Reed v. Hamilton

ASHBURN, J., pro tem.

*

There is no merit in this appeal. It is an effort to induce an appellate court to reweigh sub

[734]

stantially conflicting evidence, a thing which every California lawyer knows or should know we cannot do. “The appellate court’s function begin and ends with a determination as to whether or not there is any substantial evidence which will support the findings of the trier of fact.”

(Guardianship of Kentera,

41 Cal.2d 639, 645 [262 P.2d 317].)

Coralie M. Reed died leaving no will except a holographic document reading as follows: “April 21, 1951 To Whom It Mat Concern: This is to certify that it is my desire that in case of my inability to function—or in case of my demise, I hereby turn the keys of this house 3101 Manitou Ave. over to Mrs. Marge Hamilton. She has knowledge and understanding of my desires and wishes and will take charge. ’ ’ Respondent Loren B. Reed filed a petition for partial distribution to him as son and sole heir of decedent; also a petition “to construe will and to determine heirship.” The latter petition prayed for a determination that respondent is sole heir of decedent and that Marjorie Hamilton (who had been appointed executrix) has no interest in the estate except her fees as executrix. Both petitions were contested by her upon the grounds that petitioner is not the son of decedent and she, the contestant, is entitled to distribution of the entire estate under the will. The trial judge found petitioner to be the son and only heir of decedent and entitled as such to all of the estate after payment of debts and expenses of administration; that the will disposed of no property or interest therein; and partial distribution to petitioner was ordered as prayed. Marjorie Hamilton appeals.

Appellant’s brief says: “The sole issue presented to the trial court was whether or not the petitioner and respondent was the same person known in prior years to be the son of the decedent, Coralie M. Reed, and therefore her sole surviving heir.” Respondent’s counsel agrees with this. Then appellant’s counsel discloses the entire absence of merit in his appeal by saying: ‘ ‘ The respondent produced seven witnesses who testified that the petitioner was the son of said decedent and the person referred to in said will. The appellant produced eight witnesses who testified that the petitioner was not the son of said decedent. ’ ’