In re the Estate of Freud
Before: McKinstry, Paterson, Temple
Synopsis
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco revoking the probate of a will.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Temple, J. — This is a contest as to the probate of a will, commenced after the will had been admitted to probate, but within one year. The contest covered all the grounds expressly defined in the code as grounds of contest. It was tried before a jury, who found for the contestant: 1. That Morris Freud, at the time of the execution of the proposed will, was not of sound and disposing mind; 2. That he was induced to sign the proposed will by means of undue influence, exercised against contestant by the proponents of the will; 3. That the proposed will was procured to be signed by means of fraud or fraudulent misrepresentations practiced upon him by proponents; and 4. That the will was signed while acting under menace used by proponents.
The trial was on September 8th. November 2d following this stipulation was filed:—
“ Stipulation respecting entry of judgment and judgment roll.
“ [Title of court and cause.^j
“ It is stipulated that the judgment or order setting aside the last will of the said deceased as to said contestant, Sophia Alexander, may be entered as of November 17,1884, and proponents’ bill of exceptions may be served within ten days thereafter, notwithstanding the said order or judgment may not have been actually entered. It is further stipulated that the judgment roll herein shall consist of the last will of deceased, the order admitting it to probate, the amended grounds of opposition of Mrs. Alexander, proponents’ answer, a copy of the verdict of the jury and judgment, and the stipulation as to form of judgment, and this stipulation.
“ Dated November 2, 1884.
“Matt. I. Sullivan,
“Attorney for Contestant.
“ COWDERY & McCuTGHEN,
“Attorneys for Proponents.
“Indorsed: Filed November 2, 1884.”
[557]Afterwards the following stipulation was filed:
“ Stipulation as to judgment.
“ [Title of court and cause.]
“ It is hereby stipulated that the proponents of the will of said Morris Freud, deceased, will take no exception on motion for new trial, on appeal or otherwise, to the form of the judgment herein in favor of contestant, Sophia Alexander, nor because the said judgment sets aside the proposed will and the probate thereof, only as to the said contestant.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)