# Johnson v. Johnson

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · October 19, 1954 · 279 P.2d 928

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546319

## Case

- **Full name:** Victor C. JOHNSON and Beulah J. Johnson, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Joseph E. JOHNSON, Defendant in Error
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** October 19, 1954
- **Citations:** 279 P.2d 928; 1954 OK 283; 1954 Okla. LEXIS 748
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Corn
- **Judges:** Johnson, Welch, Corn, Arnold, Blackbird, Halley, Williams, Davison
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546319

## Opinion text

CORN, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the per curiam opinion. In so doing I have in mind the' purpose of our law-makers in enacting statutes regulating the making of a Will. They require certain steps to be taken in the execution of a Will solely for the purpose of permitting a person to dispose of his property by Will, to take effect after his death the way he desired, and to prevent someone, through fraud or by other means, from permitting this to be done. It was the purpose of our lawmakers, in passing the Act, to make it impossible for fraud or undue influence to be practiced-in the execution of the Will, and in the" disposition of the property disposed of by the Will.
It was not the intent of our law-makers, in enacting these statutes, if substantially complied with, to ever allow a miscarriage of justice by a wrongful disposition of the testator’s property contrary to his intent. 84 O.S. 1951 § 151 provides:
“Intention of testator governs. — A will is to be construed according to the intention of the testator. * * *”
In Munger v. Elliott, 187 Okl. 19 , 100 P.2d 876, 877 , in syllabus 1, we held:
“The cardinal rule for the construction of Wills is to ascertain the intent of the testator, and give effect thereto, if such intent does not attempt to effect that which the law forbids. All rules of construction are designed for this purpose, and all rules and presumptions are subordinate to the intent of the testator where that has been ascertained.”
In the instant case, the intent expressed by the testator in the written instrument which he prepared, while of sound mind and disposing memory, is clear and beyond any question of doubt, free from fraud or undue influence of any kind. The only objection raised is that the statutes were not strictly complied with in the execution of the Will. I am of the opinion, when a person dies leaving a written instrument which he intended to be his last Will, and it is free from fraud or undue influence and in harmony with the purpose of our law-makers for enacting statutes regulating the execution of Wills, and also in accord with the laws of England and' twenty-two of our states, it would be a miscarriage of justice to not admit the Will to probate, and thereby allow the property to be disposed of contrary to the testator’s intent.
To hold otherwise would, in effect, permit a contrary disposition of testator’s property against the purpose for which the statutory provisions were aimed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546319. Public record. Not legal advice.