Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wild v. Hall

Montana Supreme Court

Decided June 28, 1943No. 8341Published

1Dissent

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON:

I dissent from the result reached by the majority, and am glad that in attaining that result they do not agree upon their reasons, which are separately stated in the first and second opinions above, and that they therefore dispose of the case without changing the law. It is essential that the latter fact be made clear.

Our statute provides that holographic wills must be ‘ ‘ entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator.” As shown below, “dated” means, “bearing date,” which with regard to a will or other document the validity, and time and conditions…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Estate of ChevallierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Montana Horse Products Co. v. Great Northern Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Estate of KnoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1890
  4. Spratt v. Helena Power Transmission Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Estate of FayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

24 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