Legal Opinion

Wollesen v. Carlson

California Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1925No. Docket No. S.F. 11379PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, J.

John Iburg made a will in 1921, leaving all his property to his friend, John Carlson, and appointing him his executor. Thereafter, in 1924, he made a holographic will, leaving all his property to his sister, Henrietta Wollesen. The latter instrument contained no words of revocation and did not appoint an executor. Upon Iburg’s death, shortly after making the second will, each of the documents was offered for probate as his last will and testament. Henrietta Wollesen objected to the admission to probate of the will made in 1921 upon the ground that the same had been entirely revoked by the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Bronner v. JahantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Gardner v. McNealCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1911
  3. Newcomb v. . WebsterNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  4. In Re the Estate of MarxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Gensimore's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Salmonski v. BardzinskiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Crane v. Young Women's Christian Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  3. Deacon v. Descendants of Betty SwansonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. Estate of BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  5. Estate of DanfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API