Legal Opinion

Linstead v. Stoddard

California Supreme Court

Decided September 3, 1935No. Sac. 4868PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.

The following portion of the opinion of the District Court of Appeal rendered in this action we approve and adopt as a part of our opinion:

“This is an appeal from a judgment rendered pursuant to the special findings of a jury setting aside a previous order admitting an holographic will to probate, on the ground that the alleged will is a forgery.
“George Golden, whose real name was George Linstead, died in Mendocino County February 29, 1932, possessed of real and personal property valued at about $25,000. His wife diéd long prior to the execution of the holographic will which is here involved.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. People v. MacDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Loeb v. KimmerleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Davis v. TannerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. In re the Estate of Sanborn v. PeytonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Visaxis v. VisaxisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. People v. MeltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Johnston v. LongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Jones v. BayleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Etzel v. RosenbloomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. Miller v. Western Pacific RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962

17 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