Blacknall v. . Wyche
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The question, in this case, arose upon a petition for the settlement of the estate of Thomas Blackmail, senior, deceased, and was as follows: By the fourth and fifth clauses of the said Thomas Blacknall’s will, he bequeathed as follows, viz: “ Fourthly.
Read the full summary
The question, in this case, arose upon a petition for the settlement of the estate of Thomas Blackmail, senior, deceased, and was as follows: By the fourth and fifth clauses of the said Thomas Blacknall’s will, he bequeathed as follows, viz: “ Fourthly. The residue of my estate of every description I wish to be divided between all my children equally, except those named in the foregoing clause; subject to the limitations and restrictions which may hereafter be annexed to any of the said bequests; and where any of my children may have died, or shall die, the child or children of such deceased…
1Opinion of the Court
Gaston, Judge.
It seems to us that the words of the will do not admit of the interpretation contended for by the piafntfffa. In regard to his grandson Thomas, the testator says he “ is to pay my executors five hundred dollars, in full of all advancements made to him or to his father.” How is it possible, to hold consistently with this language, that he is to pay five hundred dollars in addition to the advancements made to his father?
It seems to us equally clear, that parole evidence is not admissible to shew that the testator’s intent was at variance with his language. No rule of law is more…
2Cited by7 opinions
- McCain v. WombleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Stephens v. . ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
- Shoup v. AMERICAN TRUST COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Dodson v. . FulkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Littlejohn v. County JudgeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1953
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.