In Re Estate of Silvany

TEMPLE, J.

Stephen Silvany died January 10, 1898, and on the 28th of January, 1898, the superior court of Los Angeles county admitted to probate what purported to be his last will, being dated January 8, 1898. It was probated upon the petition of Francisco Quijada. The petitioner and his illegitimate

[227]

son, Jesus Quijada, were the sole beneficiaries under the will, and one L. 0. Mores was named therein as the executor.

Within one year thereafter, but precisely when doe's not appear, certain parties inaugurated a contest in the superior court by filing a petition alleging that the decedent left a will dated March 6, 1891, in which certain of the petitioners were named as executors. In that will all the property of the testator, except five hundred dollars, was left to Francis Mora in trust for the erection and maintenance at Los Angeles of a Catholic female orphan asylum. In that petition the probate of the other will was averred, but it was charged that it was, in fact, never published or executed by Silvany, but was fraudulently concocted in pursuance and furtherance of a scheme to defraud the estate of Silvany out of all the property owned by Silvany. It was also charged that at the time of the alleged making and publishing of said will of 1898 the testator was of unsound mind and subject to undue influence from said Francisco Quijada.

An answer was interposed to the petition and a contest had. The due execution of the will of 1891 was not really disputed. As to the will of 1898 several special issues were submitted to the jury, to only one of which response was made. That was as follows: “Did the deceased, Stephen Silvany, subscribe the contested will himself? A. Ho.”

Upon this verdict the court made an order setting aside the probate of the will of 1898, and revoked the letters issued to Flores, and admitted to probate the will of 1891.

The appellant makes here but the single point that the evidence does not justify the verdict. The proposition is urged with great force and earnestness, and we have carefully read and considered the evidence in connection with the argument. We cannot say that there was not sufficient evidence to justify the verdict.