Ellington v. Raleigh Savings Bank & Trust Co.

147 S.E. 286, 196 N.C. 755, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 98
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 20, 1929·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Stagy, C. J.

The guiding star in the interpretation of wills, to which all rules must bend, unless contrary to some rule of law or public policy, is the intent of the testator, and this is to be ascertained from the four corners of the will, considering for the purpose the will and any codicil or codicils as constituting but one instrument. 28 R. C. L., 211, et seq.

Viewing the record in the light of these principles, a majority of the Court is of opinion that the judgment rendered by his Honor below places a permissible construction on the will and codicil in question, and that no sufficient reason has been made to appear for overturning the judgment. Two members of the Court, however, hold a contrary opinion.

*756 Much could be said and written on botb sides of the question, without any great benefit to the profession, perhaps, as the case simply calls for the application of settled principles to a peculiar use of language, not likely to appear again, and in this view of the matter we deem it sufficient to say that the judgment is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ellington v. Raleigh Savings Bank & Trust Co., 147 S.E. 286, 196 N.C. 755, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 98 (N.C. 1929).

147 S.E. 286 (Ellington v. Raleigh Savings Bank & Trust Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ferguson v. . Ferguson
35 S.E.2d 231 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Feeguson v. Feeguson
225 N.C. 375 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Mears
10 S.E.2d 659 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Richardson v. . Cheek
193 S.E. 705 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Heyer v. . Bulluck
186 S.E. 356 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Corl v. . Corl
182 S.E. 725 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
In Re Assessment of Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
1934 OK 281 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
Jolley v. . Humphries
169 S.E. 417 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Peeler v. . Peeler
162 S.E. 472 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Henderson v. Western Carolina Power Co.
157 S.E. 425 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Griffin v. . Doggett
155 S.E. 605 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)