48 Minn. 420 | Minn. | 1892
When this case was here before — 45 Minn. 361, (47 N. W. Rep. 1069) — we held that upon the evidence the will proposed was not the will of Mrs. Frisbie, because the sixth clause, which was not read by nor to her, is not in her words, and does not, so far as the evidence or the findings disclose, express her intention. In giving instructions for drawing the will she did not indicate what ■words were to be used, but she did express a desire to make, in the sixth clause, a provision of some kind for her brother, in a certain contingency. Stating the ease in the light most favorable to the appellant, the evidence leaves it at least wholly a matter of mere conjecture whether she intended that the will should embrace an effectual provision for the support of her brother, or only a mere request or injunction upon her husband, imposing no legal obligation upon him or charge upon the estate. The clause, as drawn, makes no positive provision; and the will, with that clause in, is, in legal effect, mo way different from what it was when she declined to sign it, because there was no such provision. On the second trial, without a jury, the court below regarded the evidence on this point as in substance the same as on the first trial, and that its decision must be
Judgment affirmed.
(Opinion published. 51 N. W. Rep. 217.)
