Legal Opinion

Sandy v. Mouhot

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 4, 1982No. 81-1356PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, C.J.

The court’s sole purpose in an action seeking construction of a will is to ascertain and carry out the intention of the testator. Carr v. Stradley (1977), 52 Ohio St. 2d 220 [6 O.O.3d 469], paragraph one of the syllabus; Townsend’s Exrs. v. Townsend (1874), 25 Ohio St. 477, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus.

The Probate Court construed the phrase “all of my personal property” in Item II of the will to include intangible personal property. The court stated that the testatrix did not intend for the specific bequest of “household goods” to limit the words “all of my personal property” to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Casey v. GallagherOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Carr v. StradleyOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Wills v. Union Savings & Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Snodgrass, Exr. v. SnodgrassOhio Court of Appeals · 1951

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Stevens v. National City BankOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Oliver v. Bank One, Dayton, N.A.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Ohio Citizens Bank v. MillsOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Tootle v. TootleOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Papiernik v. PapiernikOhio Supreme Court · 1989

13 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