Armorer v. Case
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the District Court of the Parish of Concordia, Pa/rra/r, J. In the interpretation of testaments, the intention of the testator is to be ascertained, C. Code., Art. 1705 ; 2d vol. Domat, book 2, tit. 1; sec. 6, No. 5; 7 Rob. Rep.,, p. 425, Oxley v. Clay, ex’r.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Parish of Concordia, Pa/rra/r, J. In the interpretation of testaments, the intention of the testator is to be ascertained, C. Code., Art. 1705 ; 2d vol. Domat, book 2, tit. 1; sec. 6, No. 5; 7 Rob. Rep.,, p. 425, Oxley v. Clay, ex’r. A correct knowledge of the testator’s intentions in this case is necessary to a correct decision of it; not because their execution can bo enforced under the will per se, but because the parties have made those intentions their law, and have voluntarily executed them. Indeed, without such voluntary execution, it seeins more…
1Opinion of the Court
Campbell, J. (Osden, J., did not sit in this case, being of counsel. Voor-hies, J., absent.)
This suit was instituted for the recovery of the amount of four notes for $5000 each, executed by the late Thomas JD. Purnell in part payment for the undivided five-twelfths of a plantation, known as the Forest plantation, which was adjudicated to him at the probate sale of the property of the succession of Mary O. Culberson, deceased.
The respondents admit that the notes were executed by T. B. Purnell, but aver that they were given in error and are without consideration; that at the time of the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Joe Lake and Wife v. CopelandTexas Supreme Court · 1891
- Succession of VillaSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1913
- Fitzpatrick v. LettenSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1908
- Succession of JusticeLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1996
- Harrison's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.