Legal Opinion

House v. House

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 14, 1949Published

1Opinion of the Court

*220Denny, J.

Tbe paramount aim in tbe interpretation of a will is to ascertain, if possible, tbe intent of tbe testator, considering tbe instrument as a whole, and to give effect to sucb intent, unless contrary to some rule of law or at variance with public policy. Williams v. Rand, 223 N.C. 734, 28 S.E. 2d 247; Culbreth v. Caison, 220 N.C. 717, 18 S.E. 2d 136; Smith, v. Mears, 218 N.C. 193, 10 S.E. 2d 659; Williamson v. Cox, 218 N.C. 177, 10 S.E. 2d 662; Heyer v. Bulluck, 210 N.C. 321, 186 S.E. 356. And, it is permissible, in order to effectuate or ascertain a testator’s intention, for tbe Court…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Heyer v. BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  2. Heyer v. . BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  3. Hilliard v. . KearneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1853
  4. Buchanan v. . BuchananSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
  5. Williams v. . RandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943

35 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