Gordon v. Whitlock
Supreme Court of Virginia
Error to a judgment of the Chancery Court of the city of jRichrnond, rendered November 7, 1895, on motion wherein the plaintiff in error was the plaintiff, and the defendants in error were the defendants. The plaintiff in error filed his bill in the Chancery Court of the city of Bichmond, and with his bill brought into court the several testamentary papers referred to in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Error to a judgment of the Chancery Court of the city of jRichrnond, rendered November 7, 1895, on motion wherein the plaintiff in error was the plaintiff, and the defendants in error were the defendants. The plaintiff in error filed his bill in the Chancery Court of the city of Bichmond, and with his bill brought into court the several testamentary papers referred to in the opinion. The plaintiff was one of the executors named in the testator’s will, and he sets forth fully his views as to the mental capacity of the testator to make the several testamentary papers, and his reasons therefor,…
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
The deceased left five testamentary papers, all of which were, at the time of his death, in the hands of one of the persons named as his executors. These papers are:
1. A will, dated April 24,1888, duly executed and attested according to law, which is a carefully and elaborately prepared paper, drawn by the testator’s counsel, clearly, and *726with great particularity, disposing of a large estate, valued at the time of his death at one million dollars.
2. A holograph will, dated October 12, 1891, which contains no revocatory or residuary clause, and disposes of only a very small part of the very…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Adams v. MarisTexas Commission of Appeals · 1919
- Blackford v. AndersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1939
- Whittle v. RoperCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1928
- Fry v. FrySupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- American National Bank v. ChapinSupreme Court of Virginia · 1921
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.