The second rule of will construction requires the court to give force and effect to every word found in the will so that all parts of a will are construed in relation to each other to form one consistent whole. Veditz v. Athey, 239 Md. 435, 448 (1965); Hutton v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Balt., 133 A. 308, 312 (Md. 1926); Chamberlain v. Owings, 30 Md. 447, 451 (1869)(stating that testator’s intention is collected from the whole instrument, by comparing and considering the different parts together); Douglas v. Blackford, 7 Md. 8, 22 (1854). See also Miller § 11 (“[A]ttention must not be confined to particular clauses or words of the will; the whole context of the will must be considered, and force and effect must be given if possible to every material word employed in it, and the whole must be so construed as to reconcile and harmonize every word and expression used by the testator, if it can be done.”).
In cases of repugnancy, where two clauses of a will are unable to stand together and still have effect, the clause in the posterior position prevails, as subsequent words are considered to denote a subsequent intention. Pattison v. Farley, 130 Md. 408, 408 (1917); Iglehart v. Kirwan, 10 Md. 559, 560 (1857). See also Miller § 54 (stating that when two clauses in a will are irreconcilable so that they cannot possibly stand together, the established rule is that the clause which is posterior prevails).
