Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kelley v. Marlin

Texas Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 1986No. C-3429Published

1DissentWallace, Justice

I respectfully dissent. Of course, the single most important factor in construing a will is the testator’s intent. However, that intent cannot be given effect if it is in contravention of established law or public policy. Frame v. Whitaker, 36 S.W.2d 149, 120 Tex. 53 (1931). Thus, the question presented to this court is not only whether Paul Drummet intended to benefit Marlin by the so called “Marlin Provision” of his will, but whether he could do so in the manner under review within the present probate laws of this State. I would hold that the Marlin provision is invalid and deny Marlin’s…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Huffman v. HuffmanTexas Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Potter v. CouchSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  3. Frame v. WhitakerTexas Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Cleveland v. WilliamsTexas Supreme Court · 1867
  5. Haring v. SheltonTexas Supreme Court · 1909

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

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

Powered by the Exa API