Hynes v. Moran

Citations

• 95 Wash. 428

Syllabus

<p>Wills — Intention of Testator — Identity of Beneficiaries — Parol Evidence — Admissibility. Under the rule that parol testimony is admissible to explain a latent ambiguity in a will, oral evidence of the intent of the testator as to the identity of beneficiaries, described in the will as “my six (second) cousins named Moran and all living in Ireland, I believe,” is admissible where it appears that there were different groups of cousins claiming the estate to whom the description applied in different degrees. ,</p> <p>Same — Identity of Beneficiaries — Evidence — Sufficiency. In such a case, the evidence establishes that the testator intended by his will the six children of a second cousin, Michael Moran, deceased, who had befriended the testator before he left Ireland and was a person of consequence, where it appears that Michael had six children born after the testator came to this country, that they were the only group of six cousins named Moran living in Ireland, that the testator could not give their names but said they were people of consequence and referred the scrivener to an acquaintance, one Hynes, who was acquainted with Michael Moran and came from the same village, and who, upon inquiry, had informed the testator that Michael had left a widow and six children named Moran all living near their old home in Ireland.</p>