Opinion ID: 1236834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The arguments are devoted to the meaning of the words used by the testator.

Text: It has been held consistently that the purpose of construing a will is to ascertain the testator's intent and give it effect unless contrary to law. Extensive citation of authority is unnecessary. Wright v. Copeland, 241 Iowa 447, 452, 41 N.W.2d 102. II. Much of the argument is devoted to discussion of the meaning of the word heirs. We have repeatedly held such terms as `heirs' and `legal heirs' have no fixed meaning. Technically `heirs' are those upon whom the law casts the estate immediately on the death of the ancestor. (Citations) Yet this meaning is frequently not applied but the sense in which the term is used is determined from the will and the surrounding circumstances. (Citations) See page 453, 41 N.W.2d page 106, Wright v. Copeland, supra. See also Slavens v. Bailey, 222 Iowa 1091, 1095, 270 N.W. 367. Various constructions incident to the premise from which we must proceed are summarized in 95 C.J.S. Wills § 673, as follows: The word `heirs' is not restricted to blood relatives of the testator unless such an intention is manifest.    A devise to the testator's `natural heirs' would mean his mother and [father], rather than cousins of any degree.    The terms `lawful heirs,' `right heirs,' `heirs at law,' `legal heirs,' and `heirs' have been held to be synonymous.    In order to effectuate the intention of the testator as ascertained from the context of the will and the surrounding circumstances, the word `heirs' has in particular cases, been construed to mean heirs of the body, a limited class of heirs, lineal descendents, blood relatives, such collaterals as would inherit, issue, next of kin, or those who have been previously designated in the will as devisees or legatees. In re Estate of Organ, 240 Iowa 797, 801, 38 N.W.2d 100 held that the word heirs was not used in that case in its strict technical sense but was equivalent to children or heirs of the body It would be an almost endless and certainly a hopeless task to try to reconcile the pronouncements from the many jurisdictions in our country. There is greater dissonance than harmony. It is clear, however, that in Iowa the word heirs is not necessarily construed in its strict technical sense. It does not necessarily mean all those upon whom the laws of intestacy might cast an inheritance. The term heirs of the body ordinarily means such of the issue or offspring of a person as may by law inherit, to the remotest posterity. The words mean lineal descendents. Pringle v. Houghton, 249 Iowa 731, 744, 88 N.W.2d 789. They are words of limitation in that they refer to heirs by consanguinity and not by affinity. They limit the heirship to those related by blood. In the case at bar when the testator limited the devolution of title to his real estate to heirs of my body he limited heirship to heirs of his own blood. To that extent plaintiff, a son, and defendant, Burton F. Buchan, a grandson, would qualify.