Two appeals herein are consolidated and will be considered as one. The first is by Mary Bean Chapin, widow of Lon F. Chapin, deceased, and IT. Mitchell, as trustees under a testamentary trust; and the second is by Mary Bean Chapin as beneficiary under the same trust. Respondents are children of decedent by a prior marriage and are likewise beneficiaries under the provisions of the trust. The appeals are from the orders for payment of income of trust estate.

In the first ease the trustees assert that the trial court erred in requiring distribution based on monthly receipts instead of on annual income; and in the second case Mary Bean Chapin claims certain “arrearages” in payments to her should have been satisfied before funds were allocated to beneficiaries other than Ralph Owen Chapin.

In establishing the trust the will in paragraph Seventh thereof provided as follows:

At the time of the hearing it appeared (1) that respondent Ralph Owen Chapin was incapacitated, due to an extended illness; (2) that the net income had been insufficient to pay the full amounts to Mary Bean Chapin and Ralph Owen Chapin, but since the latter’s illness it had been prorated between them; and (3) that from the beginning of the trust to August 1, 1940, Mary Bean Chapin received $30,416.55, which was $11,883.45 less than she would have received if the monthly amount of $450 had been paid, and Ralph Owen Chapin received $9546.22, being $1153.78 less than the full amount provided for him.

After the hearing the trial court instructed the trustees as follows:

The portion of the court’s order of January 9, 1939, above referred to is merely a direction as to the means of carrying into effect the provisions of sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph Seventh of the will above quoted and is not in dispute.

Appellants contend that the trial court erroneously construed the will in making the order for monthly distribution based on monthly receipts instead of on annual income. Appellant Mary Bean Chapin urges that it improperly disregarded her right to have her “arrearages” paid up before the remaining beneficiaries other than Ralph Owen Chapin received any payments. These questions involve only a construction of the terms of the will and are matters for the determination of the trial court. The construction which the trial court placed on the will appears reasonable and consistent with the intention of the testator. The words in sub-paragraph (5), “the remainder of said net income shall be paid monthly,” shows that he intended that the amounts for Mary Bean Chapin and Ralph Owen Chapin should be paid first each month and then the monthly balance should l)e used to pay the amounts provided for the other three children, and that it was only after these sums had been paid that the trustees could retain any balance on hand to be divided among the beneficiaries at the end of the year. The will does not provide that any balance left each month after paying the amounts provided for Mary Bean Chapin and Ralph Owen Chapin should be kept in reserve to pay any arrearages which, as shown by the terms of the will itself, testator anticipated might occur. The provision upon which appellants rely, to the effect that the amounts to Mary Bean Chapin and Ralph Owen Chapin “shall be fully paid,” is part of the same sentence in which the language above quoted appears, requiring division of the monthly balance among the other children; and properly to construe this sentence as a part of the will in its entirety it was the duty of the trial court to give effect to all of the terms of the instrument and if reasonably possible to reconcile any apparent inconsistencies. The interpretation of the trial court has this effect. When the construction given an instrument by a trial court appears to be reasonable and consistent with the intent of the party making it, courts of appellate jurisdiction will not substitute another interpretation even though it seems equally tenable. (Estate of Boyd, 24 Cal. App. (2d) 287 [ 74 Pac. (2d) 1049 ] ; Estate of Bourn, 25 Cal. App. (2d) 590 [ 78 Pac. (2d) 193 ].)

Contemporaneously with the execution of the will appellant Mary Bean Chapin executed an instrument, annexed to the will, consenting to all the terms of the will and waiving community property rights to make it effective. Contrary to her contention on this appeal her co-operation with her husband in that regard does not warrant any preference beyond that provided in the will itself; for although it was an advantage to the testator to have her waiver, it is apparent that she has already benefited by the trust and will benefit still further, and she is bound by the terms of the will to which she expressly consented.

All parties concede that the extended illness of respondent Ralph Owen Chapin entitles him to the extra allowance so long as it continues. Appellants dislike to be bound to pay the additional amounts in the event of his restoration to health. To conform to the provisions of the will and the obvious intention of the trial court the order should be and it is hereby amended to add the following: “The additional payments to Ralph Owen Chapin which are provided to be made in event of his extended illness shall be in effect and continue only so long and for such periods as such illness and resulting incapacity to work shall continue.” (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 956a.)

As thus amended the order is affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied December 4, 1941, and appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 29, 1941.