Findley v. City of Conneaut
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
At the outset we deem it both pertinent and proper to say that, in cases involving the construction of wills, the sole function of the court is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the testator. Such intention must be ascertained from the words ■ employed in the will by giving to such words their usual and ordinary meaning. See Townsend’s Exrs. v. Townsend, 25 Ohio St., 477. It is not the function or the province of a court to make a new and different will for a testator under the guise of construing the will made by him.
We, are dealing here with a charitable trust. Where…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gearhart v. RichardsonOhio Supreme Court · 1924
- Moorhead v. Little Miami Rail RoadOhio Supreme Court · 1848
3Cited by21 opinions
- Chittenden Town School District v. Department of EducationSupreme Court of Vermont · 1999
- Daloia v. Franciscan Health System of Central Ohio, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- Field v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1963
- Daloia v. Franciscan Health Sys. of Cent. Ohio, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- Honohan v. Holt, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division1968
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.