## Facts

- A testator executed two testamentary instruments at different times.
- The first will made a specific devise of the testator’s real property to the beneficiaries who later became the appellants.
- The testator later executed a second will that disposed of “all my effects.”
- The second will did not contain an express clause revoking prior wills.
- The beneficiaries under the first will contended that the phrase “all my effects,” as used in the second will, referred to personal property only, so the two instruments could operate together as one testamentary plan.
- The beneficiaries under the second will contended that “all my effects” included both personal and real property, making the second will inconsistent with the earlier real-property devise and therefore a revocation by implication.
- The trial court accepted the second-will beneficiaries’ view and ruled, as a matter of law, that the second will revoked the first.
- The beneficiaries under the first will appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

## Issues

1. Whether a later will that gives “all my effects,” without an express revocation clause, impliedly revokes an earlier will that specifically devises real property.
2. Whether the two instruments were so inconsistent that revocation by implication could be declared as a matter of law rather than construing the instruments to stand together if reasonably possible.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed.
- The court held the second will did not, on these facts, impliedly revoke the first will.
- The court reasoned that “effects” is not a fixed term that necessarily includes real property in every will, and nothing in the second will clearly required reading it as a complete disposition of all property.
- Because the instruments could be read consistently rather than as irreconcilable, the trial court erred in treating the first will as revoked as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- A subsequent will does not revoke a prior will merely because it was executed later; revocation requires either an express revocation clause or a necessary implication from provisions that cannot stand together.
- Revocation by implication is disfavored and is found only where the later instrument is plainly inconsistent with the earlier one such that both cannot operate.
- General terms like “effects” may be read as referring to personal property only, depending on context and the language of the instrument; such terms do not automatically carry real property.
- Courts should, when reasonably possible, construe multiple testamentary instruments of the same testator together so each is given effect and the overall testamentary plan is carried out.

## Conclusion

In *In re Wolfe’s Will*, the North Carolina Supreme Court held that a later will’s general gift of “all my effects,” without an express revocation clause and without clear language requiring a total disposition that displaced a prior land devise, did not revoke the earlier will by implication; because the instruments could be read together without direct conflict, the trial court’s ruling that the first will was revoked as a matter of law was reversed.


In re Wolfe's Will, 185 N.C. 563, 117 S.E. 804 (1923)