Leonard v. Enochs
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 36-PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 'The after-horn child takes her interest, no matter what the testator’s intention was, unless that intention be expressed on the face of the will itself. Extrinsic evidence is not competent to show the testator’s intention. The law was once otherwise but has been changed.
Read the full summary
Case 36-PETITION EQUITY APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 'The after-horn child takes her interest, no matter what the testator’s intention was, unless that intention be expressed on the face of the will itself. Extrinsic evidence is not competent to show the testator’s intention. The law was once otherwise but has been changed. (Rev. Stat., chap. 106, sec. 26; Brady v. Culit, Doug., 81, 39; Lugg v. Lugg, 2 Salk., 592; Marston v. Roe, 8 Ad. & El., 14; Rediield on Wills, vol. 1, star page 300 and notes; Lancashire v. Lancashire, 5 Term Rep., 49; Ireal v. Roder, 2 Moore P. C. R., 51; 2…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE BENNETT
delivered the opinion of the court.
James Leonard died testate in the year 1871. He willed his estate, consisting of a small house and lot in the city ■of Louisville, to his wife in fee. At the time he made the will he had one child, a son about seven years old, and in about two months after his death the appellant, his daughter, was born. She now claims that she was a pretermitted child, and that under section 25,- chapter 118, *188of the General Statutes, which section is the same as that of section 25, chapter 106, of the Revised Statutes, which was in force at the time the will…
2Cited by8 opinions
- In re Donges's EstateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Allen v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
- Fleming, Admrx. v. Phoenix Trust Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1931
- Read v. ReadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
- Guion v. GuionMississippi Supreme Court · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.