Estate of Bainbridge
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. F. W. Sawyer, James A. Devoto, and Devoto, Richardson & Devoto, for Appellant. Grant H. Smith, Lindley & Eichhoff, S. Bloom, Cullinan & Hickey, A. G. Kazebeer, T. E. K. Cormac, and Corbet & Selby, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtAt the close of the argument Bawlor, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco setting aside the verdict of the jury and granting a new trial of the contest of the will of the deceased, the verdict having been in favor of contestant, on the grounds of undue influence, fraud, and unsoundness of mind.
The will was admitted to probate, and thereafter Mary J. Mayfield, a niece of the testatrix and a legatee under the will, filed her petition for revocation of the probate thereof.
After the verdict of the jury, a motion for a new trial was interposed on behalf of the proponents, and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- People v. TapiaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- People v. KnutteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Noxon v. RemingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1905
- People v. Lum YitCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- People v. FloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
- People v. SerratoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- People v. RobargeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Dorsey v. BarbaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Campanella v. CampanellaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.