Jenkins v. Van Schaack
New York Court of Chancery
This was a bill for partition. The complainant claimed one half of the premises, as the brother and one of the heirs at ... law of Jenkin Jenkins, deceased. The premises in question were formerly the property of David Jenkins, the father of the complainant, and of the defendant Elizabeth Van Schaack.
Read the full summary
This was a bill for partition. The complainant claimed one half of the premises, as the brother and one of the heirs at ... law of Jenkin Jenkins, deceased. The premises in question were formerly the property of David Jenkins, the father of the complainant, and of the defendant Elizabeth Van Schaack. David Jenkins, by his will, devised the premises in question to Jenkin Jenkins, who was then unmarried, and to his heirs and assigns forever; upon condition that the devisee pay to the complainant an annuity of $10,50, during his natural life. He also devised certain other real estate to his…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
It is undoubtedly a leading principle in the construction of wills, that the intention of the testator must govern, provided such intention can be ascertained from the whole will taken together, and the same is not contrary to law. It cannot be permitted, however, to substitute vague suspicion in the place of fair and legitimate evidence of intent. Where plain and explicit language is used by the testator to express his meaning, the court cannot presume he meant something else; unless upon the examination of the whole will it is evident he did not mean what the language of the…
2Cited by26 opinions
- Livingston v. . GreeneNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Jordan v. . Van EppsNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Florence v. . HopkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Price v. CroneMississippi Supreme Court · 1870
- Keil v. WestSupreme Court of Florida · 1885
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.