46 A. 832 | Conn. | 1900
The testatrix made her "executors hereinafter named" trustees for her infant great-granddaughter, and then named two executors, one (the appellant) being the father of this child. By a codicil she provided for the death of the child under age and without issue, giving in that event $800 to the appellant. In a later codicil this legacy was revoked, and also the appointment of the appellant as an executor, a direction being added that the other whom she had named for that office should be the sole executor.
A will and its codicils, if there are any, are the expression of a single testamentary act. The different papers are to be read as constituting an entirety, which is not complete until the latest of them is given appropriate and — in case of conflict — controlling effect.
The term "hereinafter named," which the testatrix used to describe her executors, referred to those finally named by operative words. Colt v. Colt,
To retain his rights as a trustee, if he had any, it was necessary to appeal from this decree; but he had none, and therefore it should have been affirmed.
There is error; the judgment of the Superior Court is reversed and the decree of the Court of Probate is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.