Garner v. Purcell
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Ball & Ball, Thomas Ball, Murphey & Poplin, and Park Henshaw, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
This is the third time that this court has been concerned with litigation connected with the estate of Mary B. Purcell, deceased. These plaintiffs, who are heirs at law of said Mary B. Purcell, attempted to have the probate of her will revoked upon the grounds of fraud, of want of testamentary capacity of the testatrix, and of lack of due execution of the said will. Nonsuit was directed, and from the judgment entered thereon the plaintiffs unsuccessfully appealed. (Estate of Purcell, 164 Cal. 300, [128…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Marti v. AndersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- In Re Estate of PurcellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Land v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- In Re the Estate of MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Kauffman v. GriesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sears v. RuleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Estate of SpencerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Calou v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942