Legal Opinion

Wills v. Union Savings & Trust Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 1982No. 81-529PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClifford F. Brown, J.

In any action seeking construction of a will the court’s sole purpose is to ascertain and carry out the intention of the testator. Such intention must be ascertained from the words contained in the will. Carr v. Stradley (1977), 52 Ohio St. 2d 220, paragraph one of the syllabus; Townsend’s Exrs. v. Townsend (1874), 25 Ohio St. 477, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. In this case, there is no question Sampson intended to exercise the power of appointment in favor of defendant-appellant charities. The issue is whether he effectively carried out that intent by the language he employed.

Our…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Gearhart v. RichardsonOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Carr v. StradleyOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Dixon v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1846
  4. McMerriman v. SchielOhio Supreme Court · 1923
  5. Barr v. HatchOhio Supreme Court · 1828

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Stevens v. National City BankOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Oliver v. Bank One, Dayton, N.A.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Central Trust Co. v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Ohio Citizens Bank v. MillsOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Sandy v. MouhotOhio Supreme Court · 1982

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API