Legal Opinion

Frayssinous v. Brugnoli

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 17, 1951No. Civ. 14866PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBray, J.

This appeal is from a “Decree Determining Heirship and Interests In Estate” which held that respondents' were pretermitted heirs of the testatrix.

Questions Presented

1. Is parol evidence admissible to determine which of two deceased daughters testatrix intended to designate by the words “my daughter”? 2. Does section 90 of the Probate Code or section 92 apply where the daughter of testatrix was deceased at the time of both the making of the will and the death of the testatrix, but left three children surviving the testatrix , and where the will provides a bequest of $1.00 “to my daughter,…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of DonnellanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  2. In Re Estate of TrickettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Estate of RossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Estate of ToddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Estate of PriceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Torregano v. TorreganoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Moore v. Trinity Methodist ChurchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Estate of MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  4. In Re the Estate of RayNevada Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Estate of CochranCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

11 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