27 Ohio C.C. Dec. 445
Decided May 24, 1915
Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1915-05-24
<p>WILLS.</p> <p>Jones, Jones and Gorman, JJ.</p> <p>Construction of Words "All the Rest, Residue and Remainder” does not Revoke Devise of Realty.</p> <p>The provision of a codicil that “all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate I desire to he converted into money by my executors,” does not by implication revoke a clear and certain devise of real estate contained in another item of the will, but refers to the real estate not covered by such item and remaining to be disposed of.</p>
Decided 1915-05-24
¶1dissenting.
¶2The second codicil disposes of all the real estate owned by testatrix. This is my understanding of the language there used.
¶3*455The devise to Mary Sadler made by item third of the will is therefore inconsistent with the codicil and is revoked by it. This construction is supported by the court of appeals of New York in Newcomb v. Webster, supra; in which the precise question before this court was determined.