Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fletcher v. Hurdle

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 3, 1976No. 75-245Published

1DissentConley Byrd, Justice

The majority somewhat syliogistically reasons that since the testator gave alternative contingent remainders under paragraph three of his will then it follows that Asbury Fletcher had to survive the life tenant before his interest under paragraph three could pass by descent to his children. At page six of the majority opinion, they state “the clear language of the will required that Asbury Fletcher survive his daughter Barbara Jean before any estate vested in him.” Both suppositions are erroneous. The will of I. N. Fletcher, in so far as here pertinent provides:

“KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cox v. DanehowerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947
  2. Black v. ToddSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
  3. Wise v. CraigSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API