Quum
Defined in 2 dictionaries — Ballentine's (1916), Abbott (1879)
Ballentine's Law Dictionary
James A. Ballentine · 1916
Dictionary of Terms and Phrases Used in American or English Jurisprudence
Benjamin Vaughan Abbott · 1879
When. This Latin adverb is sometimes spelled cum. Quum duo inter se pugnantia reperiuntur in testamento, ultimum ratum est. When two things repugnant to each other are found in a will, the last shall stand. If two clauses or dispositions found in a will are totally irreconcilable, so that they cannot possibly stand together, the clause or disposition which is the later in local position shall prevail, it being considered that the subsequent words indicate a subsequent intention. Thus if the testator, in one part of his will, give to a person an estate of inheritance in land, or an absolute interest in personalty, but in subsequent clauses shows unequivocally that he means the devisee or legatee to take a life-interest only, the prior gift is restricted accordingly. But the maxim is to be understood as wholly subservient to and restricted by that general principle in the construction of wills which requires that the intention of the testator shall, if possible, be ascertained and carried into effect. Broom Max. 252. It may be taken as clearly established that this rule must not be acted on so as to clash with another paramount rule, which is, that before all things we must look for the intention of the testator as we find it expressed or clearly implied in the general tenor of the will; and when we have found that, on evidence satisfactory in kind and degree, to that we must sacrifice the inconsistent clause or words, whether standing first or last, indifferently. And this rests upon good reason; for although, when there are repugnant dispositions, and nothing leads clearly to a preference of one or rejection of the other, convenience is strongly in favor of some rule, however arbitrary, yet the foundation of this rule is supposed to be the safest guide, under the circumstances, to the last intention of the testator. Morrall v. Sutton, 1 Ph. 533, 545. Where two provisions of a will are totally irreconcilable, so that they cannot possibly stand together, and there is nothing in the context or general scope of the will which leads to a different conclusion, the last shall be considered as indicating a subsequent intention, and prevail. Ib.