
    S. G. Hayes et al v. B. F. Rupey.
    Wills — Patent Ambiguity — Extraneous Evidence not Admissible.
    Though extraneous evidence would lead to a different construction of a will, the ambignity being patent, that evidence is in admissible.
    APPEAL FROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT.
    February 26, 1869.
    
      Durham & Jacobs, Dunlap, for appellant.
    
    
      Hill & Alcorn, for appellee.
    
   Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

While the testamentary description of the advancement of money by the testator to his son Samuel O. Hayes, is vexatiously ambiguous as to the amount, we are inclined to concur with the circuit court in its interpretation; and, though the extraneous evidence would lead to a different construction, yet, the ambiguity being patent, that evidence was inadmissable, and cannot be judicially considered.

Wherefore the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.  