Estate of Randall
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J. pro tem. *
On this appeal by the grandniece of the decedent from a decree declaring that a certain fund should go to the residuary legatee and not to the appellant, we are reversing the decree because we are convinced that the trial court erred in refusing to receive evidence, the object of which was to reveal what the testatrix meant by certain words she used in her will.
The facts essential to the plot are neither many nor complicated. The executor of the will filed a petition under section 1080 of the Probate Code praying that the court determine “those who are entitled to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Arnold's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Estate of KlewerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Schuster v. SchusterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Estate of FriesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Estate of MohrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Estate of HamptonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Estate of JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Wells Fargo Bank v. ClarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Lockhart v. Foundation for the Junior BlindCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970