## Facts

- Abigail Irish executed a will two days before her death in December 1850.
- Her only child, Robin Gifford, had been absent and unheard from for about ten years, and she believed he was dead.
- The will made small pecuniary bequests to Gifford’s children (Irish’s grandchildren).
- The will made no gift to Gifford and left the residuary estate to Irish’s Dyer relatives: one-half to John Dyer (also named executor) and one-half to Jesse and Alexander Dyer.
- After Irish died and the will was admitted to probate, Gifford reappeared alive and contested the will, asserting it was made under a mistaken belief that he was dead.

## Issues

1. Whether a testatrix’s mistaken belief, not stated in the will, that her heir is dead can void the will or revoke it when the heir is later shown to be alive.
2. Whether extrinsic evidence may be used to prove such a mistake to defeat an otherwise properly executed will.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the probate decree admitting the will.
- The court held that a mistake not appearing on the face of the will does not revoke or invalidate it.
- The court refused to consider extrinsic evidence (“outside the will”) to establish a revoking mistake.
- The court found no basis to treat the will as contingent on Gifford’s death and no recognized ground of revocation triggered by his reappearance.

## Legal Principles

- A will is not revoked or voided by a testator’s mistake of fact proved only by extrinsic evidence.
- To give legal effect to mistake in this context, the mistake must appear in the will itself, and the will must also disclose what disposition would have been made absent the mistake.
- Courts will not infer an implied conditional revocation from extrinsic evidence when the instrument contains no contingency language.
- The omission of a natural heir may be treated as intentional disinheritance when the testamentary plan supports that reading (including gifts to the heir’s children instead).

## Conclusion

The court upheld the will because the alleged mistake about the heir’s death did not appear in the instrument, and the will contained no textual condition tying its operation to the heir’s death; extrinsic proof of mistake could not be used to revoke or invalidate the testamentary disposition.


Gifford v. Dyer, 2 R.I. 99 (R.I. 1852)