Legal Opinion

Neiderhauser v. Busenberg

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 1948PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

The will of Bertha Witwer is ambiguous on its face in one respect. She designates her cousin Samuel Neiderhauser as one of her residuary legatees without specifying which one of two cousins bearing the same name she meant. Extrinsic evidence may be used to identify the person intended where the description of the beneficiary is ambiguous. Will of McIlhattan, 198 Wis. 518, 224 N. W. 713; Will of Doerfler, 225 Wis. 418, 273 N. W. 460; 2 Page, Wills (2d ed.), p. 2375, sec. 1418.

The trial court found that Samuel Neiderhauser of Danville, Ohio, was the intended beneficiary. The rule is well…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Williams v. JensenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Foelske v. DoerflerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
  3. McIlhattan v. KolmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Corry v. ScudderWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Flambeau River Lumber Co. v. Chippewa & Flambeau Improvement Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1931

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Teasdale v. TeasdaleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Schroeder v. SchroederWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
  3. Teasdale v. TeasdaleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API