Skip to main content
· 10/15/1895

Schlottman v. Hoffman

Citations

  • 73 Miss. 188

Syllabus

<p>1. Wills. Pecwniury legacies. Numerals used ambiguously to designate amount. Parol evidence admissible to aid construction.</p> <p>Where, to a will disposing of the whole estate of the testator, a codicil is added creating pecuniary legacies in favor of persons not otherwise provided for, and the amounts to be paid the legatees are respectively indicated by the numeral five following the dollar mark, with two zeros following this numeral, but so separated from it, and so situated above the line on which all the figures appear, as to make it uncertain, in the absence of the decimal mark, whether five hundred dollars or five dollars was intended by the testator, parol evidence as to the situation of the testator, the condition of the family, the character and quantity of the estate, and the circumstances attending the execution of the codicil, is admissible for the interpretation of the instrument.</p> <p>2. Reformation of Wills. Courts home no power to decree same. Contest barred. Construction alone allowable. Code 1880, $ 1961.</p> <p>No court can decree the reformation and correction of a will, and where the statutory limitation of two years after prohate has barred all contest, the only question remaining open is that of the true construction of the instrument.</p> <p>3. Patent Ambiguity. When parol evidence admissible.</p> <p>Different sums may be expressed by the use of the same characters or fig'ures, according- to their collocation; and where they are so ai-ranged that an uncertainty as to their meaning- is suggested, the ambig-uity thus arising-, while it appears on the face of the instrument, is not subject to the rule excluding parol evidence where it is sought, to add a new term to an instrument, or where the court, after having- looked to the circumstances of the parties, the subject-matter of the instrument, and all proper collateral facts, still remains uncertain as to the meaning of the written words.</p> <p>4. Latent Ambiguity. WoreIs with double m

Judges: Cooper

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.