Court Opinion

ID: 9696270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:43:13.768017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:20.354098
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
Mr. Justice Jones has ably stated the law and clearly set forth the facts, as well as the narrow question involved. I regret I must differ with him in the inferences and conclusions which he has drawn therefrom.
Justice Jones holds that the word “money” in the residuary bequest in Miss Turner’s third will meant and included not only “money”, but also “stocks and other investments”. Testatrix drew and signed her second will and the next day drew and signed her third will, and two days later died. Although testatrix was an invalid, it was agreed, (a) that she had testamentary capacity, and (b) that she was fond of all the legatees, and (c) that at all times testatrix was a very intelligent woman who knew the difference between cash and stocks and other investments.
The most difficult problem in connection with wills is the interpretation of a holographic will, and this will is no exception. My reasons for believing that the third will repealed, by implication, only those parts of the second will which are inconsistent with the second, are as follows: Testatrix demonstrated that she knew the difference between cash or money, on the one hand, and stocks or investments, on the other hand, in her first and second wills, and this knowledge is admitted by the parties. In her second will she changed the equal division of her stocks and other investments from three persons to two persons, because of the recent *550death of one of the three original legatees. In the third, as well as in the second will she gave cash to four named nephews and nieces — $8,000 in the second will, $8,100 in the third will. In the second will she provided: “All the stocks and other investments of which I die possessed or entitled to Mary P. Turner and James W. Turner”. In her third will she gave “all money derived from sale of home furnishings to James W. Turner”. She then gave “the balance of my money to be.given to' James W. Turner”, thereby (according to the majority) giving James W. Turner all her stocks and other investments and completely eliminating Mary P. Turner (of. whom it is admitted she was very fond), from any share in these investments. The majority assert that in this third will testatrix (a) clearly showed that she used the word “money” in its usual narrow sense, i.e., “cash” when she gave to James W. Turner “all money derived from sale of home furnishings”, but (b) used “money” in its broad sense, i.e., property, stocks and other investments, when she gave James W. Turner “the balance of my money”. Considering the fact that this testatrix knew the difference between money and stocks and other investments, and that she clearly used the word “money” as meaning cash in the gift to James W. Turner of “all money derived from sale of home furnishings”, I can find no justification for holding that she used “money” in an entirely different sense when she gave “the balance of money to be given to James W. Turner”.
In her third will, testatrix not only failed to revoke her second will, which she had drawn and signed the day before,, but far more importantly, she put the second and third wills in a sealed envelope which she marked “My will 1959”. To me her intent from this act is clear — (1) she wished and intended both wills, the second and third wills, to be her last will and testament, and (.2) the third will was not intended to com*551pletely revoke the second will, as the majority hold, but only to be construed together with it and to revoke only those parts of the second will which were inconsistent with the third will.
I would therefore hold that both the second will and the third will should be admitted to probate and construed as above set forth.
Mr. Justice O’Brien joins in this dissenting opinion.