Sherman v. Sherman
Before: Fleet, Garoutte, Harrison
Synopsis
APPEAL from a judgment of tbe Superior Court of tbe County of Santa Clara. John Reynolds, Judge.
Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.
The nomination of tbe brother as administrator, without bonds, shows a testamentary intent. (2 Redfield on Wills, 59; Williams on Executions, 7th ed., 267-390; Scbouler on Wills, sec. 297; In re Hickman, 101 Cal. 613.) No particular words are necessary to show a testamentary intent, and the giving of her brother full control of her estate shows a testamentary intention of the deceased sister. {Mitchell ■v. Donohoe, 100 Cal. 202; 38 Am. St. Rep. 279; In re Stratton, 112 Cal. 517.) Construction should be in favor of testamentary intention. (Civ. Code, secs. 1325, 1326; Rhoton v. Blevin, 99 Cal. 648.)
That the paper in question shows no testamentary intention is sustained by the decisions. {In re Richardson, 94 Cal. 63; Succession of Elliott, 27 La. Ann. 40; Wootton v. Redd, 12 Gratt. 196; Hatcher v. Hatcher, 80 Va. 169; Smith v. Bell, 6 Pet. 68; McBride v. McBride, 26 Gratt. 476; Sutherland v. Sydnor, 84 Va. 880.)
GAROUTTE, J. Appellant filed a petition asking that a certain document, olographic in character, be probated as the last will and testament of Euthanasia S. Meade, deceased. A copy of the purported document accompanied the petition. Upon demurrer it was held that the document was not a will, and upon this appeal the only question presented is, Was the paper testamentary in character?
The document under consideration was in the form of a letter addressed to an undertaker residing in the city of San Jose, and dated some sixteen months prior to the death of the writer. This letter is as follows:
“San Jose, June 30, 1894.
“Mr. Woodrow, Undertaker.
“Realizing the uncertainty of this life, and the surety of coming dissolution, and wishing the cremation of this my mortal body, and also having a most absolute abhorrence of being put in the ground to decay and rot, I hereby ask and empower you to take my body to the nearest crematory and there have the same reduced to ashes at the least possible expense, with no ostentation whatever. Money thrown away in useless parade of the dead, in my opinion, might better be spent caring for the living and making them comfortable and happy.
“In disposing of me use no unkindly care, neither make long or expensive delays. I do not propose entering into detail; use some judgment, and, above all, be simple, practical, expedient.
“The only person I care to have apprised of my death is my brother, Porter Sherman, of Kansas City, Kansas, associated [430]with the Wyandotte First National Bank. A message sent there will reach him, and perhaps he may he in Leipsic, Germany, where of late years he and his family have spent much time.
“I intend at no distant day to write this in. substance and send to your address; but in case of accident or sudden demise this may answer any purpose arising from such calamity.
“No, I have no fear of the hereafter. Oh, my Lord, teach me to live right, then in dying there is no sting.
“My estate must pay all needful expenses accruing, but nothing for show or ostentation.
“My brother, Porter Sherman, will take charge of my estate, and be the sole administrator, without bonds, to trade, sell, or occupy, as may seem to him fit.
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)