Legal Opinion

Estate of Bartolo

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 26, 1954No. Civ. 20000PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.

Appellants have appealed from an order admitting the holographic will of Louis Bartolo to probate. There is also a purported appeal from the judgment sustaining without leave to amend a demurrer to the second amended contest of respondent.

Facts: Appellants are the living brothers and sisters of decedent. Respondent is the divorced wife of decedent and the named beneficiary of an holographic will executed by decedent the 11th of January, 1946, by which he bequeathed all of his possessions to respondent, and which included this statement, “If we are divorced- or separated she still is to…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Grimm v. GrimmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Lansing v. HaynesMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Estate of CraneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Hutchinson v. HutchinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. In re the Estate of GilmourNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. PattersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1988
  2. Estate of BuchmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  3. Estate of WeberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  4. Berryessa v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  5. Wei Suen v. Yan (In Re Yan)District Court, N.D. California · 2007

3 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