Estate of Behrmann

Good Law
2 Coffey 513
Superior Court of California, County of San FranciscoMarch 28, 1892No. 11,397California1,905 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Coffey, J.

The contention here is upon the construction of a single clause in the will.

Do the children there named take $500 each, Or $500 divided between them, under the clause in the will:

The will is olographic, written in the German language with pencil, with erasures and interlineations in penciling of different colors, and with an original date erased and a subsequent one interlined. A translation is here inserted:

No question has .been raised save that of. the meaning of the above-quoted clause; it being conceded that the intent of testator, so far as expressed in or to be gathered from the will, shall govern.

“There is perhaps no rule of construction of more universal application to wills, or which oftener requires to be acted upon, than that every portion of the instrument must be made to have its just operation, unless there arises some invincible repugnance, or else some portion is absolutely unintelligible.

*516 “There is no more clearly established rule of construction, as applicable to wills, than that words or clauses of sentences, or even whole paragraphs, may be transposed to any extent, with a view to show the intention of the testator..... Where it gives effect to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.