Court Opinion

ID: 6241430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-17 20:45:43.237232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:12.468244
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam,
We think the learned auditing judge and the court below were correct in their conclusion that the note of $8,000, which the testator held against the appellant, was intended by the *342former as a part of the legacy of $50,000. In other words, he meant to give the appellant its note for $8,000 and $42,000 in cash, which together make up the legacy of $50,000. Giving to the word “ inclusive ” its accepted meaning, the note was to be included in the legacy, and form a part of it.
The decree is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.