In Re Estate of Keithley
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. R. Clark, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.
— The appeal in this case is from the judgment, entered on the fifth day of March, 1900, admitting the will to probate, in favor of proponent, and also from the order denying contestant’s motion for a new trial. The appeal from the judgment not having been taken within time, that branch of the appeal cannot be considered.
Many alleged errors are assigned in the motion for a new trial, but in the argument of appellant’s counsel on the appeal denying said motion, stress is laid principally upon three mat- . ters alleged as error. These are, — 1. That the special verdict has no validity, from the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Carpenter v. BaileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- People v. McCarthyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- People v. ArrighiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- People v. SchmittCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by12 opinions
- Ornales v. WiggerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Ritchey v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Crane v. Young Women's Christian Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Mathias v. EichelbergerWashington Supreme Court · 1935
- In Re Cummings' EstateMontana Supreme Court · 1932
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.