Court Opinion

ID: 9588299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:32:33.744926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:50.395697
License: Public Domain

PARKER, J.
Dissenting in part. “A codicil is a supplement to a will, annexed for the purpose of expressing the testator’s after*243thought or amended intention. [Citing authority.] It is to be construed with the will itself, and the two are to be considered as constituting a single instrument.” Smith v. Mears, 218 N.C. 193, 10 S.E. 2d 659. As a general rule, the courts are opposed to assuming that a codicil revokes a will by being inconsistent therewith. It seems to be settled law that a codicil does not revoke a will unless the testator’s intention to revoke is clear; and, consequently, there must be an absolute, clear and irreconcilable inconsistency between the will and the codicil in order that the codicil may revoke the will by being inconsistent therewith. Baker v. Edge, 174 N.C. 100, 93 S.E. 462; Page, Revised Treatise on the Law of Wills, Vol. 2, p. 419, where many cases from many jurisdictions 'are cited. In Toms v. Brown, 213 N.C. 295, 195 S.E. 781, the Court said: “A codicil does not import revocation but an addition, explanation, or alteration of a prior will. The courts are adverse to the revocation of a will by implication in a codicil. [Citing .authority.] A will and codicil are to be construed together so that the intention of the testator can be ascertained from both. [Citing ■authority.] ”
In Page, ibid, Vol. 4, p. 84, it is stated: “Where a codicil is appended to a will and does not contain any clause of revocation, the provisions of the will are to be disturbed only as far as are absolutely necessary to give effect to the provisions of the codicil; and in other respects such a will and codicil are to be construed together.” Page cites cases from England and from 27 states, including several from North Carolina, in support of the text.
In the Goods of Daniel Lowe (1864), 3 Swabey and T 478, 164 Eng. Rep. 1361, a testator in his will appointed W. L. and W. B. executors, and in a codicil to the will named his wife “sole executrix of this my said will.” The Court held that the appointment in the will of W. L. and W. B. as executors was revoked. In this case, Sir J. P. Wilde said: “The Registrars are always very properly reluctant to take upon themselves to exclude from the probate executors whose appointment is revoked'only by inference. I think, however, here I cannot give effect to the word ‘sole’ when the testator says in the codicil, ‘I appoint my wife sole executrix of my said will,’ without excluding the executors appointed in the will. Probate may therefore go to the widow, as prayed.”
In my opinion, the decisions in Evans v. Evans (1849) 17 Sim. 86, 60 Eng. Rep. 1060, and in In the Goods of John Howard (1869) L.R. 1, Prob. and Div. 636, which are set forth in the majority opinion, when read in connection with In the Goods of Daniel Lowe, are convincing. In my judgment, the testator by his codicil did not revoke, and it should not be held by inference that he did revoke, the ap*244pointment of executors that be named in his will. The legal operation of the testator’s codicil to his will is to confirm such parts of the will to which it refers as it does not revoke. My vote is M. Pearl Yount, J. Victor Yount, and Garland Marshall, all three, are entitled to serve as executors.