Legal Opinion

Estate of Armstrong

California Supreme Court

Decided January 29, 1937No. L. A. 14533PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.

Appeal from an order granting a new trial after a will contest in which the probate of the will was revoked. Revocation of the will of Maria Armstrong was sought upon the ground that the will had not been executed with the formalities required by section 1276 of the Civil Code as it stood at the time of the execution of the will. (Now section 50, Probate Code.) George Potter, a former employee of the Mortgage Guarantee Company, in the city of Los Angeles, testified upon the trial that the document had been brought to him by a fellow-employee who requested him to sign it at the place…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. In re BauquierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Coleman v. FarwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Casey v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  4. In Re Estate of AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Estate of PattersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Gossman v. GossmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  2. Estate of GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Estate of O'DeaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Crane v. Young Women's Christian Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. Armuress Sapp v. Rogers, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019

11 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