Wilson v. D'Atro
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtMaltbie, J.
While the intent of the testator is very poorly expressed in the third paragraph of the will, it can be discerned without great difficulty. He does not name the two sons who are to be the recipients of his bounty,.-but that he meant the two other than Frank D’Atro is-evident. In the fifth paragraph he makes it entirely clear that he did not intend Frank to share in the general distribution of his estate, and the gift over in the sixth paragraph of “all my property,” should the other two sons, whom he names, die wiíhout issue, clearly implies that they are the ones to whom in the first…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- McArthur v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Cochrane v. . SchellNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Phelps' v. . PondNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Barton v. ThawSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Woodruff v. MarshSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Stempel v. Middletown Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
- Hills v. Travelers Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Bronson v. PinneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1943
- New Haven Bank, N. B. A. v. HubingerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Willis v. HendrySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.