Succession of Quinlan

Citations

• 118 La. 602
• 43 So. 249
• 1907 La. LEXIS 771

Syllabus

<p>1. Wills — Construction — Parol Evidence —Ambiguity.</p> <p>The proposed explanation of a clause in_ a will by verbal testimony on the ground of its ambiguity cannot be admitted if it has_ the effect of changing the testamentary disposition.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 49, Wills, § 1033.]</p> <p>2. Same — Designation oe Legatee. .</p> <p>The amount was bequeathed to one person, an interdict. It was to be drawn by the curatrix from the estate every month for the legatee.</p> <p>3. Cueatobs — Appointment—Qualieioation.</p> <p>The curatrix named in the will never qualified. She was without authority to carry out the dispositions of the will.</p> <p>4. Wills — Construction—Parol Evidence.</p> <p>Verbal testimony is not admissible to prove that it was the intention of the testator to bequeath an amount to the curatrix personally. This was to be determined on the face of the will. «</p> <p>5. Same.</p> <p>Although verbal testimony is admissible to explain an ambiguity, it is not admissible to change a testamentary disposition so that the legacy to one person shall go to another person.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 49, Wills, § 1033.]</p> <p>6. Same — Property Bequeathed — Usufruct and Ownership.</p> <p>One legacy went to the daughter and the other to the daughter-in-law. The daughter-in-law is not entitled under the terms of the will to over one-half of the revenue constituting the usufruct.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>