Moon v. Estate of Evans
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Iowa County. The case is stated in the opinion. That shows that the testatrix, by tbe instructions first given for drawing her will, intended to give a portion to the appellant; that she was dissatisfied with it as drawn and intended to change it and give him the largest share; and that she supposed the will was broken by her afterward conveying away a portion of the land.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Iowa County. The case is stated in the opinion. That shows that the testatrix, by tbe instructions first given for drawing her will, intended to give a portion to the appellant; that she was dissatisfied with it as drawn and intended to change it and give him the largest share; and that she supposed the will was broken by her afterward conveying away a portion of the land. The omission of any provision for the appellant was therefore the result of accident or mistake as defined by 1 Story, Eq. Juris, secs. 78, 99, 109, 110. The evidence also shows that the…
1Opinion of the CourtObtoN, J.
The petition of the appellant m the county court was made under sec. 2287, R. S., which reads as follows, to wit: “ When any testator shall omit to provide in his will for any of his children, or for the issue of any deceased child, and it shall appear that such omission was not intentional, but was made by mistake or accident, such child, or the issue of such child, shall have the same share in the estate of the testator as if he had died intestate, to be assigned as provided in the preceding section ” — which is, *669that “it shall be assigned to him as provided by law in case of intestate…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Brown v. BrownNebraska Supreme Court · 1904
- Whitby v. MotzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Lowery v. HawkerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- Chellquist v. EustanceMontana Supreme Court · 1914
- Becker v. KurthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1942
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.