Legal Opinion · Dissent

Basinger v. Bridges

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 8, 1987No. 86-287Published

1DissentSteele Hays, Justice

I believe the will was ambiguous and hence, the trial court should have taken proof of the intent of the testatrix. Her will makes an unqualified bequest of “my savings at First Federal Savings and Loan Association in Van Burén, Arkansas.” Whether those savings are in one account or in several accounts, the language is all inclusive. The following sentence— “Her name has been placed on this account”— creates the problem, as it cannot be squared with the fact there were three accounts as opposed to one. The two sentences cannot be reconciled and appellant was entitled to offer proof as to what…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Eagle v. OldhamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
  2. Murphy v. MorrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
  3. Rufty v. BrantlySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942
  4. Martin v. Simmons First National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971
  5. Thompson v. Arkansas National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API