first and great rule in Illinois

1916“The first and great rule in the exposition of wills, to which all other rules must bend, is, that the intention of the testator expressed in his will shall prevail, provided it be consistent with the rules of law.” (Smith v. Bell, 31 U. S. 68 ; Bradsby v. Wallace, 202 Ill. 239 .)' “All rules of construction yield to the intention of the testator plainly expressed.” (Fifer v. Allen, 228 Ill. 507 .) “Where, upon the inspection of the will and consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances, an intent is apparent, all rules to the contrary must yield,, provided that intent does not offend

1908(Vestal v. Garrett, 197 Ill. 398 ; Meckel v. Johnson, 231 id. 540 .) “The first and great rule in the exposition of wills, to which all other rules must bend, is, that the intention of the testator expressed in his will shall prevail, provided it be consistent with the rules of law.’’ (Smith v. Bell, 6 Pet. 68 ; Bradsby v. Wallace, 202 Ill. 239 .) In seeking the intention of the testator as to the construction and interpretation that should be placed upon ambiguous terms or clauses in a will, the relation of the parties, the nature and situation of the subject matter, the purpose of the instru

1916“The first and great rule in the exposition of wills, to which all other rules must bend, is, that the intention of the testator expressed in his will shall prevail, provided it be consistent with the rules of law.” (Smith v. Bell, 31 U. S. 68 ; Bradsby v. Wallace, 202 Ill. 239 .)' “All rules of construction yield to the intention of the testator plainly expressed.” (Fifer v. Allen, 228 Ill. 507 .) “Where, upon the inspection of the will and consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances, an intent is apparent, all rules to the contrary must yield,, provided that intent does not offend

1908(Vestal v. Garrett, 197 Ill. 398 ; Meckel v. Johnson, 231 id. 540 .) “The first and great rule in the exposition of wills, to which all other rules must bend, is, that the intention of the testator expressed in his will shall prevail, provided it be consistent with the rules of law.’’ (Smith v. Bell, 6 Pet. 68 ; Bradsby v. Wallace, 202 Ill. 239 .) In seeking the intention of the testator as to the construction and interpretation that should be placed upon ambiguous terms or clauses in a will, the relation of the parties, the nature and situation of the subject matter, the purpose of the instru

1916(Wardner v. Baptist Memorial Boardy 232 Ill. 606 .) In finding this intention courts have laid down another rule which must always be kept in mind: that the intention of the testator must be found from the words employed by him in the will in the light of his circumstances and surroundings, such as the state of his property and his family.

1908(Smith v. Bell, 6 Pet. 68 ; Wardner v. Baptist Memorial Board, 232 Ill. 606 .) This will provides that the son shall have a life estate, with the right to control, manage, sell or exchange the property and-to re-invest the proceeds as he may think best, but he can only use of the proceeds that which is required for his reasonable expenses for living.

1918Counsel for plaintiffs in error argue at some length, with numerous citations of authorities, that the first and great rule in the interpretation of wills is to ascertain the intention of the testator, (Winter v. Dibble, 251 Ill. 200 ; Wardner v. Baptist Memorial Board, 232 id. 606; Bradsby v. Wallace, 202 id. 239;) and that the intention of the testator in this will was according to their contention.

1918(Wilson v. Wilson, 261 Ill. 174 ; Morrison v. Tyler, 266 id. 308 ; Deem v. Northern Trust Co. 266 id. 205 ; Nixon v. Nixon, 268 id. 524.) This intention is to be gathered from a consideration of the whole will and all its parts, (Black v. Jones, supra; McGinnis v. Campbell, 274 Ill. 82 ;) and the various provisions are to be so construed and harmonized, if possible, as to render no word, phrase, clause, sentence or paragraph superfluous or meaningless.

1918(Wilson v. Wilson, 261 Ill. 174 ; Morrison v. Tyler, 266 id. 308 ; Deem v. Northern Trust Co. 266 id. 205 ; Nixon v. Nixon, 268 id. 524.) This intention is to be gathered from a consideration of the whole will and all its parts, (Black v. Jones, supra; McGinnis v. Campbell, 274 Ill. 82 ;) and the various provisions are to be so construed and harmonized, if possible, as to render no word, phrase, clause, sentence or paragraph superfluous or meaningless.

1918(Wilson v. Wilson, 261 Ill. 174 ; Morrison v. Tyler, 266 id. 308 ; Deem v. Northern Trust Co. 266 id. 205 ; Nixon v. Nixon, 268 id. 524.) This intention is to be gathered from a consideration of the whole will and all its parts, (Black v. Jones, supra; McGinnis v. Campbell, 274 Ill. 82 ;) and the various provisions are to be so construed and harmonized, if possible, as to render no word, phrase, clause, sentence or paragraph superfluous or meaningless.

1918(Wilson v. Wilson, 261 Ill. 174 ; Morrison v. Tyler, 266 id. 308 ; Deem v. Northern Trust Co. 266 id. 205 ; Nixon v. Nixon, 268 id. 524.) This intention is to be gathered from a consideration of the whole will and all its parts, (Black v. Jones, supra; McGinnis v. Campbell, 274 Ill. 82 ;) and the various provisions are to be so construed and harmonized, if possible, as to render no word, phrase, clause, sentence or paragraph superfluous or meaningless.

1916“The first and great rule in the exposition of wills, to which all other rules must bend, is, that the intention of the testator expressed in his will shall prevail, provided it be consistent with the rules of law.” (Smith v. Bell, 31 U. S. 68 ; Bradsby v. Wallace, 202 Ill. 239 .)' “All rules of construction yield to the intention of the testator plainly expressed.” (Fifer v. Allen, 228 Ill. 507 .) “Where, upon the inspection of the will and consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances, an intent is apparent, all rules to the contrary must yield,, provided that intent does not offend

1916(Webber v. City of Chicago, 148 Ill. 313 .) The first and great rule in the exposition of wills, to which all other rules must bend, is that the intention of the testator as expressed in his will must prevail, provided it be consistent with the rules of law.

1916“The first and great rule in the exposition of wills, to which all other rules must bend, is, that the intention of the testator expressed in his will shall prevail, provided it be consistent with the rules of law.” (Smith v. Bell, 31 U. S. 68 ; Bradsby v. Wallace, 202 Ill. 239 .)' “All rules of construction yield to the intention of the testator plainly expressed.” (Fifer v. Allen, 228 Ill. 507 .) “Where, upon the inspection of the will and consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances, an intent is apparent, all rules to the contrary must yield,, provided that intent does not offend

1908(Vestal v. Garrett, 197 Ill. 398 ; Meckel v. Johnson, 231 id. 540 .) “The first and great rule in the exposition of wills, to which all other rules must bend, is, that the intention of the testator expressed in his will shall prevail, provided it be consistent with the rules of law.’’ (Smith v. Bell, 6 Pet. 68 ; Bradsby v. Wallace, 202 Ill. 239 .) In seeking the intention of the testator as to the construction and interpretation that should be placed upon ambiguous terms or clauses in a will, the relation of the parties, the nature and situation of the subject matter, the purpose of the instru

1908(Vestal v. Garrett, 197 Ill. 398 ; Meckel v. Johnson, 231 id. 540 .) “The first and great rule in the exposition of wills, to which all other rules must bend, is, that the intention of the testator expressed in his will shall prevail, provided it be consistent with the rules of law.’’ (Smith v. Bell, 6 Pet. 68 ; Bradsby v. Wallace, 202 Ill. 239 .) In seeking the intention of the testator as to the construction and interpretation that should be placed upon ambiguous terms or clauses in a will, the relation of the parties, the nature and situation of the subject matter, the purpose of the instru