Legal Opinion

In Re Raat's Estate. Frandsen v. Raat

Utah Supreme Court

Decided December 24, 1942No. 6526PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOLFE, Justice.

Eliza Eaat by the terms of her last will appointed her eldest son, Eudolph, executor. The appointment was apparently her only reason for making the will, for by its terms the distribution of the property was the same as it would have been had she died intestate. Mrs. Eaat died June 1, 1942. On June 2, 1942, Minnie Frandsen and W. Elmer Eaat, son and daughter of the deceased, filed a petition in the District Court of Weber County for admission of the will to probate. The petition alleged that Eudolph was named as executor in the will, that he consented to act, but that the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. In re BauquierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Clark v. PattersonIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Kidd v. BatesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
  4. Deeble v. AlertonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1914
  5. Langill v. StewartWashington Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Chatterton v. LukerIdaho Supreme Court · 1945
  2. In Re Howard's EstateUtah Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Howard v. CritchlowUtah Supreme Court · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API