Legal Opinion · Dissent

Eubanks v. McDonald

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 7, 1955No. 5-742Published

1DissentPaul Ward, Associate Justice

I believe I can make my point of dissent more readily understood by using a series of illustrations and by substituting letters for names.

1. In the case under consideration we have a devise by T [denoting testator] to L [denoting taker of life estate] and then another devise to F [denoting here the step-daughter, or first taker] and the “heirs of her body.”

2. Notes: (a) The quoted words are not the ones used in the will under consideration, hut I agree with the majority that their meaning is the same, (b) I have divided the will into two distinct and separate devises as follows: first, from T…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Pletner v. Southern Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
  2. Bell v. GentrySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
  3. Bowlin v. VinsantSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
  4. Cox v. DanehowerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947
  5. Adams v. EagleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API