Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Horton v. Cronley

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided December 22, 1953No. 35010Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWilliams, Justice

In the case of Tucker v. Zachary, Okl.Sup., 269 P.2d 773, this court considered along with the other facts and circumstances that Mr. and Mrs. Smith had attempted the execution of a joint will in favor of their foster daughters as some evidence of contract between themselves to make such a will.

Paragraph 3 of. the, syllabus of the majority opinion herein I believe to be patently distinguishable from1 the same numbered paragraph of the court’s syllabus in Paull v. Earlywine, 195 Okl. 486, 189 P.2d 556.

Except as hereinafter indicated, I am obliged to concur in the opinion of the majority.

However…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Paull v. EarlywineSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1945
  2. Tucker v. ZacharySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1954
  3. Beamer v. AshbySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API