Legal Opinion · Dissent

Aycock Pontiac, Inc. v. Aycock

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 21, 1998No. 98-767Published

1DissentDavid Newbern, Justice

When it is possible to so do, we ascribe meaning to each clause of an instrument. Only when there is an irreconcilable conflict between two clauses must one give way to another. See In Re Estate of Lindsey, 309 Ark. 596, 832 S.W.2d 808 (1992). When there is no conflict among the provisions, all provisions should be taken into consideration in determining the intent of the testator. Hughes, Guardian v. Edwards, 198 Ark. 673, 130 S.W.2d 713 (1939). In the trust instrument at issue, there is no irreconcilable conflict among the clauses. The Chancellor erred in failing to give effect to the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Matter of Estate of LindseySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  2. Hughes, Guardian v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API