Hull v. Cartin
Idaho Supreme Court
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
- Manley v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Smallwood v. JeterIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
- In re a Writ of Habeas Corpus for SharpIdaho Supreme Court · 1908
- Meyer v. BerlandiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Thoe v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.