Hornaday v. . Hornaday
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtErvin, J.
This appeal necessitates the interpretation of the seventh item of the will of R. G. Hornaday. It is elementary learning that the object of all construction is to ascertain the intent of the testator. Jones v. Jones, 227 N. C., 424, 42 S. E. (2d), 620; Robinson v. Robinson, 227 N. C., 155, 41 S. E. (2d), 282; Heyer v. Bulluck, 210 N. C., 321, 186 S. E., 356. This intent must be determined from the language used by the testator. Smyth v. McKissick, 222 N. C., 644, 24 S. E. (2d), 621; Sharpe v. Isley, 219 N. C., 753, 14 S. E. (2d), 814; Whitley v. Arenson, 219 N. C., 121, 12 S. E. (2d), 906.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Heyer v. BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Heyer v. . BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Kiebler v. McCutcheonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Whitley v. ArensonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
- Smyth v. . McKissickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lide v. MearsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Franklin v. FaulknerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- Williamson v. WilliamsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950