Testator left the residue of his estate in trust for the benefit of his son, payments to be made in the trustee's discretion. No express provision was made for the disposition of the corpus of the trust in case of the son's death. The contestant, who was one of the testator's heirs, claimed the testator never would have executed such a will had his lawyer informed him that the contestant might be excluded from the remainder interest on the son's death under the rule laid down in Clyde v. Lake. Held: The will stands. There was no showing that the testator would have done otherwise. Furthermore, even· if the attorney had drawn the will in conflict with the instructions he received from his client, the will would nevertheless be valid if the testator knew and approved its contents. It is immaterial that he mistook the legal effect of the language used or that he acted upon the mistaken advice of counsel. Leonard v. Stanton, (N.H. 1944), 36 A(2d) 271.
Robert M. Barton,
WILLS-TESTATOR'S MISTAKE AS TO LEGAL EFFECT,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol43/iss1/11