Wolseley v. Murphy
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. A motion was also made to dismiss the appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The law requires that such an interpretation be given to testamentary instruments as will prevent intestacy, rather than bring it about. (Civ.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. A motion was also made to dismiss the appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The law requires that such an interpretation be given to testamentary instruments as will prevent intestacy, rather than bring it about. (Civ. Code, sec. 1326; State v. Robinson, 57 Md. 501; 2 Redfield on Wills, 3ded.,116; Houser v. Rujfner, 18 W. Va. 244, 256; Booth v. Booth, 4 Yes. 403; In re Shillaber, 74 Oal. 144; 5 Am. St Rep. 433; Estate of Wood, 36 Cal. 75; Clark v. Ransom, 50 Cal. 595; Kerr v. Dougherty, 79 N. Y. 327, 360;…
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
Anna L. Murphy, deceased, died at London, England, on March 30,1891. She was a widow at the time of her death; and her heirs at law were her three sons, Eugene K.'L. Murphy, Samuel J. Murphy, and Daniel T. Murphy, her married daughter, Anna L. Wolseley, and her three unmarried daughters, Mary Helen Murphy, Frances Josephine Murphy, and Mary Margaret Isabella Murphy, all of legal age. She left property in Alameda county, California. On June 20, 1891, Victor H. Metcalf filed a petition in the superior court of said county, in which he set, forth that said deceased left two certain written…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Coffman v. CoffmanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1888
3Cited by31 opinions
- Salmonski v. BardzinskiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Finkler v. PurcellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Thornagel v. PforrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Estate of PlautCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
- Low v. LowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.