Court Opinion

ID: 9757360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:36:26.547789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:38.625720
License: Public Domain

Lampron, J.,
dissenting: It is well settled law that the intent of Medora W. Elliott derived from the contents of her will is the sovereign guide to its interpretation. Merrow v. Merrow, 105 N. H. 103, 106. The meaning of her will is to be collected not from an insulated phrase or clause but from the whole instrument. Athorne v. Athorne, 100 N. H. 413, 415. In so doing arbitrary rules of construction must yield to the intent of the testatrix. In re Lathrop Estate, 100 N. H. 393, 395; In re Lawrence Estate, 104 N. H. 457, 459.
Read as a whole the will of this testatrix demonstrates a clear and paramount intent to give her estate to the members of her family by blood or otherwise, that is, her children, their spouses, their issue, and “the issue of such issue.” I fail to see any manifestation of an intent on her part to exclude from her bounty one who by virtue of P. L, 292:4 (now RSA 461:5) became the child of one of her children and of her spouse “to all legal intents and purposes.” Medora W. Elliott’s will read as a whole demonstrates such a broad intent to benefit all the members of her family so as to include therein one who became a member by adoption of the family of one of her daughters and the daughter’s spouse. RSA *335461:5. See In re Bunker’s Estate, 106 N. H. 391, 392. I would hold that Pearle Preston is included in the class of issue under the will of Medora W. Elliott.