Estate of Bristol v. Young
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSchauer, J.
The controlling question on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the trial court that “the deceased never cancelled or destroyed *223the codicil of April 28th, 1941, and said codicil was in existence at the time of his death.” The contest is purely one of presumptions and inferences. That the codicil was duly executed is established without question but, after the testator’s death, it was never found. No witness was produced who claimed (or admitted) to have seen such lost codicil after the day of its execution nor, on the other hand, to have seen the testator…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Snowball v. SnowballCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- In Re Estate of BarrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Griffiths v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- In Re Estate of JohnstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by504 opinions
- Foreman & Clark Corp. v. FallonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Neal v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Teel v. GaskillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- People v. DurhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Moran v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
499 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.