The  question  at  this  point  is  not  whether  the  will  refers  to
particular  sums  of  money  that  have  been  segregated  and  so  set
apart  as  to  be  capable  of  precise  identification,  but  is:  What
was  the  intention  of  the  testatrix?  Had  she  formed  the  desire
and  intention  of  disposing  of  three  sums  of  $5,000  each  to  cer-
tain of  her  relatives  repeatedly  named  in  a  particular  way  ?  Had
these  separate  sums  assumed  in  her  mind  the  form  of  specific
items  of  property,  and  if  so,  is  it  not  the  duty  of  the  court,  in
the  construction  of  her  will  and  the  several  codicils  thereto,  to
so  treat  these  bequests?

The  words  **said  sum  of  $5,000"  can  be  understood  only  as
referring  to  a  prior  bequest  of  a  like  sum,  which  she  had  forgot-
ten or  overlooked.  Corroboration  is  given  to  this  thought  by  the
fact  that,  in  the  opening  paragraph  of  the  fourth  codicil,  she


.  Oct.,  1921  Plantz  v.  Kreutzer  &  Wasem.  333

erroneously  refers  to  it  as  **this  second  codicil/'  and  again  in
Paragraph  14  of  the  fifth  codicil,  she  makes  the  same  error.  That
testatrix  in  fact  referred  to  the  second  paragraph  of  the  fourth
codicil,  and  not  to  the  second  codicil,  is  conclusively  established
by  the  fact  that  she  also  designated  it  by  the  correct  date  of  the
fourth  codicil.  Each  bequest  in  the  several  codicils  follows  a  re-
vocation of  a  prior  bequest  of  a  like  sum.
