Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ralston v. Kagarise

California Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1934No. L. A. 14725Published

1Dissent

SPENCE, J., pro tem., Dissenting.

I dissent.

The fact that the testator used the words “in trust” is not necessarily determinative of an intention upon his part to create a trust, but such intention must be ascertained by a reading of the entire will. (In re Dever’s Will, 173 Wis. 208 [180 N. W. 839] ; Danforth v. Oshkosh, 119 Wis. 262 [97 N. W. 258] ; Norman v. Prince, 41 R. I. 402 [101 Atl. 126].) In the case first above cited it is declared: “In construing a will, the constant effort of courts is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the testator. The phrase ‘in trust', or ‘upon…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Danforth v. City of OshkoshWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Davies v. DaviesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Will of DeverWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Norman v. PrinceSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1917

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

Powered by the Exa API