Legal Opinion

Sommers v. Doersam

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1926No. 19494PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.

Is there a latent ambiguity in the will of Philip Knell, deceased, disclosed by the extrinsic evidence in this record, which shows that the testator’s intent was to make the plaintiff in error his residuary beneficiary?

The second item of the will, in which it is claimed the latent ambiguity exists, is as follows:

“I give, devise and bequeath all of my property, real, personal and mixed, to my beloved wife, Maggie Knell, so long as she remains unmarried and if she has remained unmarried until her death and has legally adopted a child or children of her own blood relation or of the blood…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Daugherty v. RogersIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Wright v. WrightAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
  3. Adams v. JonesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Wooster v. Iowa State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1941
  2. Steinbrenner v. DreherOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Dombey v. RindsfoosOhio Court of Appeals · 1958
  4. In Re Estate of SalisburyOhio Court of Appeals · 1951
  5. In Re Adoption of PetersOhio Court of Appeals · 1961

11 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