In Re Estate of Hurley (1918) · DecisionDepot

In Re Estate of Hurley

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

California Supreme Court Aug 8, 1918 No. S. F. No. 8706. Department One.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A holographic document is not a valid will if the only signature appears in the opening clause and there is no evidence on the face of the document that the testatrix intended that signature to serve as an executing signature.

Issues

Whether a holographic document containing a name only in the opening clause constitutes a validly signed will.
Whether the testatrix intended the name in the exordium to serve as an executing signature.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the absence of anything on the face of the will to raise the inference that the name in the exordium was intended as a signature in execution, the holographic document cannot be deemed a valid will.”

“the fact that it was intended as an executing signature must satisfactorily appear on the face of the document itself.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco refusing to revoke a previous order admitting to probate a certain document as the last will of a deceased person. Thomas F. Graham, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

David L. Levy, Walter Shelton, and George K. Ford, for Appellants.

Ervin S. Best, and Louis H. Brownstone, for Respondents.

SHAW, J.

The appeal is taken from an order refusing to revoke a previous order admitting to probate a certain document as the last will of Margaret E. Hurley, deceased.

The petition for revocation alleged as grounds therefor that the will so. admitted was not signed by the hand of the deceased nor subscribed at the end thereof by the deceased, and is not her last will. The following is a copy of the document as set forth in the record:

“San Francisco June 6th 1902

“I Margaret E. Hurley being of sound mind and body do make this my last will and testament I be-queath to Lavinia Giesting one thousand dollars to Irma Giesting one thousand dollars to Gertrude Giesting one thousand dollars to Mrs. Nash and her sister Mrs. Hanig five hundred dollars each to Miss Nelly White five hundred dollars to Edgar Gillern of Alameda five hundred dollars to Mrs. Blanchard of 1366 Ellis St five hundred dollars to Mrs. Titcomb five

[714]

hundred dollars to Mrs. Skelly of Alameda five hundred dollars to Lilian and Bertha Morris five hundred each"

The rule in this state regarding the place of the signature and the essentials thereof to a holographic will is settled by the two decisions in

Estate of Manchester,

174 Cal. 417, [Ann. Cas. 1918B, 227, L. R. A. 1917D, 629, 163 Pac. 358], and

Estate of McMahon,

174 Cal. 423, [L. R. A. 1917D, 778, 163 Pac. 669]. The first case was decided by Department One and the second by Department Two, but the entire question was carefully considered by the whole court in deciding the two cases. In

Estate of Manchester

the document proposed as a will began in a manner similar to that of the document here in question and' it terminated without any signature other than the one at the beginning. There was nothing on the face of the will to indicate that the testatrix intended to adopt the signature in the introduction as the signature to the will. It was held that the will was not signed and did not constitute a will. In

In Re Estate of Hurley

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief