Court · 1891
- Thomas, Administrator v. HawpeCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pinkston v. PinkstonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1935