Succession of Dyer
Supreme Court of Louisiana
1Opinion of the CourtO’Niell, C. J.
The question in this case is whether a' certain postscript added to an olographic will, naming two executors of the will, is valid. The postscript was neither dated nor signed. It was therefore adjudged invalid; and the two men named as executors have appealed.
The will itself is in proper form and is not contested. It begins with the statement of the place and date, “New Orleans, May 9, 1922,” and ends with the statement, “I make this my last will and testament, dated, signed and sealed by me.” The signature is on the next line below, after which, the testatrix skipped two lines, and,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Succession of RobertsonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1897
- Heffner v. HeffnerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1896
- Succession of BeirdSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1919
- Succession of ArmantSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1891
- Fuentes v. GainesSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1873
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Succession of ButterworthSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1940
- Succession of McCaySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1928
- Newsom v. BootheLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1988
- Succession of BechtelLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1958
- Succession of MutinSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1957
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.