Gillen v. Kimball
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to the District Court of Lawrence county. The origiual action was brought under the eighth section-of the act of April 17,1857 (1 S. & C. 621), by Julia Kimball,, as executrix of the last will and testament of Asa Kimball, deceased, to obtain the construction of the will of the testator. She made her three daughters and their respective husbands, together with Laura A. Kimball, parties defendant.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Lawrence county. The origiual action was brought under the eighth section-of the act of April 17,1857 (1 S. & C. 621), by Julia Kimball,, as executrix of the last will and testament of Asa Kimball, deceased, to obtain the construction of the will of the testator. She made her three daughters and their respective husbands, together with Laura A. Kimball, parties defendant. The said daughters and said Laura were the only heirs at law of the testator, and together with Alice L» Stewart and said widow, are the sole devisees and legatees, under the will. The will…
1Opinion of the CourtBoynton, J.
The construction given to the will of the-testator by the district court, we believe to be erroneous. Where' a will is executed, making a disposition of property of the testator, both real and personal, a presumption arises that he intended thereby to dispose of his whole estate, unless the contrary appears. And, although the will in the present instance was evidently drawn with little attention to accuracy of language, enough appears to satisfy us that no part of the propei’ty of the testator was left undisposed of. The clause giving to the wife ■“ all my personal property, household goods,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In re Estate of MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Lamme v. GreggCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1858
- Smith v. DavisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854