Court Opinion

ID: 9550617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:38:50.62315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:01.598917
License: Public Domain

Grady, J.
(concurring in the result) — I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion. In view of the fact that the evidence submitted to explain that which was claimed to be an ambiguity in the will of the testatrix did not have that effect, we must construe the will as it reads, and whether it may be said to be ambiguous or otherwise makes no difference. By her will the testatrix sought to dispose of three items of property, and did so in three separate paragraphs of her will. One item was a dwelling house and household goods, furniture, and other personal property which she might own located in the city of Seward, Alaska. Another item was all of her personal effects, clothing and jewelry wherever the same might be located. The third item was any other property she might have at the time of her death. This last item of property *649was charged with her debts and expenses of administration. The Seattle dwelling house and the household goods, etc., located therein fall within the third item of property covered by paragraph six of the will.
Mallery, J., concurs with Grady, J.