Legal Opinion

Estate of Rolls

California Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1924No. L. A. No. 7666PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

Section 1279 of the Civil Code of this state provides: ;“A conjoint or mutual will is valid, but it may be revoked by any of the testators, in like manner with any other will.” On April 16, 1919, John Bolls and Leah Bolls, husband and wife, residents of the city of Los Angeles, pursuant to the foregoing provision of the Civil Code, executed a conjoint and mutual will. The husband, being then ill, was taken to a hospital, where he died on the next day, following, as intimated, a surgical operation, at the age of seventy-two years. He left surviving him four children, the issue of a former…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Owens v. McNallyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. McCabe v. HealyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Steinberger v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Blanc v. ConnorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Rogers v. SchlotterbackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Brown v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Notten v. MensingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Thomasset v. ThomassetCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  4. Estate of RathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Estate of HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937

46 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