Dixon v. Cooper
Tennessee Supreme Court
A testator’s intention, however clearly shown by proof aliunde, will not be regarded or enforced if inconsistent with the intention disclosed by the language of his will when read in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding him at time of its execution. FROM BRADLEY. Appeal from Chancery Court of Bradley County. W. H. Dewitt, Ch.
1Opinion of the CourtCaldwell, J.
Bennet Cooper made and published bis last will and testament on February 5, 1873. The third clause of that will is as follows: “ I will and bequeath to my four grandchildren, born of the bodj^ of Martha Batt, former wife of James Batt, one whole distributive share, to be equally divided among said four grandchildren, born of the body of said Martha Batt, said Martha Batt being a legal heir.”
This executor lived some thirteen years after the execution of this will, and the legatees and devisees thereunder became well acquainted with its terms and provisions, as we infer.
Thomas Batt, one of the…
2Cited by14 opinions
- McQuiddy Printing Co. v. HirsigCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1939
- Downing v. NicholsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Jones v. HuntTennessee Supreme Court · 1896
- Strong v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- White v. KaneTennessee Supreme Court · 1942
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.