## Facts

- E. J. Halley executed a will containing two legacies: $20,000 to “Mrs. Moseley” and $20,000 to “Mrs. Moseley’s housekeeper.”
- Halley bought cigars made by R. L. Moseley through salesman F. S. Trimble, whom Halley habitually called “Moseley,” and Halley referred to Trimble’s wife, Lillian, as “Mrs. Moseley.”
- During Halley’s final illness, he stayed in an apartment associated with Mrs. Trimble; Mrs. Trimble and her housekeeper, Anna Lang, cared for him and nursed him.
- Lenoir Moseley, the actual wife of R. L. Moseley, claimed the bequest to “Mrs. Moseley,” arguing the will naturally referred to her as Mrs. Moseley by legal name.
- Lenoir Moseley admitted Halley did not know her personally.
- Mrs. Trimble claimed she was the “Mrs. Moseley” intended by Halley’s usage, and Lang claimed she was the “housekeeper” referenced in the will.

## Issues

1. Whether a bequest to “Mrs. Moseley” and “Mrs. Moseley’s housekeeper” creates a latent ambiguity permitting extrinsic evidence to identify the intended beneficiaries.
2. Whether a mistaken name or misdescription in a will defeats the gift when surrounding circumstances show whom the testator intended.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the decree awarding the “Mrs. Moseley” legacy to Lillian Trimble and the “housekeeper” legacy to Anna Lang.
- The court treated the beneficiary designations as a latent ambiguity when applied to real persons and permitted extrinsic evidence to determine identity.
- The court concluded the evidence showed Halley used “Mrs. Moseley” to refer to Mrs. Trimble and intended to reward Mrs. Trimble and Lang for their care during his last illness.
- The court characterized its approach as interpretation to identify the persons described, not reformation of the will.

## Legal Principles

- Extrinsic evidence is admissible to resolve a latent ambiguity in a will, including to identify a beneficiary when the description does not fit any person exactly or could apply to more than one person.
- A misnomer or mistaken designation of a beneficiary does not void a bequest if the testator’s intent can be determined by reading the will in light of surrounding circumstances and usage.
- Courts may use evidence of the testator’s habits of speech, nicknames, relationships, and conduct to “fit” a descriptive term to the intended person, without changing the text of the will.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the legacies by admitting extrinsic evidence to cure a beneficiary misdescription, holding that the will’s references to “Mrs. Moseley” and “Mrs. Moseley’s housekeeper” identified Mrs. Trimble and her housekeeper, Anna Lang, rather than the legal Mrs. Moseley unknown to the testator.


Moseley v. Goodman, 195 S.W. 590 (Tenn. 1917)