Efird v. Efird
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtDeNny, J.
The primary object in interpreting a will is to ascertain what disposition the testator intended to make of his estate. Bank v. Brawley, 231 N.C. 687, 58 S.E. 2d 706; Carroll v. Herring, 180 N.C. 369, 104 S.E. 892. Consequently, the intention 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 intention is to be gathered from a consideration of the will…
2Cases cited19 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
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Morris v. MorrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Poindexter v. WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. SchneiderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Wing v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., NASupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Finch v. HoneycuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.