In Re Yowell's Estate
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
This appeal involves the validity of what by our statute is called an "olographic will," and the validity of two so-called codicils. The contestants claim that neither the will nor either of the codicils is in the handwriting of the purported testator, but that all are forgeries. They further claim that, though it be found that the will and the codicils were written by the purported testator, nevertheless the will is invalid because the whole of it is not in the handwriting of the alleged testator, and hence was not executed in compliance with the statute requiring such a will to be entirely…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- In Re Estate of PlumelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- In Re the Estate of ManchesterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Estate of BernardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Thorn v. California Academy of SciencesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- In Re the Estate of McMahonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- In Re Love's EstateUtah Supreme Court · 1930
- In Re Estate of JonesCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1957
- In Re Will of WallaceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
- In Re Will of FerreeNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2003
- Jones v. MyersTennessee Supreme Court · 1941
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.