Hull v. Cartin
Idaho Supreme Court
1Dissent
BUDGE, J.,
Dissenting. — The majority opinion is founded upon the theory that the requirements of section 15-231, I. C. A., were not satisfied by competent proof. Section 15-231, supra, provides in part:
“No will shall be proved as a lost or destroyed will unless .... its provisions are clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses.”
To my mind the view taken by the majority of the court invokes technicalities that defeat justice and deprive the testatrix of the sacred right to dispose of her property according to her desire. The majority opinion holds in effect that the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Funk v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Wright v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- American Surety Co. of New York v. BlakeIdaho Supreme Court · 1933
- McClellan v. OwensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- International Harvester Co. of America v. ElfstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.