Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hull v. Cartin

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided July 27, 1940No. 6706Published

1ConcurrenceMorgan, J.

I concur in the dissenting opinion of Justice Budge. The portion of section 15-231 requiring the provisions of a lost or destroyed will to be “clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible witnesses,” if valid, means that the evidence establishing the provisions of the will must not be less satisfactory than would be the testimony of two credible witnesses thereto. In this case the provisions of the will were established by the production of a duplicate original, the genuineness of which has not been questioned. Documentary evidence of that character has greater weight to establish…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Manley v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  2. Smallwood v. JeterIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
  3. In re a Writ of Habeas Corpus for SharpIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Meyer v. BerlandiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
  5. Thoe v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1923

19 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