Ralston v. Kagarise
California Supreme Court
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
- Danforth v. City of OshkoshWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Davies v. DaviesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Will of DeverWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
- Norman v. PrinceSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1917