Skip to main content
· 6/15/1878

Rountree v. Talbot

Citations

  • 89 Ill. 246

Syllabus

<p>1. Will—construction—inconsistent clauses. If two parts of a will are totally irreconcilable, the subsequent part is to be taken as evidence of a subsequent intention and must prevail; but this rule applies only in those cases where the intention of the testator can not be discovered, and the two provisions are so totally inconsistent that it is impossible for them to coincide with the general intention of the testator.</p> <p>2. Same—intention governs in construction. The great and leading principle in the construction of wills is, that the intention of the testator, if not inconsistent with the rules of law, shall govern, and the intention is to be ascertained from the whole will taken together. The courts, if possible, will adopt such construction as will uphold all the provisions of the will.</p> <p>3. Same—life estate not defeated by subsequent devise of fee. Where a testator clearly manifests an intention to give his wife a life estate in all his real estate, that intention will not be defeated by a devise of certain lots in the next clause to a daughter, in fee simple, but the wife will take a life estate in such lots, and the daughter the remainder in fee simple, thus giving effect to each clause of the will. Where the intention of the testator is incorrectly expressed, the court will effectuate it by supplying the proper words.</p> <p>4. Where a testator devised to his wife, during her natural life, the possession, use, control, rents, issues and profits of all the real estate he might own at the time of his death, and also all his personal property and moneys, to have said personalty as her own, with authority to sell and dispose of the same as she might deem best, “ but subject to the payment of the bequest to C D, hereinafter made,” and in the next clause devised and bequeathed to O D two of his lots “in fee simple,” “and the sum of $150 yearly as long as she lives,” etc., it was held, that the words in the first devise, “ subject to the payment of th

Judges: Sheldon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.