Blanks v. Clark
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Ashley Chancery Court. Jas. F. Robinson, Chancellor. There was no .final decree rendered in term time. 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 373, 379, 380. In construing a will, the testator’s intent is paramount, and extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the intent, where the description is equivocal. Schoul. Wills, §§ 522, 576; 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 543, §§ 5, 6; 117 U. S. 210; 60 la. 339; S. C. 46 Am. Rep. 70. The doctrine of advancements does not apply.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Ashley Chancery Court. Jas. F. Robinson, Chancellor. There was no .final decree rendered in term time. 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 373, 379, 380. In construing a will, the testator’s intent is paramount, and extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the intent, where the description is equivocal. Schoul. Wills, §§ 522, 576; 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 543, §§ 5, 6; 117 U. S. 210; 60 la. 339; S. C. 46 Am. Rep. 70. The doctrine of advancements does not apply. There must be actual intestacy. Sand. & H. Dig., § 2484; 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 220; 1 Wait’s Actions & Def. 211. The intent of the…
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
The validity of the deed executed by Daniel E. White to W. L. Blanks on the 29th of April, 1893, is involved in this appeal. Daniel E. White conveyed to W. L. Blanks, by this deed, all his estate in the north half of the southwest quarter of section seventeen, and north half of the north half of section eighteen, in township nineteen south, and range four west. The land conveyed formerly belonged to Mary A. Sumner. She departed this life on the 18th of November, 1891, leaving surviving her Daniel E. White, her son, Sallie M. Terrell, her daughter, and J. Sumner White, Bettie White, Turner…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Greene's v. SpeerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1861
- Biedler v. BiedlerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1891
3Cited by2 opinions
- C. A. Burton Machinery Co. v. RuthMissouri Court of Appeals · 1916
- Blanks v. CraigSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903