Legal Opinion · Dissent

Henry v. Henry

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided November 24, 1941No. 26464. Reversed and remandedPublished

1DissentJustice Farthing

For the following reasons I must dissent from the opinion of the majority of the court in this case.

The nine brothers and sisters of the testator do not fit the definition of a devise to a class quoted from Jarman on page 585 of the opinion, as all nine were living when the will was made and survived the testator.

In re Ihrie’s Estate (Pa.) and Stontenburgh v. Moore (N. J.) the word “between” was given its strict meaning, but this is not the rule in Illinois. Here “between” when used in a will has been often interpreted to mean “among” when applied fo more than two persons. See Pitney v.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Records v. FieldsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
  2. Mosier v. BowserIllinois Supreme Court · 1907
  3. FairbanksSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1908
  4. Holbrook v. HarringtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1860

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

Powered by the Exa API