Snorgrass v. Thomas
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Moniteau Circuit Court. — Hon. John M. Williams, Judge. (1) By filing suit and procuring a divorce from her husband, plaintiff did not lose her husband within the meaning and intention her father, as expressed in his will.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Moniteau Circuit Court. — Hon. John M. Williams, Judge. (1) By filing suit and procuring a divorce from her husband, plaintiff did not lose her husband within the meaning and intention her father, as expressed in his will. Shafer v. Senseman, 125 Pa. 310; Bank v. Buhl, 129 Mich. 193; Sovern v. Yorn, 20 Pa. 100; Thorne v. Marfflin, 100 Pa. 515; Vorrman v. Jenkins, 12 Wend. 563. (2) A testator’s understanding of the meaning of the words used in his will will be adopted without resorting to lexicographers to determine what the same words mean in the abstract, or to adjudicated cases…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
— This is an action in equity instituted in the circuit court of Moniteau county August 1, 1911, against the trustee of an estate created by the last will of William P. Snorgrass who died testate in that county in January, 1908. Plaintiff who was the daughter of Snorgrass and one of the beneficiaries of the trust estate alleges that the purpose of the trust has been accomplished and prays that it be dissolved and the trustee ordered to pay to plaintiff her share of the estate. The principal defense is that the object of the testator, as expressed in the will, has not been satisfied and that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dugans v. LivingstonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fleishman v. BregelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1938
- In Re the Estate of TiemensWashington Supreme Court · 1929
- Baker v. HickmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1929
- Dwyer v. KuchlerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1934
- In re Estate of SmithNebraska Supreme Court · 1932