Legal Opinion

Heard v. Case

New York Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1861PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Application to the court for the construction of the will of Daniel Case. The facts will fully appear in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Emott, Justice.

The rule that where two parts or clauses of a will are inconsistent that which occurs last in the instrument must prevail, as being the latest expression of the testator’s mind and purpose, is in a great measure a technical rule of construction, and is not always adhered <o. Where the latter portion of a will contains specific directions or bequests, apparently inconsistent with a previous general gift, it is often if not always necessary to qualify the latter by the former, in order to effectuate the manifest intention of the testator. It is a rule without exception, and which…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Steinele v. OechslerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1881
  2. Tuttle v. HeidermannNew York Surrogate's Court · 1881

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

Powered by the Exa API