Legal Opinion

Pittman v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 20, 1982No. 817SC1131PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge.

We begin with the basic proposition that in the construction of a will the court is required to give effect to the true intent of the testatrix so far as it can be ascertained from the whole instrument and from the conditions and circumstances attendant to its making, if such intent is consistent with the rules of law and does not contravene public policy. Y.W.C.A. v. Morgan, Attorney General 281 N.C. 485, 189 S.E. 2d 169 (1972); Kale v. Forrest, 278 N.C. 1, 178 S.E. 2d 622 (1971). However, the intent of a testatrix to make a testamentary disposition of her property…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. WolfeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. Brinn v. . BrinnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  3. Kale v. ForrestSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Asheville v. MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  5. Andrew v. HughesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Matter of Estate of KeenanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1994
  2. Kositzky v. MonforeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1994
  3. Pittman v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982

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

Powered by the Exa API