Legal Opinion

Bell v. Timmins

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided March 13, 1950PublishedCited by 17 opinions

The opinion states the case.

1Per curiam

Appellant contends that the Chancellor committed reversible error in permitting an alleged holograph will of Mary Halihan Gilroy to be probated, because some of the words in the paper writing were conceded to have been written by another.

The will, with the words not written by the testatrix on separate lines and in parentheses, is as follows:

“I Mary Halihan Gilroy of Richmond Virginia do make Publish and declare this to be my last Will and testament and do hereby revoke all other Wills by me at any time (I) (I possess in equal Shares) heretofore made i leave all / to John Gilroy in equal…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Clark v. HugoSupreme Court of Virginia · 1921
  2. De Caccia v. BarringtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Irving v. Scripps Memorial HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Triplett's v. TriplettSupreme Court of Virginia · 1934
  5. Toebbe v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1883

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. In Re the Estate of TeubertWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Poindexter v. JonesSupreme Court of Virginia · 1958
  3. Timberlake v. State-Planters Bank of Commerce & TrustsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1960
  4. Matter of Estate of KruegerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Robinson v. WardSupreme Court of Virginia · 1990

12 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