Legal Opinion

Schroeder v. Happ

California Supreme Court

Decided January 14, 1909No. L.A. No. 2266PublishedCited by 20 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

Christina Benner died, leaving a will which was admitted to probate. The first clause of the will, over which the present controversy arises, is as follows: “I do hereby name my sisters and brothers as my heirs to my property, consisting of house and lot No. 154 W. Jefferson St., to be equally divided among them share and share alike after all my expenses are paid.” Attached to the will by mucilage or like substance was a writing signed by Christina Benner to the following effect: “In foregoing ‘will’ I have made certain dispositions concerning properties located at No. 154 W. Jefferson St. I…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Ametrano v. . DownsNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  2. Brown v. ThorndikeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1834

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Estate of MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  2. Estate of SloanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Estate of MeyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  4. Estate of SorensenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. Estate of McLaughlinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

15 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