Opinion
No. 31150.
February 29, 1932. Rehearing Denied March 30, 1932.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; M.M. Boatner, Judge.
A provisional account filed by the Canal Bank Trust Company, executor of the succession of Robert Garland Irby, deceased, was opposed by Mary Wolfe and another, legatees. The oppositions of the legatees were rejected, and they appeal.
Affirmed.
Frank Soule and L.A. Morphy, both of New Orleans, for appellants.
C.C. Friedrichs and Connolly Simoneaux, all of New Orleans, for appellee Canal Bank Trust Co.
Robert Garland Irby left a last will and testament in which he instituted the following legatees in these words: "I give and bequeath to my following friends the sums set after their respective names, to-wit:
Harry B. Caplan ..................................... $5,000.00 Mary and Garland Wolfe .............................. 5,000.00 Euphemia Richard .................................... 2,000.00 Mrs. Loretta Mills .................................. 2,000.00 Philip Friou ........................................ 2,000.00 David Godchaux ...................................... 2,000.00."
Mary and Garland Wolfe were placed on the provisional account filed by the executor of decedent as joint legatees for the sum of $5,000, and they opposed the account in the lower court on the ground that each was bequeathed the sum of $5,000.00.
The oppositions of Mary and Garland Wolfe were rejected at their costs and they have appealed.
The testator gave and bequeathed to the legatees "the sums set after their respective names."
The sum of $5,000 only is set after the names of "Mary and Garland Wolfe." Clearly, the legacy is one conjointly made. Had the testator intended that these legatees should receive $5,000 a piece, he would have used the word "each" after their names, or would have fixed the amount of the legacy at $10,000.
In our opinion, the interpretation, placed by the trial judge upon the legacy made to Mary and Garland Wolfe, is correct, and their oppositions to the provisional account of the executor were properly rejected.
Judgment affirmed.