Carr v. Stradley
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
I
Ceiebeezze/J.
Appellants Canning and Hurst, testator’s surviving sibling beneficiaries/ argue in case No. 77-6, that the language of ítem IV expresses the testamentary intent for the entire income to be distributed to them, with the monthly payments of $400 each being minimum amounts only. In the alternative, they contend that there is no provision in the will relative to the disposition of the excess income, ánd such excess income should therefore pass to the siblings as intestate property.
In reviewing will construction cases this court has repeatedly observed the well-settled general rules…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Anderson v. GibsonOhio Supreme Court · 1927
- Givens v. Third National Bank in NashvilleTennessee Supreme Court · 1974
- Gunckel v. GunckelMontgomery County Probate Court · 1939
- Lloyd v. Campbell, TrusteeOhio Court of Appeals · 1964
3Cited by28 opinions
- Polen v. BakerOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- Oliver v. Bank One, Dayton, N.A.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
- Wendell v. AmeriTrust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
- Sandy v. MouhotOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- Wills v. Union Savings & Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.