Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

MacFarlane v. Farwell

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 21, 1936No. Civ. 10221PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRAY, J., pro tem.

The will of Lillie J. Miller, deceased, was admitted to probate. Thereafter James C. MacFarlane, William M. MacFarlane and Mary Manson, respondents herein, filed their petitions to revoke the probate of said will upon the grounds:, First, that, the said Lillie J. Miller was not of sound mind at the time of the execution of said will, and secondly, that it was obtained by the undue influence of William Farwell and Miss Blanche Carpenter. After answer filed the respondents demanded a trial by jury. The trial commenced before a jury and on the second day of the trial appellant…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Snowball v. SnowballCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Jenkins v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Estate of GravesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Galbraith v. PaniniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  5. In Re Estate of NuttCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Teel v. GaskillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Estate of DupontCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  3. Estate of TrefrenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  4. Burgess v. BohleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  5. Taylor v. Union Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API