Legal Opinion

Graffin v. Hulett

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 1959PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.

It was established that the propounded codicil was signed in Illinois and that Plulett was a resident of Wisconsin. Sec. 238.07, Wis. Stats., provides: “A last will and testament executed without this state in the mode prescribed by the law either of the place where executed or of the testator’s domicile shall be deemed to be legally executed and shall be of the same force and effect as if executed in the mode prescribed by the laws of this state; provided, said last will and testament is in writing and subscribed by the testator; . . .” It follows that the propounded codicil was sufficiently…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Will on DardisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Will of MeurerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
  3. In Re Estate of ElkertonIllinois Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Strahota v. StrahotaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Futterlieb v. WightWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Estate of Hegarty Ex Rel. Hegarty v. BeauchaineCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2001
  2. Ashford v. Division of Hearings & AppealsCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1993
  3. Estate of Hegarty Ex Rel. Hegarty v. BeauchaineCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2001
  4. Lutheran Children's Friend Society v. HaugkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API