Court Opinion

ID: 9711320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:29:18.840139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:03.372455
License: Public Domain

Gehl, J.
(on motion for rehearing). Respondents move for a rehearing upon the ground that we have ignored the well-established rule that the cardinal principle in the construction *509bof wills is that the intention of the testator must be ascertained, that the Blackstone doctrine referred to in our original opinion deals with the substantive law and. the rights of individuals and not with the problem of construing wills. They assert, as they did in their original briefs, that the rule of Cashman v. Ross, 155 Wis. 558, 145 N. W. 199, a declaration that the law as it existed at the death of the life tenant, must be applied.
Respondents agree, as of course they must, that wills must be construed in the light of some law. The court must apply the law as it is, not as it has been erroneously declared. That is precisely what was done in Will of Roth, 191 Wis. 366, 210 N. W. 826, where the court was faced with the problem of ascertaining the intention of the testator, as we are here, and did so in the light of what it then determined the law to be.
Appellant joins with respondents in the request that we designate the parties who are to share under the construction which we have placed upon the will. To do so would require this court to make findings and an original determination. This we cannot do. The constitution, sec. 3, art. VII, provides that the supreme court “shall have appellate jurisdiction only,” except as otherwise in the constitution provided. There is no exception named which would permit us to proceed as requested by counsel. The court is therefore without power to make findings and order judgment according to the facts found. 3 Am. Jur., Appeal and Error, p. 666, sec. 1155.
By the Court. — Motion for rehearing is denied with $25 costs.