Court Opinion

ID: 9792254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:25:48.473559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:41.399746
License: Public Domain

Price, J.,
concurring: I am in agreement with the decision reached in this case, but wish to add these brief remarks.
The syllabus states that after the usual provision for payment of debts “the executor was to receive all the remaining property absolutely to do with as he may wish.” This statement is technically incorrect. It is true the executor and the sole beneficiary are one and the same person, but, particularly in view of the question involved in this appeal, and in the interest of accuracy, the statement should be that the beneficiary was to receive all the remaining property absolutely to do with as he may wish.
Also, I am not in agreement with the first part of the sentence comprising the next to the last paragraph of the opinion, in which it is said that courts do not favor a parent disinheriting a child. The will in question is clear and unambiguous. After payment of debts, including the cost of erecting a suitable tombstone, all property remaining is devised and bequeathed to a named beneficiary, to be his property absolutely. Then, in the next paragraph of the will, appear the “precatory” words in the nature of an expression of wish *325and desire on the part of testator with respect to the sole beneficiary seeing to it that testator s son never be permitted to suffer want or to lack the necessities of life. On the record before us, we are not concerned with testator’s motive in disinheriting his son, and in his status he had a perfect legal right to devise and bequeath any or all of his property to whomever he chose. The statement in question, not being in issue, and being unnecessary for a decision, is dictum.
In other respects I agree with what is said in the opinion of the court and that the judgment should be affirmed.