Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendanttrialverdictwill

trialwill

Related Cases

Patch v. White, 117 U.S. 210, 6 S.Ct. 617, 29 L.Ed. 860

Facts

James Walker died in 1832, leaving a will that mistakenly bequeathed lot No. 6 in square 403 to his brother Henry Walker, despite the fact that James did not own that lot but did own lot No. 3 in square 406. The will included provisions for other family members, but Henry was left with only a residuary bequest of personal property unless the misdescription could be corrected. The trial court ruled that the parol evidence presented was insufficient to amend the will's description, leading to a verdict for the defendant.

The testator at the time of making his will, and at his death, had living a wife, Ann Sophia, an infant son, James, a mother, Dorcas Walker, three brothers, John, Lewis, and Henry, (the latter being only eleven years old,) and three sisters, Margaret Peck, Louisa Ballard, and Sarah McCallion, and no other near relations, and all of these are provided for in his will if the change of description of the lot given to Henry is admissible.

Issue

Whether the parol evidence offered was sufficient to control the description of the lot in the will so as to apply it to lot No. 3 in square 406 instead of the incorrectly described lot No. 6 in square 403.

The question in the cause is whether the parol evidence offered, and by the court provisionally received, was sufficient to control the description of the lot so as to make the will apply to lot No. 3, in square 406.

Rule

The court applied the principle that a latent ambiguity in a will can be clarified by extrinsic evidence, allowing for the correction of misdescriptions when the intent of the testator can be clearly established.

It is settled doctrine that as a latent ambiguity is only disclosed by extrinsic evidence, it may be removed by extrinsic evidence.

Analysis

The court analyzed the will and the surrounding circumstances, concluding that the testator intended to devise a lot he owned, which had improvements on it. The evidence showed that the testator did not own lot No. 6 in square 403, but did own lot No. 3 in square 406, which matched the description of the lot intended to be devised. The court found that the misdescription was a clear error that could be corrected by the parol evidence presented.

It seems to us that this evidence, taken in connection with the whole tenor of the will, amounts to demonstration as to which lot was in the testator's mind.

Conclusion

The court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, determining that the evidence supported the claim that lot No. 3 in square 406 was the intended lot.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to award a new trial.

Who won?

John Patch prevailed in the case as the court found that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the intended lot was lot No. 3 in square 406, despite the misdescription in the will.

The court found that the evidence supported the claim that lot No. 3 in square 406 was the intended lot.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Evans v. McCoy, 291 Md. 562, 436 A.2d 436

Capaldi v. Richards, Not Reported in A.2d, 2006 WL 3742603

Holmes v. York, 203 N.C. 709, 166 S.E. 889

In re Will of Bruce, 161 A.D.3d 712, 79 N.Y.S.3d 10, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 03921

Gallaher v. Riddle, 850 A.2d 748, 2004 PA Super 175