Hyperlawhypertext legal database Bradhurst v. Field 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 748

← Cases

Bradhurst v. Field

45 N.Y. St. Rep. 748 Court N.Y. Gen. Term Decision date 1892-03-31 English

Contents

Majority

p. 748
Laura F. Bradhurst, App’lt, v. Augusta C. Field, Resp’t
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed March 31, 1892.)

Headnote

Will—Evidence.
Where the intention of a testator is plainly evinced in language free from ambiguity, evidence is not admissible to show that his intention was different from that plainly expressed in the will itself.
Appeal from judgment entered on decision of the court at special term.
J. F. Kernochan, for app’lt; G. B. O'Connor, for ex’rs, resp’ts; JD. P. Hays, for resp’t Field; 0. A. Jackson, for respts M. E. Jackson et al.

The construction of the will of Thomas 0. Bradhurst was before this court on an appeal from judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, and the decision of that appeal we think disposes of the question presented to us. 36 St. Rep., 214 . Mr. Justice Daniels, in delivering the opinion of the court after a review of the authorities, says: “ But neither of these authorities nor the principle which they maintain will authorize the court to proceed any further than to discover and follow the testator’s intention. Here that has been plainly evinced in language which is free from.ambiguity, and it was that the plaintiff should receive from the trustees the sum of $10,000, and no more; and that was the conclusion indicated when the case was upon another occasion before this court, the decision of which is contained in 10 N. Y. Sup., 452 ; 32 St. Rep., 430 .”

As the intention of the testator is plainly evinced in language which is free from ambiguity, the court below would not have been justified in receiving any evidence to show that his intention was different from that plainly expressed in the instrument itself. There was, therefore, no error in refusing to receive the testimony offered by the plaintiff, and the court below was clearly right in the determination at which it arrived.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs to the executor and to the guardian.

Yan Brunt, P. J., O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ., concur.