Strong v. White
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action on a bond, given by the defendants, ■executors of the last will and testament of David White, ■deceased, to the plaintiff’s predecessor in office, as judge of ¡probate for the district of Chatham in this state, in the form prescribed by law for executors, The defendants, having prayed oyer of the bond and condition, pleaded performance generally.
Read the full summary
This was an action on a bond, given by the defendants, ■executors of the last will and testament of David White, ■deceased, to the plaintiff’s predecessor in office, as judge of ¡probate for the district of Chatham in this state, in the form prescribed by law for executors, The defendants, having prayed oyer of the bond and condition, pleaded performance generally. The plaintiff, in his replication, assigned the following breaches. 1. That the defendants, James W. White and — David White jun. coexecutors of the last will and testament of David While sen., had wholly neglected and refused to…
1Opinion of the CourtStorks, J.
The principal question in this case, is, whether the bequest to the defendant, James W. White, of the testator’s “ moveable property,” embraced the judgment against Stewart.
The law attaches no technical or artificial meaning to that phrase : and we must therefore construe it according to its ordinary signification, unless there is something in the other parts of the will, which shows, that the testator intended to use it in a different sense. But we find nothing elsewhere in that instrument, which sheds any light on the subject in this respect. The popular meaning must therefore prevail. The…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Saner-Ragley Lumber Co. v. SpiveyTexas Commission of Appeals · 1922
- Miller v. HooverMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- In re the Estate of CastleHawaii Supreme Court · 1919
- In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of LoweNew York Surrogate's Court · 1911