Schlottman v. Hoffman
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Warren county. Hon. Claude Pintard, Chancellor. The opinion states the case. It is said that the meaning of the deceased cannot be shown by parol, and that we are bound to accept the construction which the appellees put upon the characters rather than that which the executor puts upon them.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Warren county. Hon. Claude Pintard, Chancellor. The opinion states the case. It is said that the meaning of the deceased cannot be shown by parol, and that we are bound to accept the construction which the appellees put upon the characters rather than that which the executor puts upon them. It is undoubtedly true that parol evidence cannot be admitted to destroy the will by substituting- something else for what the testator has written therein, and so to make a new will, but when there arises something dehors the will, as to the person or subject meant to be…
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, C. J.
The appellees, Jerry and Rufus Hoffman, exhibited their bill in this cause against John Schlottman, executor of the will of their mother, Martha Hoffman, and against Ella Hoffman, the devisee of the general estate of the said Martha, to enforce certain legacies given to them by the testatrix, and which complainants aver are charged by the will upon the property devised to said Ella.
By her will, dated December 18, 1885, Mrs. Hoffman devised and bequeathed her whole estate to her daughter, Ella, for life, with remainder over to such of the children of her daughter, Emma Schlottman, as should…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ehrman v. HoskinsMississippi Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by13 opinions
- Gorr v. MittlestaedtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- ætna Life Ins. Co. v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
- Baum v. BransonMississippi Supreme Court · 1968
- In Re Will of FieldsMississippi Supreme Court · 1990
- Countiss v. KingMississippi Supreme Court · 1928
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.