Rauchfuss v. Gifford
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1DissentFairchild, J.
The rule of law which I deem to be controlling does not result in a different disposition of the property of the deceased, but it gives effect to the unrevoked portions of the will. I cannot agree with the view that the entire instrument was revoked, because.a reading of the uncanceled portions shows that a complete will remains. The testator did not cancel the expression of his intention to make a will, the disposition of his household furniture, the appointment of an executor, the attestation clause, or the evidences of due execution. An instrument which merely names an executor, without…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Throckmorton v. HoltSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- In re Valentine's WillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
- Conoway v. FulmerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Slichter v. ByrneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
- Mulholland v. GillanSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.