Coppedge v. Coppedge
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtDeNNY, J.
The intent of the testator is the polar star that must guide the courts in the interpretation of a will. Buffaloe v. Blalock, 232 N.C. 105, 59 S.E. 2d 625; Elmore v. Austin, 232 N.C. 13, 59 S.E. 2d 205; Cannon v. Cannon, 225 N.C. 611, 36 S.E. 2d 17; Holland v. Smith, 224 N.C. 255, 29 S.E. 2d 888. This intent is to be gathered from a consideration of the will from its four corners, and such intent should be given effect unless contrary to some rule of law or at variance with public policy. House v. House, 231 N.C. 218, 56 S.E. 2d 695; Williams v. Rand, 223 N.C. 734, 28 S.E. 2d 247; Heyer v.…
2Cases cited51 opinions
- Heyer v. BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Heyer v. . BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Carroll v. HerringSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- Cannon v. . CannonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Elmore v. AustinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- In Re Estate of LarsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1964
- Morris v. MorrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. BryantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. WolfeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Wing v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., NASupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.