Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

28 Ga. 262

Doyal v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 15, 1859

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1859-03-15

<p>1. Parol testimony cannot be received to add to or vary a will; but it is admissible to explain an equivocal clause.</p> <p>2. A limitation of an estate by a testator to his wife, during her natural life or widowhood, is good.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1974

8 state decisions

201859186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

¶2delivering the opinion.

¶31. Ought the testimony of Elizabeth Boynton to have-been received to show what disposition the testator intended to make of t.he west half of the laud after the death or marriage of his widow' ?

¶4The will leaves it wholly undevised ; and to allow this evidence would be to add another' dispository clause, to-the will, which the testator himself has not seen fit to-make. True, we may conjecture that he had an indistinct idea in- his mind, that the minor children would use and occupy this land, not only during the lifetime of their mother, but until the youngest became of age; and yet he gives the land to his wife for this purpose during her widowhood only. As to the other clause terminating this estate, being a restraint on marriage, we think there is nothing in it. This is no condition imposed by way of penalty, but the ordinary alternative limitation of an estate upon the natural life or widowhood of the devisee. These limitations are of daily occurrence in wills; and yet nobody ever thought of construing them as penalties, held in terrorem over the widow to.prevent her from marrying again.

¶5Does the testimony of John A. Smith, whieli was offered to prove that the bequest of Eloyd was intended to be a gift of the boy to the widow, stand upon the same footing as that of Mrs. Boynton ?

¶6The clause of the will, as to Eloyd, may be read two ways; either as an absolute gift to the wife, to take effect immediately, or as a disposition similar to that made of Solomon. The meaning of the will as to this negro, is in the language of the books, equivocal. The testimony *265is clear and conclusive; and .yet, when admitted, does not add to or vary the will. • Eor, to make it do that, you have to assume, as in the case of the land, that the will means a certain thing and nothing else. But we say that this is not true as to Floyd. After the outside proof as to him, comes in, the will is not altered, but executed as it is written ; and Mr. Powell, and other law authorities, justify this course.

¶7Judgment reversed.

/28/ga/262 · .json · Public domain