Martin v. Keller
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.
This is an appeal from an order and decree construing the meaning of the dispositive provision of an holographic will.
The deceased, employed for many years as a stationary engineer, was a man with little formal education. He was 64 years old at the time of his death. In his will, dated August 4, 1941, he declared that he was not married and that he had no brothers or sisters, and he appointed Luella Martin “as Executor. ’ ’ The provision of the will which is here in question reads as follows;
‘1 Fourth: I give, devise and bequeath all my property, real and personal, wherever situated, to be…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Estate of BournCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Hunsinger v. LandgrenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- In Re the Estate of TompkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Estate of VanderhurstCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Estate of MorrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Nelson v. First Northwestern Trust Co. of South DakotaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1978
- Estate of Jones v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Schuster v. SchusterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Deacon v. Descendants of Betty SwansonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Estate of PlumerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.