Estate of Clisby (1904) · DecisionDepot

Estate of Clisby

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Nov 19, 1904 No. S.F. No. 3929.Published

Before: Smith

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a holographic will is valid even if written in parts on different days, and that a date appearing at the beginning of a document intended as a will constitutes a sufficient date for the entire instrument.

Issues

Whether a holographic will is invalid if the date written on the document refers to the date the property list was created rather than the date of the will's completion.
Whether a holographic will is invalid if the concluding paragraph was written on a day subsequent to the commencement of the document.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Nor do we doubt the right of the testator to adopt as the date of his will the date previously written by him.”

“Nor is the case affected by the fact alleged, that the concluding part of the will was not written on the day the will was commenced.”

“It is a very common thing for men to commence a letter or other document on one day and to finish it on the next or some subequent day”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion.

SMITH, C.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to revoke the probate of a will. The appellant is Mrs. Anne

[408]

Clisby, the mother of deceased and contestant of the will ; the respondents, Mrs. Ethel Clisby, widow of deceased and sole beneficiary under the will, and Hulme, administrator with the will annexed. The will is holographic, and is in the words and figures following:—

“Property of S. W. Clisby, October 1, 1902.

Deposit Union Trust Company........

“ Cal. Safe Dep. Co............... r‘"flQi60’

J. K. Meyers Acct. Truck & Team........"000,00

J. D. Gove Note........................'-SQOiOO

Louis Volmer Acct. Buggy..............-. "*""40j00

C. H. Lehmers, Acct. I. 0. U. tag..........'•'"00.00

Con Roman, Acct. I. O. U. tag........... 00.00

L. A. Blasingame.......................'"""44.40

James Lawrence Acct. Note (?)........ .."tt20.00

$23,852.63

Merchants’ Exchange .................. 500.00

Buggy ................................300.00

Cash in Business ...................... r.......

“At my death all the above property and any other property that may be found to belong to me is to go to my wife and to her alone, and I omit intentionally all other members of my family.

S. W. Clisby.”

The only facts alleged in the appellant’s petition as grounds for revoking the probate are in effect that one of the numbers appearing in the document was altered, all of the numbers then erased, and the last paragraph written, on a day subsequent to the writing of the first part of the will; but all of this, it is alleged, was done by Clisby himself. A demurrer to the petition was interposed, and sustained, without leave to amend; and thereupon the judgment or order appealed from was entered.

Estate of Clisby

AI Brief

Synopsis

SMITH, C.

C. H. Lehmers, Acct. I. 0. U. tag..........'•'"00.00

L. A. Blasingame.......................'"""44.40

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief