Court Opinion

ID: 9610540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:42:54.797109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:01.104530
License: Public Domain

Spratley, J.,
dissenting.
I do not read the paper writing probated on May 5, 1954, referred to by the majority as a codicil, as having the meaning and effect given to it by my associates. I find it impossible to tell whether the two provisions in that instrument were each written on April 19, 1950. Nor can I agree that whether they be considered as constituting one codicil or two the result would be the same. Certainly the two provisions are irreconcilable. The first revokes Clause 5 of the will and the second revokes the first provision, thereby leaving in effect Clause 5 of the will. The second provision is clear and unambiguous. If it be given effect, the second becomes wholly ineffective.
It is pure speculation or surmise to say that both provisions were written on April 19, 1950. It is not probable that testatrix would have written the inconsistent provisions at the same time. There are even stronger reasons for believing that the two provisions were not written at the same time. On April 19, 1950, when the first provision was written, Mrs. Charles J. Graham was living. Subsequent to that date and prior to the death of testatrix, Mrs. Graham’s death occurred. Mrs. Graham was not related by blood or marriage to the testatrix. She lived in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, many miles from the home of the testatrix, and was merely a friend. There is nothing in the record to show that testatrix ever knew the children of her friend or desired them to possess any portion of her property. Therefore, after the death of Mrs. Graham, the testatrix expressed the wish that, “My will that I have made is to be carried out first.”
*576There can be no question but that the second provision was written after the first in point of time, although it may have been only a short period. The instrument shows on its face that after the first provision was written, a date was added. Following the date there was added the second provision, and so far as any one can tell it may have been a day, a month, or a year after April 19, 1950, and such a time after the death of Mrs. Graham. It was, in any event, the last wish of the testatrix. Surely she had some purpose in adding it to the instrument. The provision should be given its plain meaning and not be regarded as a vain act. All of the authorities are in accord that where two provisions of a will are irreconcilable, the later provision should prevail.
I would give effect to the last expressed wish of the testatrix. I find no support for a contrary view in the cases of Earl of Hardwicke v. Douglas, 7 Clark & Finnelly 795, and Miller v. Buchanan, 114 Va. 76, 75 S. E. 773. In those two cases, the controlling question involved the interpretation of language different from that now before us, and effect was given to the last expressed wish of the testator in each case.