Estate of Crozier
Synopsis
Will—Revocation of Probate.—An Averment, in a Petition for revocation of the probate of a will, “that at the time of signing said supposed will by him the said James Crozier was not of sound and disposing mind,” but, on the contrary, said deceased was at said time of unsound mind, is a sufficient averment of the fact that testator was of unsound mind.
By the COURT. The demurrer to the petition for revocation of the probate of the will was properly overruled. The petitioner alleges that one of the grounds on which she asks for such revocation is “that at the time of signing said supposed will by him the said James Crozier was not of sound and disposing mind, but, on the contrary, said deceased was at said time of unsound mind.” If this is not an averment that he was of unsound mind, we do not know what would be.
Decree affirmed.
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)