Case ID: ohio-law-abs_5/html/0365-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MARSHALL, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 425
    No. 20345
    Edward Anderson v. Thomas Littleton Gibson.
    Error to the Court of Appeals of Hamilton county.
    1271. WILLS — 1. Meaning of intention is the cardinal rule of interpretation of a will.
    2. Where words and phrases employed in a holographic will have a well understood common meaning if, after consideration of all matters the conclusion is that they were employed in their ordinary acceptation, they should be so interpreted although they also have a technical legal meaning.
   MARSHALL, C. J.

1. The cardinal rule of interpretation of a will is to ascertain the meaning and intention of the testator.

2. Where words and phrases employed in a holographic will have a well understood meaning in common parlance, the property of the testator, the extrinsic circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, and the relation of the testator to the objects of his bonuty, should be considered in connection with the instrument itself, and if such considerations lead to the conclusion that the testator employed such words and phrases in their ordinary acceptation, they should be so interpreted, even though such words and phrases have a different technical legal meaning.

Judgment reversed.

Day, Allen, Kinkade, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.