In Re the Estate of Zollikofer

[197]

SHAW, J.

On January 13, 1910, upon the petition of Eustorjio Calderon a certain document purporting to be dated October 31, 1907, was admitted to probate in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco as the last will of Antonio C. Zollikofer, deceased, and letters testamentary thereon were granted to Eustorjio Calderon. On June 2, 1910, Neal Power filed in the superior court a petition for the revocation of said will and also a petition for the admission to probate of a copy of a will purporting to have been executed by Zollikofer in the Republic of Guatemala on April 23, 1905, together with a copy of an order of the third court of first instance of Guatemala purporting to be a decree probating said will. He asked that the same be admitted to probate as a foreign will under sections 1322 to 1324 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Zollikofer died on August 8, 1909, leaving property in San Francisco.

Calderon opposed both petitions of Power, a trial of the issues ensued, and on January 23, 1913, the court by separate orders denied each of said petitions. From these orders Power appeals:

The objection made to the will of October 31, 1907, is that it purports to be a holographic will and that it was not entirely in the handwriting of the testator. It was asserted that the only part of the date which was written by the hand of the testator were the words “October 31st” and “7” and that the figures “190” of the year date were printed. The objection appears to be supported by the following decisions:

Estate of Billings,

64 Cal. 427, [1 Pac. 701];

Estate of Plumel,

151 Cal. 78, [121 Am. St. Rep. 100, 90 Pac. 192] ;

Estate of Price,

14 Cal. App. 462, [112 Pac.

482]; Succession of Robertson,

49 La. Ann. 868, 62 Am. St. Rep. 672, [21 South. 586];

Estate of Noyes,

40 Mont. 190, [20 Ann. Cas. 366, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1145, 105 Pac. 1017]. But we find it unnecessary to determine whether or not the will of 1907 was subject to the objections here made. We are satisfied that the orders appealed from must be affirmed because of the fact that it was not shown that the appellant, Power, had any interest in the estate of Zollikofer.