In Re Anderson

California Supreme Court Jul 29, 1916 No. S. F. No. 7877.Published

Before: At the close of the argument, Shaw, J., delivered the opinion of the court, Sloss, J., and Lawlor, J., concurring.

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the document in question did not constitute a valid will because it lacked any expression of testamentary intent to dispose of property upon the decedent's death.

Issues

Whether the provided document constitutes a valid will.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is nothing in the letter that tends in any way to show an intent by the decedent to make a disposition of her property after her death.”

There does not seem to be any merit in this appeal. The document offered as the will of decedent reads as follows:

"Aug. 8th 14.

"Mr. Swartz 228 N 6 St San Jose In having occupied your room for 5 days I want to pay you $10 Please sign your name Maybe you will think there is a something in the hereafter reading this At any rate when you and Ingersoll meet you can talk it over I had my mind made up to keep your wife out of misery and waited for the crises it has come and she is a free woman so you can for an affinity she will go to the sanitorium today and I pay the bill She will send that cable to her son today that she will come as soon as she is able to start for the hotel. I will give her the money.

"AMELI ANDERSON."

There is nothing in the letter that tends in any way to show an intent by the decedent to make a disposition of her property after her death.

The judgment is affirmed.

Hearing in Bank denied.

In Re Anderson

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief