Court Opinion

ID: 9648854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:36:46.158717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:05.802572
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, J., dissenting. The cases directly in point hold that when two people execute a joint will by which each leaves his property to the other, the instrument must be valid as to both or it will be valid as to neither. Martin v. Helms, 319 Ill. 281, 149 N. E. 770; Burkhart v. Rogers, 134 Okla. 219, 273 Pac. 246. (In re Cole’s Will, 171 N. C. 74, 87 S. E. 962, cited by the majority, is readily distinguishable, for there the testators’ bequests were not to each other but were made jointly to a charitable institution.) I think the case at bar illustrates the wisdom of the rule adopted in other jurisdictions. Had James Smith been the first to die, Peter would have found that he was not entitled to his brother’s estate by virtue of the joint will. It seems clear that each brother signed this instrument upon the assumption that the survivor would receive the other’s property, and hence if that expectation fails as to one it must fail as to the other. Under the majority’s interpretation James had all to gain and nothing to lose, while Peter stood to lose everything and gain nothing. As E cannot believe that Peter would have joined in the instrument had he been aware of its inequality I think we should follow the unanimous trend of authority elsewhere and hold this will invalid as to both testators.