Legal Opinion

Estate of Carpenter

California Supreme Court

Decided March 8, 1916No. Sac. No. 2371. In BankPublishedCited by 22 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Roland Beesey, H. I. Stafford, and Stafford & Stafford, for Appellant.

1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.

—E'thel Shutan offered for probate a writing purporting to be the holographic will of Samuel Carpenter, deceased. The probating of said instrument was opposed by Mary Dye and a number of other persons who, admittedly, would share in the distribution of the estate of Samuel Carpenter in the event of intestacy. There were several grounds of contest, but the court sustained the opposition to the probate of the instrument upon the sole ground that the alleged holographic will was not dated. From the judgment which followed, and from the order denying her motion for a new trial, the defendant and…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Estate of ChevallierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Lane v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. In Re Estate of PlumelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Estate of FayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. In re Estate of BillingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Estate of WunderleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Thorn v. California Academy of SciencesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Estate of BurnisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Estate of MoodyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  5. In Re Estate of VanceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916

17 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