Legal Opinion

In Re Will of Gilkey

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 28, 1962No. 23PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.

Caveator offered no evidence to support her allegations of lack of mental capacity or undue influence.

Mrs. Gilkey’s signature was not witnessed. None was necessary if the requirements for a holographic will were established. G.S. 31-3.4(b).

The Legislature which convened in Hillsboro in April 1784 declared no will should be valid unless subscribed in testator’s presence by at least two witnesses. Sec. 11, c. 204, Potter’s Laws of North Carolina (1821). That statute is now in substance G.S. 31-3.3. The Legislature next convened in New Bern on 22 October 1784. It then amended the Act passed at…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. In Re WestfeldtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  2. Winstead v. . BowmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1873
  3. In re Will of JenkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  4. Alston v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  5. Hughes v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In Re the Will of MucciSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  2. In Re the Will of WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  3. In Re Will of MucciCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
  4. In Re Will of MucciCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API