And in determining his intent in this case, we are restricted to the four corners of the will itself. Rice v. McMullen, 207 Miss. 706, 731, 43 So.2d 195, 202 (1949); Lanham v. Howell, 210 Miss. 383, 386, 49 So.2d 701, 702, cert. denied, Lanham v. Howell, 342 U.S. 834, 72 S.Ct. 57, 96 L.Ed. 631 (1951). The first paragraph of the document headed "Last Will and Testament of H. Howard Dedeaux" reads as follows:

(5 Bowe-Parker, Page on Wills, § 40.5 (1962)). In the above excerpt from Page on Wills, the writer cited Lanham v. Howell, 210 Miss. 383, 49 So.2d 701 (1951) [Cert. denied 342 U.S. 834, 72 S.Ct. 57, 96 L.Ed. 631 (1951)] for the proposition that precatory language will be presumed to be used in its ordinary sense, and not to impose a trust upon the devisee.

In construing the will of W. Meddie King, deceased, this Court will look to the four corners of the will and from the language used therein, and from that alone, determine the intent of the testator W. Meddie King, and make it effective in the disposition of his property. Patterson v. Patterson, 150 Miss. 179, 116 So. 734; Benton v. Friar, 171 Miss. 361, 157 So. 356; Cross v. O'Cavanaugh, 198 Miss. 137, 21 So.2d 473; Yeates v. Box, 198 Miss. 602, 22 So.2d 411; Brumfield v. Englesing, 202 Miss. 62, 30 So.2d 514; Rice v. McMullen, 207 Miss. 706, 43 So.2d 195; Lanham v. Howell, 210 Miss. 383, 40 So.2d 701; Shackelford v. Dobbs, 216 Miss. 75, 61 So.2d 669; Ball v. Phelan, 94 Miss. 293, 49 So. 956. II. Courts, in construing a will, do not favor the creation of life tenancies.

RIVES, Circuit Judge. This appeal is from a summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the matter is res judicata having been finally determined by the Supreme Court of Mississippi in Lanham v. Howell, 210 Miss. 383, 49 So.2d 701. The complaint claims federal jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship, alleging but not specifying fraud and seeking to invoke the equity powers of the federal court to annul the will of J.D. Lanham, deceased, hoping thereby to vest the entire estate in his heirs at law. Two of the persons who would be heirs at law of J.D. Lanham, deceased, if he had died intestate, are residents of Mississippi; and if they were made parties, the court would be deprived of jurisdiction.

2 Restatement of the Law, Trusts 2d 215, Section 351, Comment (a); 4 Scott, supra, 2574, Section 351. See e.g., Lanham v. Howell (1951), 210 Miss. 383, 49 So.2d 701. The question is also the same where the recipient of the property is a charitable corporation. 4 Scott, supra, 2558, Section 348.1. See, e.g., Zabel v. Stewart (1941), 153 Kan. 272, 109 P.2d 177.

A provision of the Will must, if possible, be construed so as to give effect to testator's intention. Lanham v. Howell, 210 Miss. 383, 49 So.2d 701 (1951) cert. denied 342 U.S. 834, 72 S.Ct. 57, 96 L.Ed. 631. A Will must be construed and the testator's intention ascertained from the usual and ordinary language expressed therein. The words of a Will are to be construed according to the rules of construction applicable to ordinary speech, except when technical terms are employed. Dealy v. Keatts, 157 Miss. 412, 128 So. 268 (1930); Harvey v. Johnson, 111 Miss. 566, 71 So. 824 (1916); Phelps v. Harris, 101 U.S. 370, 25 L.Ed. 855 (1879). Courts may not amend or reform a Will, neither may courts add to or take from a Will or make a new Will for the parties.

One is that the prime inquiry is the intention of the testatrix and when this has been ascertained all minor, subordinate and technical rules of construction must yield to this paramount intent. In re Raworth's Estate, 211 Miss. 780, 52 So.2d 661; Lanham v. Howell, 210 Miss. 383, 49 So.2d 701, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 834, 72 S.Ct. 57, 96 L.Ed. 631; Rice v. McMullen, 207 Miss. 706, 43 So.2d 195; Yeates v. Box, 198 Miss. 602, 22 So.2d 411. The other rule is that in the absence of a clear intention to the contrary, that construction should be adopted which will result in a just and reasonable disposition of the property. In re Raworth's Estate, supra.

2 Restatement of the Law, Trusts (2d), 215, Section 351, Comment (a); 4 Scott, supra, 2574, Section 351. See, e.g., Lanham v. Howell (1951), 210 Miss. 383, 49 So.2d 701. The question is also the same where the recipient of the property is a charitable corporation. 4 Scott, supra, 2558, Section 348.1. See, e.g., Zabel v. Stewart (1941), 153 Kan. 272, 109 P.2d 177.

Maurice R. Black, Carrollton, for appellee. I. Cited and discussed the following authorities: Ball v. Phelan, 94 Miss. 295, 49 So. 956; Boyd v. Fanelli, 199 Va. 357; Cannon v. Barry, 59 Miss. 289; Christs Home v. Mattson, 55 A.2d 14; Davidson v. Davidson, 2 Ill.2d 197, 117 N.E.2d 841; Ewing v. Ewing, 198 Miss. 304, 22 So.2d 225; Frierson v. Moorhead, 211 Miss. 811, 51 So.2d 925; Halsey v. Gee, 79 Miss. 193, 30 So. 604; Hays v. Cole, 221 Miss. 459, 73 So.2d 258; Hopson's Trustees v. Hopson, 138 S.W.2d 365; In Re Drelel's Estate (Pa.), 197 Pa. D. C.2d 735; In Re Raworth's Estate, 211 Miss. 780, 52 So.2d 661; In Re The Will and Estate of Kelly Vail, 228 Miss. 151, 87 So.2d 68; Lanham v. Howell, 210 Miss. 283, 49 So.2d 701; Marty v. First National Bank of Baltimore, 120 A.2d 841; McClelland v. Bank of Clarksdale, 238 Miss. 557, 119 So.2d 262; Mulvane v. Rude, 146 Ind. 876, 45 N.E. 659; Park v. Powledge, 198 Ala. 172, 73 So. 483; Pitts. v. Campbell, 173 Ala. 604, 53 So. 500; Ralls v. Johnson (Ala.), 75 So. 927; Sewell v. Byars (Ala.), 122 So.2d 398; Wells v. Brown, 255 Fed. 852; Wheeler v. Williams, 235 Miss. 142, 108 So.2d 578; Sec. 833, Code 1942; 19 Am. Jur., Estates, Secs. 26, 120; 33 Am. Jur., Life Estates, 544; Anno. 30 A.L.R. 2d 139. ETHRIDGE, J.

In construing a will the intention of the testator controls unless invalid under the law. Boxley v. Jackson, 191 Miss. 134, 2 So.2d 160; Carter v. Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co., 231 Miss. 8, 94 So.2d 624; Cross v. O'Cavanagh, 198 Miss. 137, 21 So.2d 473; Kyle v. Wood, 227 Miss. 717, 86 So.2d 881; Lanham v. Howell, 210 Miss. 383, 49 So.2d 701; Martin v. Eslick, 229 Miss. 234, 90 So.2d 635; Slaughter v. Gaines, 220 Miss. 755, 71 So.2d 760; Yeates v. Box, 198 Miss. 602, 22 So.2d 411; 33 Am. Jur., Sec. 88 p. 544; 57 Am. Jur., Sec. 1239 p. 820. Johnson White, Lexington; Bridgforth Love, Yazoo City; Satterfield, Shell, Williams Buford, Watkins Eager, Jackson, for appellees.