Thorn v. California Academy of Sciences
California Supreme Court
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco admitting to probate a certain document as an olographic will and denying the application of the nominee of the surviving 'wife for letters of administration. John T. Nourse, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Morrison, Dunne & Brobeck and J. F. Shuman for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, C. J.
We have here appeals from orders admitting to probate a certain document as the olographic will of deceased and denying the application of the Mercantile Trust Company, the nominee of the surviving wife, for letters of administration.
The claim of appellants is that the document is not a valid olographic will, for the reason that it is not “entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself,” as required by section 1277 of the Civil Code. It was so dated and signed, and was otherwise in the handwriting of the deceased with the exception of certain words in the following…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- In Re Estate of PlumelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- In re Estate of SoherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- In re Estate of BillingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- In Re Estate of VanceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Estate of CarpenterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Estate of BernardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- In Re Irvine's EstateMontana Supreme Court · 1943
- Crosby v. Crockeranglo National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- Estate of Bower (1938)California Supreme Court · 1938
- Estate of BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.