*1 tax- deprive To electors Philadelphia citizens, or two Councilmanic for payers the 7th District more Government years representation the City Form of repugnant “Republican to our Government” equality and to the basic American spirit fairness, justice for all. The result reached deplorable lan- clearest justified can be majority in a or our Federal State Constitutions guage Char- Rule Philadelphia or in the Home Legislative act I require No such hence would ter. language exists, vacancy. election fill the councilmanic I For reasons would reverse Order of these com- direct issue a mandamus Court below and it to Council to a writ President issue pelling City November election to be held on special election 7th to fill the Councilmanic 6, 1962, vacancy Councilmanic District. opinion. joins

Mr. O’Brien this dissenting Justice Turner Estate.

Argued May 3, 1962. Before C. Bell, J., Musmanno, Eagen and Jones, Cohen, JJ. O’Brien, refused November reargument 1962.

Guthbert H. Mm Robert Haberstroh, with G. Latta, for appellant.

Martin him R. John Goodman, Strawmire, with Goodman and for appellee. Notopoulos, Octo-

Opinion Benjamin R. Jones, Mr. Justice ber 1962:

A presented: issue is whether narrow provisions revoked holographic by implication of an earlier of testatrix? Altoona

L. old May year (testatrix), *3 spinster, a died on 1959. resident, 28, Testatrix, June lawyer- a left three existence: (1) wills physical called prepared (herein will dated 1958 January 29, August to there was a codicil dated will) first 25, dated June a testatrix 1958; by will drawn (2) holographic (herein called a will); (3) will). third (herein dated called will June the Wills probated Register The third was by will one-half on 1959. Three and July 1, of Blair County appealed (appellee)1 P. Mary later Turner months the ground the will on that probate from the with the third will.2 probated be second will should sus- Court of Blair County the Orphans’ After hearing, Turner, Mary nephew Lisle of James a P. the widow Turner is very predeceased Admittedly, her. who Mary and P. Lisle Turner Turner. both James fond of originally appealed probate appellee from the When third will did not revoke first will she averred third and asked that first will its codicil and its codicil will or hearing appellee probated sought At will. the third with request probate petition second, of the rather than amend properly permitted first, the court below will and amend such ment. probate

tained the decree appeal opened pro- for the petition enable the to act Register upon de- bate of the From second with the will. appeal cree this was taken. par-

At respective the outset the contentions at valued should be clarified. Testatrix’ estate, ties household composed of approximately $69,000, $500, at personal approximately effects inventoried (or equivalent) approximating $14,500 cash its at Con- approximately $54,000. securities inventoried disposi- the third effected a testamentary will cededla, cash. personal effects and tion of the household disposition involves controversy instant of testatrix’ securities. in- other her “stocks and testatrix’ second will, appellee were and James

vestments” third will contends that Appellant (appellant).3 provisions of the second is inconsistent with by revoked impliedly the second will was and, thus, provision the third will; particular, that, of testatrix’ “stock disposed second will which disposi- the overall by revoked other investments” was testa- gift by of the third will and scheme tive appellant, of her “money” of the “balance” trix of “estate” the broad sense construed being “money” that no revocation contends Appellee or “property”. place and, has taken the second implication *4 no dis- the inconsistency there exists in particular, and “stocks other investments” of testatrix’ position “bal- appellant the gift and in the second in its the latter construed being her “money”, of ance” “cash”. of narrow sense 3 Turner, nephew testatrix, of a survived W. Jamos proceeding. pendency during of this His interest the

but died K,. Turner, For represented his widow and administratrix. -Ada and refer to both convenience, we James Turner of the sake appellant. Turner R. Ada In passing upon ascer- these contentions must we if at all Such tain, the intent of testatrix. possible, the “. . intent . from gathered must be a consideration (a) all contained in language the four corners will4 and (b) scheme of distribution [her] [her] (c) circumstances time surrounding at [her] made . . . (d) existing facts; [she] [her] Pa. Burleigh, A. 2d 838. Estate, 376, 175 373, For the purpose this certain facts appeal, may considered as conceded or disputed: (a) not seriously all three wills are testa- genuine valid and wills; (b) trix ap- made interlineations alterations which pear in the will; pos- second at all (c) times testatrix very testamentary (d) sessed testatrix was capacity; fond of James L. their James W. Turner Turner, first wives; (e) changing provisions death previous was occasioned reason of wills, L. close of James testatrix’ 1957; (f) very friend and E. legatee previous Eyre, a Miss K. wills, her death triggered preparation died and intelligent will; very testatrix was (g) woman knew and understood the difference between cash, who specie and other of property. securities this background mind examine Bearing we the circum- all three pertinent provisions wills the execution of each will. which surrounded stances approxi- Kurtz, C. M. Attorney lawyer for testatrix the first will twenty drew mately years, recently having L. Turner on 1958. James January 29, she Kurtz explained Attorney died, Mary of the estate be given his “share” wanted ex- containing first will, widow. This his Turner, might have [she] or thinks would not what Court “it is circumstances, existing thinks what even Court in the said meaning say, but what is the words. meant [she] IherJ 243; Estate, [citing Pa. 87 A. 2d Can cases]": Britt 605, 607, 121 A. 2d 157. Estate, Pa. istra *5 burial press revocation for testatrix’ provided clause, herself and bronze or for plates graves marble be- parents’ the care of her burial brother, plot, quests nephews’ children, of her $1,000 each two “the cash” in gave equal appellant, shares remaining “stocks appellee and Miss and then testatrix’ Eyre gave same and other to the equal investments” shares persons.5 three The first will further directed that apart- expenses three months after her death the her ment be borne that household effects by estate, Attor- personal be Miss belongings Eyre personal repre- Kurtz and Miss act as the ney Eyre to that prepared sentatives. the codicil will — pro- Kurtz —testatrix directed that the trust Attorney include her share of the “cash” visions for Miss Eyre bequests tax on my and that “the inheritance all said estate.” paid my 8, on June died 1959 and on Eyre May 29,

Miss tes- Kurtz at visited request, Attorney Eyre’s indicated due to Miss that, tatrix. Testatrix too change her will but she was she Avanted death, contemplated changes to discuss the at the time weak codicil of the first will and original gave and she keep Kurtz that he requesting Attorney thereto to contemplated able to make the until she was them 23 and June June Kurtz Attorney On changes. discuss was too weak to again but she visited on the latter occasion, contemplated changes and, he Kurtz Attorney informed by but days town for several would see be out would on June 30. her again testatrix decided to make her own June 25,

On purpose For that she utilized in the will. changes Eyre pay the to be held in trust of Miss The share during and, upon death, di her lifetime to he to her income appellee. appellant egually between vided

unsigned upon copy made the will which she first of her various in additions and interlineations alterations, provision handwriting. out own Testatrix the struck plates concerning graves and for of her the brother gift the of herself and increased for the amount the parents’ plot by crossing the care of her out burial writing word “three”. and above it the “two” word “(2) By figure inserting striking out the “$1000” sought “2 or increase Thousand” she Two”, “2,000” bequests nephews’ the to her children from $1000 provision providing for in will The the first $2000. division of testatrix’ “stocks and other investments” a appel- parts” equal (one appellant, into “three each for Eyre) the lee and was altered the insertion of Miss by striking the of out word “two” instead “three” and provisions parts Miss for the distribution of one of provisions Eyre. Eyre, for for for the trust Miss apartment the months the maintenance of for three gift Eyre house- after her for the to Miss death, personal belongings hold effects were stricken personal representative. Eyre Miss was eliminated as a Initially, First National Bank of later, the Altoona and, place appellant Eyre’s in substituted Miss the personal representative. Testatrix struck out January day clause “29th date the testimonium of place day inserted in A. D. 1958” and thereof “25th signature her On line testatrix affixed June'1959”. signature signature, genuineness an unwitnessed questioned. is not day holographic testatrix drew the third The next paper. of ruled On on three sheets this instrument appears upper right-hand on the 26,-59” date “June page top first and below, middle corner “My page, last will and testament”. This will place of provides debts burial, her expenses maintaining apart- paid, her be paid appellant months be for three and that ment from household furnish- “all derived sale” of the money her appellant jewelry be and that ings chil- for her appellee “among china be sent to division found dren”. Testatrix provisions inserted the plot burial parents’ the care her “I provision found in the codicil direct my paid by tax on bequests inheritance all . . . my National said estate.” After First appointing executors, Bank Altoona and Kurtz as her Attorney her and signed testatrix inserted a testimonium clause “hand- name. gave Thereafter the will testatrix adding Turner” painted chocolate set to Mrs. H. W. *7 . “. . . to . . handpainted go the rest of her china Tes- ... to be divided her children.” [appellee] among below, named then “I to each person tatrix stated give and ad- forth the names two thousand dollars” set Lucy Mrs. of four that a legatees,6 adding dresses “The provided Turner Testatrix then given be $100. Mr. James W. balance to be my money (empha- . . now with [appellant] ., living me,” in which testimonium clause sis added a supplied) then as the new date. Testatrix she used June 1959 26, her name upon signed a line she signature drew subscribing in to as sign were called neighbors and two wit- 27 sent for the same On June witnesses. had accidentally destroyed told them she nesses, a new and asked them to witness will page last page the new at tes- signed The and, witnesses page. repeated. of June 1959 26, the date tatrix’ request, time on June 28. sleep in her some died Testatrix Bishop, subscrib- had told Mrs. one Testatrix found in dresser her will could be a witnesses, ing after testatrix’ bedroom there and, death, in her drawer envelope drawer an sealed dresser in this found 6 appellant’s daughter-in-law rather his included than list That will. in the second son tape inscription bearing “My will

with scotch envelope appellant and 1959”. was turned over This gave opened unopened Attorney it. he it Kurtz who envelope copy In testa- a first were of the with will (that is, trix’ thereon alterations interlineations will), copy so-called second a codicil third will. will, wheth narrow issue which determine is we must or

er the third of testatrix will has in whole revoked, part, provisions Revocation will. express by may of an earlier a later will be implied (Wills April 24, revocation Act of Act of 1947, 180.6). P. L. In § 6; P.S. 1947, 89, §5, §§180.5, express at case no if the bar, there is revocation: part, such or in revokes the second whole by implication. Gray revocation must be Will, Pa. A. 2d “. . . this Court stated: 411, 416, may, express, declaration of revocation need not be necessary implication. An under authorities, by later writ earlier will can be revoked will or other ing disposes entirely dif . . . which an estate than the inconsistent ferent manner earlier will 2d A. Kehr 373 Pa. therewith.” See also, Will, provisions dispositive are “If 647. the later will *8 dispositive provisions earli inconsistent with just far er the later will revokes the earlier will so Bowe- inconsistent with it and no farther”: 2 is p. Page 412. Price on See also: Parker, Wills, §21.43, Pa. 38; 28 Pa. Gensimore’s 246 Maxwell, 23, Estate, v. A. 309 A. McClure’s Pa. 165 134; Estate, 370, 92 216, (No. 1), 320 Pa. 234; Estate 182 A. Hartman’s 24; 44 A. 2d 670. Pa. 353 Will, Burtt determining whether the third will inconsistent is provisions extent that the second with disposi- look revoked we must latter are to the language instruments from of both tive scheme employed the third will ascertain intent.

539 provisions A comparison the second important: wills Will Third Second Will fu- 1 debts Direction 1 Direction that oe “all debts” paid paid expenses be neral burial Same tnat Direction Cemetery Alto Rest National to 1st 3 Gift of 3 Same $300 for care Altoona Bank of plot parents’ burial give I die person “All the cash 4 “I to each named entitled, possessed or below, after two dollars thousand just my payment bequeath give and debts* I follows:

the same as nephew, (a) (a) J. P. $2000 same Turner niece,

(b) Louise (b) $2000 same Turner Marjorie niece, (c) (c) $2000 to same

M. Parker (d) nephew, (d) H. W. $2000 to to Mrs. H. Turner W. Turner (e) provision (e) Lucy No Turner, To $100 remaining 5 “All cash* provision No8 similar possessed which I or en- die Turner, titled” to James W.

Mary Eliza- P. Turner and Eyre

beth K. “All other in- stocks and provision 6 No similar pos- I vestments of which die Mary

sessed or entitled”

P. Turner and James W.

Turner (cid:127) — n Attorney n — Executors named 7 Executors named 1st Na- Kurtz and James tional Bank of Altoona Attorney Kurtz

* Emphasis supplied.

540 provision apartment expenses All similar 8

8 No paid be for three months Turner

James W. money* provision from derived 9 No similar “All furnishings” to home sale of Turner James W. handpainted provision jewelry All 10 No similar — exception of china with the handpainted set chocolate given Turner to Mrs. H. Mary —to Turner to be P. among children divided provision inherit- 11 No similar “the 11 Direction that my bequests all tax on ance paid by my estate” be said provision my money* similar No “The balance James W.

to be to” From an become of both wills certain facts analysis of tes- disposes evident: third (1) will completely tatrix’ household and personal effects; (2) furnishings third provides pe- is to be out paid $8100 from cuniary legacies the source designating without be legacies which such are to the sec- paid;7 (3) only makes ond will reference any securities; free; the third will makes all tax (4) only bequests the second will makes no (5) reference to but money to cash and the no twice makes reference to (6) only direction money; cash but twice for funeral of debts and for testatrix’ payment expenses, for care of of burial and testatrix’ burial plot place wills similar. are the

* supplied. Emphasis provision provides payment in the second wiU Cf: the pecuniary legacies payment debts, “cash” from after $8000 legacies i.e., paid. from which the are to the source *10 money my Up “The balance of until the clause: dispositive given to Mr. Turner . . .” be James W. plan wanted Testatrix first of the third is clear. provision expenses paid made and funeral her debts parents’ plot; perpetual next, care of her burial totalling legacies persons to receive five named were re- appellee Turner were and Mrs. H. W. $8100 spelled by the jewelry out and china and, ceive the legatee each of the tax free clause, inclusion legacy next diminution; or her without receive his appellant,8 towas lived with who Turner, James W. apartment expense-free for three months have furnishings; lastly, proceeds sale of the “money” Turner. W. her is to James “balance” of by “money”? mean did testatrix What testa- the record clear that Dehors the third is will, re- to meet the amount of cash available trix knew the intelligent quirements han- woman will; of her as an checking dling account her affairs knew her own she having slightly in excess and, a balance had $4700 deposit safety before three weeks box visited logical assume it is made the will, time she slightly in excess of $8,500 had she knew she cash. in cash or available $13,000 a total of box, equivalent cash she had assets the such above Over and approximately amounting $1,500. of cash provided in her third she so because knew, She expenses taxes funeral and death debts that her intelligent paid. woman she As an to be have would expenses, execu- such as administration knew also very wife, poor had health, both and Ms James Eyre’s days before death. Thirteen Miss since lived with appellee: Turner] died, [James Jim “Poor W. wrote she leg terribly suffering [James Ada Turner’s with his .... is really little, anything very not able is to do .... do wife] can problem together It is a solve .... no one can three invalids Just God----” but attorney’s paid, al-

(cid:127)tors and would have to be fees, though she would not know the amount thereof.8 equiva- appear It would that the total or its cash, expenses, payment available for lent, perpetual funeral debts, plot, care the burial adminis- death taxes, expenses pecuniary legacies tration and the would appellee approximately if $14,500. result is that, specific gift correct in her contention that the in the second will unrevoked and stands securities *11 payment of are unavailable to in securities share the legatee expenses, legacies, re- these taxes each given approximately him of to ceive the amount 34% per by a result not dic- testatrix. While such se does implication, by it is a construction of revocation tate ascertaining in- in a factor to be considered from tent under the instant circumstances. It is clear not four of testatrix’ she corners will that expenses paid but that she her taxes wanted debts, any legacies paid pecuniary in without her full wanted cash on hand not to be diminution and that her payment legacies.10 for the of source such sole dispositive of the third will In our scheme view, appellee position clearly of contraindicates “ Appellant urges: must [Testatrix] well court below. paid pecuniary legacies] all of to be [the intended have par;11 have then must and if she intended she that, at support to be available intended the stocks legacies; could and if she intended then she that, specific gift stocks.” to make a of the have intended not Death, expenses and administration $8600 $8800. taxes are meaningless contrary gift of view would also render A furnishings appel proceeds sale of the household from the lant. language wills In connection the of the second third this establishing Instead of her be contrasted. “cash” as must payment legacies will, as she in did the second source give provided: person “I in each named thousand dollars”. below, two pic- presents the factual situation a

Furthermore, put ture a careful her affairs anxious to testatrix, drafting in in her who before order, new will has copy of the first will and codicil and will. the second spe- In both the made first and second wills testatrix gifts of cific the securities whereas the third completely she avoided reference to her securities. It unthinkable that this careful so anxious testatrix, her house order that she couldn’t a few set wait days lawyer, until return of her omitted would have provide gift the third will for a of her securities appellee appellant, if that intended. is what she highly sig- The fact of the omission such reference is ascertaining nificant in testatrix’ intent.

In the third will testatrix states: “The balance my money .” Turner . . to be to Mr. James W. (Emphasis supplied). money in used Does the sense “property” or testatrix mean “cash” does it mean clearly language re- “estate”—if the then this latter, gift inconsistency, securities reason vokes, contained the second will. Mr. v. Grant Justice Wood- Davis, Smith *12 speaking for this said: “On such a Court, ques-

ward, adjudged of no value farther than to cases are tion, abundantly prove, that the the authorities what show, may money cash, in a be construed mean will, word personal in- may for the stand whole as the estate, or part every deduced from of of the testator, tention require. may It is to be received in its seem will, enlarged proper inor its more sense, restricted general in- signification, it best effectuate the as will and because wills differ more testator; tention happen rarely con- it can that faces, than men’s help in one shall to this word will, struction us ” meaning (pp. interpreting in any its another. 158- in “Money” in our received decisions con- 9) has various appear rule would sound structions.

544 388 affirmed this Court in Conlin

recently Estate, Pa. A. 117 approved 131 2d wherein we 483, 489, A. 172 which was- said 315 Pa. Ingham's Estate, 293, 662: “. . . under our used cases the when ‘money’ word is to be a construed the broad sense wealth cash, instead of narrow as property, its sense where the context the will and the circum so execution it be surrounding require its stances in in order to to the testator's interpreted give effect tention-. 407 518, Lewis Pa. [citing Estate, cases].” 180 A. 2d we in a situation 919, very recently held, at that a apposite gift somewhat case bar, “ are remaining bequests ‘All after debts and money ” re “a of all . . . paid’ intended to be gift [the] personal stocks siduary including cash, estate, is Court : (p. 521) bonds.” The stated “However, well settled that where a testator indicates equally a dispose of his entire estate by gift intention if residuary here in a especially gift as ‘money’, all pass personal prop his gift money clause, case or all rest his erty personal property, Conlin Pa. 131 2d be: 388 A. Estate, 483, 117, may 140 cited.” See also: cases therein Estate Jacobs, A. 21 v. 318; Pa. A. Ostrom 274 Pa. Datz, 375, 268, A. Talbot v. 292 Pa. Wil Anderson, 454, 256; 313; A. 302 Pa. Es 765; Ingham's liamson's Estate, Pa. 6 A. 905.12 Estate, Bricker's 2d supra; tate, Mr. Justice pp. In Conlin Estate, supra, 493, 494, Court, Justice) for this speaking Chief (now Bell, inter- decisions wherein that our “money” noted involved where (a) in a broad sense situations: preted remainder or ‘my of the rest or balance of gift “the “money” Levy’s construing sense, in a narrow For cases see: *13 180, 1068; 248, Martin, Estate, A. v. 77 28 Watson 228 161 Pa. Pa. Estate, 305, Clabby’s 71; 450; Pa. A. McKown’s A. 2d 301; 258, Co., Estate, A. Dickson v. Pa. Com. Trust 361 Pa 2d 65 A. 408. in where clause”; was contained a money’ residuary in “showed that it other the will (b) language in From the meaning.” used and intended its broader in will of the clause to James W. position giving her from the con- Turner the “balance” of and money that in evident tents of the will its seems entirety intended the clause and residuary clause a in that the word employed “money” testatrix clearly and intended to James W. give its broad sense of her “estate” or “property” including balance self-evident clear and securities. Such intent seems examination of third will as well as from an execution. upon circumstances attendant its inequita- It reached is urged that the result may fond in of the fact testatrix was very ble view Mary P. Turner under our Mary interpretation, and, of testa- in division deprived P. Turner is a share a Es- in Conlin Court stated securities. As this trix’s be- “[Appellee] mistakenly 489: pp. tate, supra, armchair of in the himself by placing lieve [s] testa- thereafter distribute can testatrix, Judge eq- in morals good trix’s accordance with estate reasonable and friends as a her relatives uity among not that is do. Of course, man to be fair would seeking a Judge, ... It is not what has been the law. and never armchair, sitting if he had been [testatrix’s] equity testatrix should thinks that moralizing, .” The language have done . . . conscience good its surrounding the circumstances this will No have reached. the result we command preparation evi- intent consonant with other result is of this will. language denced it reached of the court below which rationale re- implication did not by conclusion as to “stocks other provision will’s voke the length opinion. forth at set its investments” *14 In the first in place, provision that third will the which gave the derived the “money” from sale of the household to appellant furnishings doubly signifi- to cant the court: in (a) provision “money” since in clearly “cash”, meant the of “money” narrow sense in the “money” the word that provision gave which of like- “money” appellant “balance” testatrix’ to used in the wise a narrow if in sense; (b) “money” first provision interpreted last is in its the broad sense, provision “money” in the employing the word there, become no would mere Were other surplusage. this would guideposts in will as to testatrix’ intent we inclined in agree significance be with the court “money”, be attached the double use of the word any guideposts considerably but such other weakened sense interpretation such The in broad significance. of for a balance provision providing gift earlier superfluous pro- does render “money” term “money” but that is neither employing vision uncommon in home or “do-it-your- nor drawn unusual at under factual situation in the case self” wills; to be is While very slight. attached significance bar any in pro- is first manner in which used “money” in pro- the last an aid construing “money” vision is not determinative the issue. certainly is vision at court below noted that In the place, in cash $13,314.03 of her death testatrix had time pecuniary payment $8,100 after the assets,13 and, be “$5,214.03 would a balance there bequests, fact remaining” still money ready conclud- the court Therefore, been aware. have Avould my balance of direction “plain ed that [“The James to James W. money Turner”] over excess of the bank funds to have the Turner is deposit $8,586.55 checking and in the box was ac In the safe $4,727.48. count falla- bequeathed”.

and above the sums specifically completely court evident; this conclusion is cy overlook. did not overlooked that which question beyond From the third will it is clear reading pay- to the the testatrix realized addition that, have ment of the would payment pecuniary legacies, *15 perpetu- for of funeral expenses, be made her her debts, in taxes; and death plot al care of her burial parents’ pay- directed such in her not only will fact, they how in directed ments the case of the taxes, but, knowl- proof no direct paid. were to be While there is to assume logical on the it is part only edge testatrix, in- a highly record as upon this portrayed that testatrix, attorney that her executors knew telligent woman, in- expenses other as well as paid have would In failing of her estate. the settlement curred were these items to the fact that consideration give below court the estate from the assets this payable probative the to this factor it failed to accord erred: Estate, Jackson’s it entitled: value to which was 12 A. 2d 338. Pa. 561, an the absence the court stressed

Furthermore, indica- in the third will of revocation clause express the provisions the intent to revoke of a lack of tive ex- of such absence In our the view, second will. when significance of little of revocation is press clause court entirety. will in its the third one considers was envelope in the sealed out that pointed also only not included 1959” were will “My marked first will of the copy altered but third will also there- documents of both “the inclusion that concluded pur- her and that act of the solely in was property— rest of doing was so pose by undisposed of her stocks namely investments — accordance pass should instrument holographic copy.” carbon altered of the provisions with com- conclusion of the court is this brief appellant’s inscrip- answered: “The court in effect plétely read the tion in- as saying ‘everything inside is will’. The my does not scription say that; ‘my its is message simply, inside’. We do not gainsay message was the third as the one: it treating effective first unsigned fact inside. Here copy en- important: codicil becomes it inside will’s was This it inoperative. velope yet admittedly disproves part the notion that inside everything envelope If despite inscription the will. inoperative not could contain one two? why paper, quite the work sheets for the and was were They Turner to them it.” keep natural Miss with on the third will placed Under construction appellee and court of testatrix’ estate below 90% pass would under the will and under 10% under will; appellant’s construction the bulk would to James W. Turner’s estate pass estate *16 in mind of practical appellee. Bearing the exclusion of testatrix fond both James equally Lisle P. the of James Turner and Mary Turner, widow in- it not is testatrix could have urged Turner, former cannot prefer tended to to the latter. We certainty pref- know testatrix made such any why with did. indi- it is evident she record although erence both when third will was that, executed, cates his testa- W. Turner and with the wife, living James “in- such a state health to be termed trix, were Concern for their after tes- valids” testatrix. care have prompted third might making tatrix’ death of the reason it is evident testa- Regardless will. to make James W. Turner the principal trix intended her bounty. object of the language our third will view, viewed dispositive plan therein entirety, portrayed

in its which surrounded the circumstances execution and the indicate that clearly will third was the intent of this provisions of the revoke all appellant only give “bal- second will and to not prop- also “balance” “her ance” “cash” but erty” including stocks other in- and and “estate”, vestments.

Decree reversed. Costs on estate. Dissenting Opinion Bell: Chief Mr. Justice ably clear- Mr. Justice stated the law Jones has question ly forth the narrow set as well as facts, in- regret in the I I differ him involved. must with therefrom. ferences and conclusions which he has drawn “money” that the Justice Jones holds word residuary bequest meant third will Miss Turner’s only “money”, “stocks also and included not but signed sec- other Testatrix drew investments”. signed day her third ond and the next drew and will Although days died. and two later will, (a) agreed, testamen- had that she it was invalid, tary capacity, (b) fond all that she was very (c) legatees, was a all times testatrix that at intelligent between the difference knew woman who investments. and other cash and stocks problem wills in connection with The most difficult holographic interpretation and this of a is the believing exception. My that the reasons no parts implication, repealed, by those are inconsistent with the second, are second will *17 demonstrated that she knew Testatrix follows: as money, or on one hand, cash between difference in her on the other hand, investments, stocks and knowledge this is admitted and wills, and second first changed parties. she In her second will by the from other her and investments equal stocks division persons, because of persons the recent to two three third, death of legatees. one the three In original four as in well as cash to gave the second will she will, nephews named and in second $8,000 nieces — $8,100 pro- in the third will. In the second will she vided: “All the stocks and other investments I and possessed die or entitled to P. Turner Mary “all James W. Turner”. third will she gave her James to furnishings derived from sale of home money money my W. Turner”. then balance of gave She “the to to' (according James W. be.given Turner”, thereby Turner all her stocks majority) giving James W. Mary and other investments completely eliminating fond), P. (of. very Turner whom is she admitted majority from share in these investments. any clearly in (a) third assert this usual “money” showed she used word its she to James narrow “cash” sense, gave when i.e., “all derived from sale home furnish- money i.e., (b) its broad ings”, “money” sense, used but gave stocks and other when she investments, property, Con- money”. W. Turner “the balance my James difference the fact that this testatrix knew sidering stocks and other money between investments, meaning clearly “money” used word she “all de- James W. Turner of gift money cash in the no home I can find from sale of furnishings”, rived that she used holding “money” justification “the gave sense when she balance entirely different W. Turner”. James money revoke testatrix not failed to third will, In her signed had drawn and which she her second more sec- put she importantly, but before,, far day sealed which she envelope third wills ond and her this To me intent from will 1959”. “My marked wills, both wished intended she (1) act clear — to be last will and testa- wills, and third not intended com- (.2) ment, *18 but pletely revoke the second majority hold, as the to be only construed to revoke with it and together parts those inconsistent second will which were with the third will.

I would therefore hold both the second will con- probate will should be admitted to strued forth. as above set

Mr. Justice joins dissenting opinion. O’Brien this Gallagher, Appellant.

Smith v.

Leonard Petition.

White v. Gold.

Crumlish Petition.