Legal Opinion

Estate of McKenna

California Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 1903No. S.F. No. 3099PublishedCited by 10 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, C.

Contest of will of deceased, after probate. The alleged will was olographic, and a portion of it, including the clause appointing the proponent executrix, follows the signature.

The grounds of contest set up in the petition of the contestants were in effect: That the alleged will “was not signed at the end thereof or at all by” the deceased; that it “was neither written, dated, nor signed by [her] hand”; that it “was not, and is not, the last will and testament, ... or a, or any, will or testament,” of said deceased; that at the time of the execution, of the alleged will the deceased…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Estate of BentonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Morris v. De CelisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  3. Baker v. BorelloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. De Gaze v. LynchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. City of Los Angeles v. ColeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Estate of GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Estate of McKennaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. In Re Estate of NelsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923

5 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