Court Opinion

ID: 9691276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:21:03.014928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:15.232902
License: Public Domain

Carter, J.,
dissenting.
I do not concur with the interpretation of the words “elevator property” which the majority opinion announces. There being nothing within the four corners of the will from which the intent of the testator can be found, the usual and customary meaning should be given to the words used. To me the term means the building and the lease of the grounds upon which it is situated, together with the machinery and equipment in the building or on the premises which are essential to the operation of an elevator. An elevator property is not synonymous with an elevator business as the majority opinion infers. An elevator business is that which occupies the time, attention,'and labor of a person for livelihood or profit in using an elevator property for the purposes for ■ which it was constructed. In a conveyance of an elevator business as distinguished from an elevator property the inventory of grain and feeds, book accounts, and cash in the bank might well be included. I cannot agree, however, that all property used in connection with an elevator business is included in a devise of the “elevator property” only, or that its usual meaning in the business world would sustain any such definition. By the use of the term “elevator property” in the devise the testator never intended to include the additional property used in connection with the operation of the elevator as a business.
Wenke., J., concurs in this dissent.