Estate of Kisling

WHITE, J.

This is an appeal from a decree denying a purported holographic will admission to probate. Appellant

[165]

Albert E. Loomis, a nephew of decedent, offered the following document for probate as her last will and testament:

“Rosslyn Hotels 111 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, California

“May 24—1943

“Mr. R. B. Bidwell Atty

“Dear Mr. Bidwell:

“I am Serious 111 my Dr. asks me to tell you to Come in and make out a new will I have not been fair to my nephew'.visit I Albert E. Loomis I wish him to have all my Personal properties, and all securities all of my Jewelry—my nephew lives in Fifield Wisconsin he now resides in Jackson Michigan doing Defense work—my Step

neice

Mrs. Harold G. Hanney known also Mrs. Florence Adair Kisling to have the two Properties in Glendora, all money in bank’s to go to my nephew Albert E. Loomis, come early as its convenient yours Resp.

Mrs. L. W. Kisling

648 Rossliny Hotel Loses Angeles California”

In reply to the foregoing, Mr. Bidwell, to whom it was addressed and who was decedent’s attorney, wrote to her under date of May 26th, suggesting certain changes in the testamentary plan outlined in the document forwarded to him by decedent under date of May 24th, and advising her that he would call upon her on June 2d and would “prepare and bring with me a new will for you to execute then.” However, decedent died May 29, 1943.

The question for decision is whether the foregoing document written by decedent and directed to her attorney is to be regarded as a testamentary disposition of her property in the manner therein set forth. With reference to the document in question, the trial court found as follows:

“That the alleged holographic will dated May 24, 1943, attached to the Second petition for probate of will filed by Albert E. Loomis was not in the handwriting of said deceased except the signature thereto and the following words: ‘648 Rosslyn Hotel, Los Angeles, California’.