Case Name: Harvey A. Dwight et al., Appellants, v. Bertram H. Fancher et al., as Executors of Emily A. Watson, Deceased, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1927-03-29
Citations: 245 N.Y. 71
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harvey A. Dwight et al., Appellants, v. Bertram H. Fancher et al., as Executors of Emily A. Watson, Deceased, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 245
Pages: 71–74

Head Matter:
Harvey A. Dwight et al., Appellants, v. Bertram H. Fancher et al., as Executors of Emily A. Watson, Deceased, et al., Respondents.
(Argued March 2, 1927;
decided March 29, 1927.)
Lewis E. Carr, J. Harris Loucks and William L. Visscher for appellants.
Howard Thayer Kingsbury for Victoire L. Niel et al., respondents.
George L. Shearer and William A. W. Stewart for United States Trust Company, as trustee, respondent.
J. Noble Hayes for Pauline A. de la Metre et al., respondents.
Charles F. McGovern for Edgar T. Cantwell, guardian ad litem, respondent.
John A. Stephens for Jeane V. Dwight et al., respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Evidence of extrinsic circumstances may sometimes assist the court in the construction of language which a testator has used to express his testamentary intention; but here the language of the will, even when read in the light of extrinsic circumstances, admits of but one construction. Parol evidence is not admissible to show that the testatrix did not mean what she has said in words, though these words may have been chosen by the attorney who drafted the will rather than by the testatrix. (Reynolds v. Robinson, 82 N. Y. 103.) We do not pass upon the question of whether the attorney was a competent witness in this action. (Civ. Prac. Act, secs. 353, 354.) The evidence would not be admissible though given by a witness who was competent.
The judgment should be affirmed, without costs.
Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews, Lehman and O'Brien, JJ., concur; Kellogg, J., not sitting.
Judgment affirmed.