Hall v. Elliott

Henderson, J.,

filed the following dissenting opinion, in which SybERT, J., concurred and Bruñe, C. J., concurred in part.

I disagree with the conclusion reached by a majority of the Court in this case and state my reasons as concisely as I can. I shall not attempt to restate the facts. As I read the decision, it repudiates what is called “the earlier rule” laid down in the Maryland cases, and overrules them. This seems to me to be peculiarly unfortunate, because this Court has sedulously observed the rule of stcM'e decisis, and stressed the need of certainty, in the field of testamentary law.…