Ohanneson v. Lambrinidou

I dissent.

I concur in the opinion of the court that resort may always be had to extrinsic evidence to explain the actual intention *102with which an apparently testamentary instrument was executed and that the trial court properly admitted such evidence. In my opinion, however, that evidence, unequivocal, uncontradicted, and unimpeached, clearly demonstrates that Mrs. Sargavak did not intend by the letter of September 29, 1946, to direct the testamentary disposition of her property and the letter should not have been admitted to probate.

It is held that since the letter furnishes rational support…