Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 California opinions name it 4 courts 1858–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Pitcairngreen2 sentences1962In Estate of Pitcairn, 6 Cal.2d 730, 732 [2] [ 59 P.2d 90 ], in which one witness could go no further than to state that she was asked to sign “a piece of paper,” not having been in the room at the time testatrix signed, our Supreme Court again reviews the same problem and reaffirms the presumption of due execution in affirming admission of the will to probate, quoting, at page 733, with approval the reasoning of the Missouri Supreme Court in the following words, “In other words, by subscribing the will the attesting witnesses impliedly vouch for its due execution as fully or as broadly as the 1962In Estate of Pitcairn, 6 Cal.2d 730, 732 [2] [ 59 P.2d 90 ], in which one witness could go no further than to state that she was asked to sign “a piece of paper,” not having been in the room at the time testatrix signed, our Supreme Court again reviews the same problem and reaffirms the presumption of due execution in affirming admission of the will to probate, quoting, at page 733, with approval the reasoning of the Missouri Supreme Court in the following words, “In other words, by subscribing the will the attesting witnesses impliedly vouch for its due execution as fully or as broadly as the | 2 | 3 |
McFadyen v. Rosegreen2 sentences1949There was not, it is true, the conventional attestation clause, but such clause was not necessary (Estate of Tyler, 121 Cal. 405 [ 53 P. 928 ]; Estate of Pitcairn, 6 Cal.2d 730 [ 59 P.2d 90 ]). 1949There was not, it is true, the conventional attestation clause, but such clause was not necessary (Estate of Tyler, 121 Cal. 405 [ 53 P. 928 ]; Estate of Pitcairn, 6 Cal.2d 730 [ 59 P.2d 90 ]). | 1 | 3 |
Gray v. Security-First National Bankgreen2 sentences1962(Estate of Gray, 75 Cal.App.2d 386, 391-392 [3] [ 171 P.2d 113 ]; Estate of Braue, 45 Cal.App.2d 502, 505 [1a] [ 114 P.2d 386 ]; Estate of Gray, 89 Cal.App.2d 478, 485 [5] [ 201 P.2d 392 ] ; and Estate of Gill, 111 Cal.App.2d 486, 488 [3] [ 244 P.2d 724 ].) The authorities cited by appellants state no contrary rule. 1962(Estate of Gray, 75 Cal.App.2d 386, 391-392 [3] [ 171 P.2d 113 ]; Estate of Braue, 45 Cal.App.2d 502, 505 [1a] [ 114 P.2d 386 ]; Estate of Gray, 89 Cal.App.2d 478, 485 [5] [ 201 P.2d 392 ] ; and Estate of Gill, 111 Cal.App.2d 486, 488 [3] [ 244 P.2d 724 ].) The authorities cited by appellants state no contrary rule. | 1 | 2 |
Golde v. Wilburngreen2 sentences2014(Estate of Ben-Ali (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1026,1036 (Ben-Ali).) “The question of due execution of a will is one of fact, and the probate court’s finding will not be reversed on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to sustain it.” (Ben-Ali, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 1033 .) The testimony of the husband is somewhat ambiguous as to whether he could not recall any of the circumstances, or could in fact recall that he did not actually see William sign the will; however, he acknowledged that he would not have signed the attestation clause if its contents were not true. 2014(Estate of Ben-Ali (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1026,1036 (Ben-Ali).) “The question of due execution of a will is one of fact, and the probate court’s finding will not be reversed on appeal if there is any substantial evidence to sustain it.” (Ben-Ali, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 1033 .) The testimony of the husband is somewhat ambiguous as to whether he could not recall any of the circumstances, or could in fact recall that he did not actually see William sign the will; however, he acknowledged that he would not have signed the attestation clause if its contents were not true. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Junggreen2 sentences2006Moreover, nothing in the legislative history of the enactment, reenactment, or amendment of section 6110 refers to this comment or contains any similar language regarding postdeath attestation. [8] Other states have concluded witnesses may sign a will after the testator's death so long as the signing occurs within a reasonable time after witnessing the testator's signature or acknowledgement of the signature or of the will. ( Matter of Estate of Peters (1987) 107 N.J. 263 , 526 A.2d 1005, 1013 ; see In re Estate of Jung (App.2005) 210 Ariz. 202 , 109 P.3d 97, 102 .) [9] This point distinguishe 2006Moreover, nothing in the legislative history of the enactment, reenactment, or amendment of section 6110 refers to this comment or contains any similar language regarding postdeath attestation. [8] Other states have concluded witnesses may sign a will after the testator's death so long as the signing occurs within a reasonable time after witnessing the testator's signature or acknowledgement of the signature or of the will. ( Matter of Estate of Peters (1987) 107 N.J. 263 , 526 A.2d 1005, 1013 ; see In re Estate of Jung (App.2005) 210 Ariz. 202 , 109 P.3d 97, 102 .) [9] This point distinguishe | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. Gourleygreen2 sentences2003(Baker v. Gourley (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172-1173 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 451 ]; Davenport v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 133 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ].) The question presented here is whether Eglin’s failure to sign the attestation of test reliability portion of the DS 367 form renders the presumption inapplicable. 2003(Baker v. Gourley (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172-1173 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 451 ]; Davenport v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 133 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ].) The question presented here is whether Eglin’s failure to sign the attestation of test reliability portion of the DS 367 form renders the presumption inapplicable. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Brauegreen2 sentences1962(Estate of Gray, 75 Cal.App.2d 386, 391-392 [3] [ 171 P.2d 113 ]; Estate of Braue, 45 Cal.App.2d 502, 505 [1a] [ 114 P.2d 386 ]; Estate of Gray, 89 Cal.App.2d 478, 485 [5] [ 201 P.2d 392 ] ; and Estate of Gill, 111 Cal.App.2d 486, 488 [3] [ 244 P.2d 724 ].) The authorities cited by appellants state no contrary rule. 1962(Estate of Gray, 75 Cal.App.2d 386, 391-392 [3] [ 171 P.2d 113 ]; Estate of Braue, 45 Cal.App.2d 502, 505 [1a] [ 114 P.2d 386 ]; Estate of Gray, 89 Cal.App.2d 478, 485 [5] [ 201 P.2d 392 ] ; and Estate of Gill, 111 Cal.App.2d 486, 488 [3] [ 244 P.2d 724 ].) The authorities cited by appellants state no contrary rule. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Graygreen2 sentences1962(Estate of Gray, 75 Cal.App.2d 386, 391-392 [3] [ 171 P.2d 113 ]; Estate of Braue, 45 Cal.App.2d 502, 505 [1a] [ 114 P.2d 386 ]; Estate of Gray, 89 Cal.App.2d 478, 485 [5] [ 201 P.2d 392 ] ; and Estate of Gill, 111 Cal.App.2d 486, 488 [3] [ 244 P.2d 724 ].) The authorities cited by appellants state no contrary rule. 1962(Estate of Gray, 75 Cal.App.2d 386, 391-392 [3] [ 171 P.2d 113 ]; Estate of Braue, 45 Cal.App.2d 502, 505 [1a] [ 114 P.2d 386 ]; Estate of Gray, 89 Cal.App.2d 478, 485 [5] [ 201 P.2d 392 ] ; and Estate of Gill, 111 Cal.App.2d 486, 488 [3] [ 244 P.2d 724 ].) The authorities cited by appellants state no contrary rule. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Gillgreen2 sentences1962(Estate of Gray, 75 Cal.App.2d 386, 391-392 [3] [ 171 P.2d 113 ]; Estate of Braue, 45 Cal.App.2d 502, 505 [1a] [ 114 P.2d 386 ]; Estate of Gray, 89 Cal.App.2d 478, 485 [5] [ 201 P.2d 392 ] ; and Estate of Gill, 111 Cal.App.2d 486, 488 [3] [ 244 P.2d 724 ].) The authorities cited by appellants state no contrary rule. 1962(Estate of Gray, 75 Cal.App.2d 386, 391-392 [3] [ 171 P.2d 113 ]; Estate of Braue, 45 Cal.App.2d 502, 505 [1a] [ 114 P.2d 386 ]; Estate of Gray, 89 Cal.App.2d 478, 485 [5] [ 201 P.2d 392 ] ; and Estate of Gill, 111 Cal.App.2d 486, 488 [3] [ 244 P.2d 724 ].) The authorities cited by appellants state no contrary rule. | 1 | 1 |
Thomsen v. Hansengreen2 sentences1958(Estate of Hansen, 38 Cal.App.2d 99, 115, 116 [ 100 P.2d 776 ].) Appellants invoke the presumption which is accorded the attestation clause. 1958(Estate of Hansen, 38 Cal.App.2d 99, 115, 116 [ 100 P.2d 776 ].) Appellants invoke the presumption which is accorded the attestation clause. | 1 | 1 |
Morey v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1956(Estate of Morey, 75 Cal.App.2d 628, 634 [ 171 P.2d 131 ].) And the forgetfulness of one of the attesting witnesses could not destroy the other proof. (26 Cal.Jur., § 125, p. 791.) To disprove the execution of the will contestant relied wholly upon circumstantial evidence. 1956(Estate of Morey, 75 Cal.App.2d 628, 634 [ 171 P.2d 131 ].) And the forgetfulness of one of the attesting witnesses could not destroy the other proof. (26 Cal.Jur., § 125, p. 791.) To disprove the execution of the will contestant relied wholly upon circumstantial evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Wallacegreen2 sentences1954In our opinion, a substantial compliance with this statute sufficiently appears in this case to support the judgment and order appealed from.” In the instant ease the will was entirely in the handwriting of the deceased and Ms signature appears in two places, to wit, at the beginning of the will, which was held to be a sufficient signing in Estate of Wallace, 100 Cal.App.2d 237, 239 [ 223 P.2d 284 ], and again in the attestation clause which recites that the instrument bears the signature of the testator. 1954In our opinion, a substantial compliance with this statute sufficiently appears in this case to support the judgment and order appealed from.” In the instant ease the will was entirely in the handwriting of the deceased and Ms signature appears in two places, to wit, at the beginning of the will, which was held to be a sufficient signing in Estate of Wallace, 100 Cal.App.2d 237, 239 [ 223 P.2d 284 ], and again in the attestation clause which recites that the instrument bears the signature of the testator. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Stonegreen2 sentences1948(Estate of Stone, 59 Cal.App.2d 263, 268 [ 138 P.2d 710 ]; Estate of Pitcairn, 6 Cal.2d 730, 733-4 [ 59 P.2d 90 ]; Estate of Tyler, 121 Cal. 405, 409 [ 53 P. 928 ]; Estate of Kent, 161 Cal. 142, 147 [ 118 P. 523 ].) In the Pitcairn case one of the witnesses testified she was not in the room when the testatrix signed the will and that she was asked to sign a “piece of paper” without being told it was a will. 1948(Estate of Stone, 59 Cal.App.2d 263, 268 [ 138 P.2d 710 ]; Estate of Pitcairn, 6 Cal.2d 730, 733-4 [ 59 P.2d 90 ]; Estate of Tyler, 121 Cal. 405, 409 [ 53 P. 928 ]; Estate of Kent, 161 Cal. 142, 147 [ 118 P. 523 ].) In the Pitcairn case one of the witnesses testified she was not in the room when the testatrix signed the will and that she was asked to sign a “piece of paper” without being told it was a will. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Kentgreen2 sentences1948(Estate of Stone, 59 Cal.App.2d 263, 268 [ 138 P.2d 710 ]; Estate of Pitcairn, 6 Cal.2d 730, 733-4 [ 59 P.2d 90 ]; Estate of Tyler, 121 Cal. 405, 409 [ 53 P. 928 ]; Estate of Kent, 161 Cal. 142, 147 [ 118 P. 523 ].) In the Pitcairn case one of the witnesses testified she was not in the room when the testatrix signed the will and that she was asked to sign a “piece of paper” without being told it was a will. 1948(Estate of Stone, 59 Cal.App.2d 263, 268 [ 138 P.2d 710 ]; Estate of Pitcairn, 6 Cal.2d 730, 733-4 [ 59 P.2d 90 ]; Estate of Tyler, 121 Cal. 405, 409 [ 53 P. 928 ]; Estate of Kent, 161 Cal. 142, 147 [ 118 P. 523 ].) In the Pitcairn case one of the witnesses testified she was not in the room when the testatrix signed the will and that she was asked to sign a “piece of paper” without being told it was a will. | 1 | 1 |
| Webb v. Dyegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Estate of Hewitt
green
2 sentences1965The pieces containing this clause and the three signatures were missing, but the attesting signature and the attestation clause with the signatures of the witnesses on the last page had been carefully preserved and attached in the proper place and folded in with the rest of the instrument." Estate of Hewitt, supra, 63 Cal.App. 440, 443 .) [fn. *] *. 3 Pa. 281 [53 Am.Dec. 597]. 1965The pieces containing this clause and the three signatures were missing, but the attesting signature and the attestation clause with the signatures of the witnesses on the last page had been carefully preserved and attached in the proper place and folded in with the rest of the instrument.” Estate of Hewitt, supra, 63 Cal. App. 440, 443 .) 3 Pa. 281 [53 Am.Dee. 597]. | 2 | 1965–1965 |
In Re Estate of Cullberg
green
2 sentences1948In Estate of Cullberg, 169 Cal. 365 [ 146 P. 888 ], the will, including the attestation clause, was read in the presence of the witnesses and the testatrix, who remained silent. 1948In Estate of Cullberg, 169 Cal. 365 [ 146 P. 888 ], the will, including the attestation clause, was read in the presence of the witnesses and the testatrix, who remained silent. | 2 | 1919–1948 |
In re the Probate of the Alleged Last Will & Testament of Noon
neutral
2 sentences1947Misc. 484 [ 192 A. 428 ]; In re Noon’s Will, 31 Misc. 420 [65 N.Y.S. *705 568]; In re Eyett’s Will, 124 Misc. 523 [ 209 N.Y.S. 251 ].) In each of "these cases it was held that the signature of the testator, which appeared in the attestation clause, was a sufficient compliance with the requirement for subscription at the end of the will. 1910Held that, since the attestation clause is no part of the will, the signature of-the testator was subscribed at the end of the will and that it was entitled to probate: In re Noon’s Will, 31 Misc. 420 , 65 N. Y. | 2 | 1910–1947 |
Albright v. North
green
2 sentences1947She relies on Sears v. Sears, 77 Ohio St. 104 [ 82 N.E. 1067 , 11 Ann.Cas. 1008], an Ohio case, In re Churchill’s Estate, 260 Pa. 94 [ 103 A. 533 ], a Pennsylvania case, and Estate of Seaman, 146 Cal. 455 [ 80 P. 700 , 106 Am.St.Rep. 53 , 2 Ann.Cas. 726]. 1947She relies on Sears v. Sears, 77 Ohio St. 104 [ 82 N.E. 1067 , 11 Ann.Cas. 1008], an Ohio case, In re Churchill’s Estate, 260 Pa. 94 [ 103 A. 533 ], a Pennsylvania case, and Estate of Seaman, 146 Cal. 455 [ 80 P. 700 , 106 Am.St.Rep. 53 , 2 Ann.Cas. 726]. | 2 | 1920–1947 |
Matter of Estate of Peters
green
2 sentences2006Moreover, nothing in the legislative history of the enactment, reenactment, or amendment of section 6110 refers to this comment or contains any similar language regarding postdeath attestation. [8] Other states have concluded witnesses may sign a will after the testator's death so long as the signing occurs within a reasonable time after witnessing the testator's signature or acknowledgement of the signature or of the will. ( Matter of Estate of Peters (1987) 107 N.J. 263 , 526 A.2d 1005, 1013 ; see In re Estate of Jung (App.2005) 210 Ariz. 202 , 109 P.3d 97, 102 .) [9] This point distinguishe 2006Moreover, nothing in the legislative history of the enactment, reenactment, or amendment of section 6110 refers to this comment or contains any similar language regarding postdeath attestation. [8] Other states have concluded witnesses may sign a will after the testator's death so long as the signing occurs within a reasonable time after witnessing the testator's signature or acknowledgement of the signature or of the will. ( Matter of Estate of Peters (1987) 107 N.J. 263 , 526 A.2d 1005, 1013 ; see In re Estate of Jung (App.2005) 210 Ariz. 202 , 109 P.3d 97, 102 .) [9] This point distinguishe | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Davenport v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2003(Baker v. Gourley (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172-1173 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 451 ]; Davenport v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 133 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ].) The question presented here is whether Eglin’s failure to sign the attestation of test reliability portion of the DS 367 form renders the presumption inapplicable. 2003(Baker v. Gourley (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1172-1173 [ 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 451 ]; Davenport v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 133 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 818 ].) The question presented here is whether Eglin’s failure to sign the attestation of test reliability portion of the DS 367 form renders the presumption inapplicable. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Sherbourne v. Noll
green
2 sentences1955In Estate of Johnson, 152 Cal. 778 [ 93 P. 1015 ], the Supreme Court of this state, in affirming an order admitting a will to probate, noted that after the testator’s signature and above that of the subscribing witnesses was written “the usual attestation clause.” (See also Estate of Cullberg, supra.) In Estate of Gray , page 388 (supra), the signature of testatrix was at the foot of page 7 of the will, the attestation clause and signatures of the subscribing witnesses were at the top of page 8. 1955In Estate of Johnson, 152 Cal. 778 [ 93 P. 1015 ], the Supreme Court of this state, in affirming an order admitting a will to probate, noted that after the testator’s signature and above that of the subscribing witnesses was written “the usual attestation clause.” (See also Estate of Cullberg, supra.) In Estate of Gray , page 388 (supra), the signature of testatrix was at the foot of page 7 of the will, the attestation clause and signatures of the subscribing witnesses were at the top of page 8. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Tonneson v. Tonneson
green
2 sentences1954Code), the authenticating signature of the testator is not required to be at the end, but may be found elsewhere in the body of the testamentary document.” In Estate of Tonneson, 81 Cal.App.2d 703 [ 185 P.2d 78 ], appellant’s main contention was that the end of the will involved was above the attestation clause and that the decedent’s signature appearing in that clause was a part thereof and not a subscription to the instrument which preceded that clause, and that section 50 of the Probate Code was not *724 complied with. 1954Code), the authenticating signature of the testator is not required to be at the end, but may be found elsewhere in the body of the testamentary document.” In Estate of Tonneson, 81 Cal.App.2d 703 [ 185 P.2d 78 ], appellant’s main contention was that the end of the will involved was above the attestation clause and that the decedent’s signature appearing in that clause was a part thereof and not a subscription to the instrument which preceded that clause, and that section 50 of the Probate Code was not *724 complied with. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
In Re Weber
neutral
2 sentences1949Anzalone and Morroni. *840 In re Weber, 15 Cal.App. 224 [ 114 P. 597 ], is directly in point and is illustrative of the rule. 1949Anzalone and Morroni. *840 In re Weber, 15 Cal.App. 224 [ 114 P. 597 ], is directly in point and is illustrative of the rule. | 1 | 1949–1949 |
In re the Probate of the Alleged Will of Drake
neutral
1 sentence1947Misc. 484 [ 192 A. 428 ]; In re Noon’s Will, 31 Misc. 420 [65 N.Y.S. *705 568]; In re Eyett’s Will, 124 Misc. 523 [ 209 N.Y.S. 251 ].) In each of "these cases it was held that the signature of the testator, which appeared in the attestation clause, was a sufficient compliance with the requirement for subscription at the end of the will. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
McCue v. Turner
green
2 sentences1947Also, in Younger v. Duffie, 94 N.Y. 535 [ 46 Am.Rep. 156 ], McCue v. Turner, 252 Ky. 849 [ 68 S.W.2d 415 ], and In re Young’s Will, 153 Wis. 337 [ 141 N.W. 226 ], it was held to be a sufficient compliance with this requirement where the signature of the testator followed instead of preceded the attestation clause. 1947Also, in Younger v. Duffie, 94 N.Y. 535 [ 46 Am.Rep. 156 ], McCue v. Turner, 252 Ky. 849 [ 68 S.W.2d 415 ], and In re Young’s Will, 153 Wis. 337 [ 141 N.W. 226 ], it was held to be a sufficient compliance with this requirement where the signature of the testator followed instead of preceded the attestation clause. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Younger v. . Duffie
green
2 sentences1947Also, in Younger v. Duffie, 94 N.Y. 535 [ 46 Am.Rep. 156 ], McCue v. Turner, 252 Ky. 849 [ 68 S.W.2d 415 ], and In re Young’s Will, 153 Wis. 337 [ 141 N.W. 226 ], it was held to be a sufficient compliance with this requirement where the signature of the testator followed instead of preceded the attestation clause. 1947Also, in Younger v. Duffie, 94 N.Y. 535 [ 46 Am.Rep. 156 ], McCue v. Turner, 252 Ky. 849 [ 68 S.W.2d 415 ], and In re Young’s Will, 153 Wis. 337 [ 141 N.W. 226 ], it was held to be a sufficient compliance with this requirement where the signature of the testator followed instead of preceded the attestation clause. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Eyett
green
2 sentences1947Misc. 484 [ 192 A. 428 ]; In re Noon’s Will, 31 Misc. 420 [65 N.Y.S. *705 568]; In re Eyett’s Will, 124 Misc. 523 [ 209 N.Y.S. 251 ].) In each of "these cases it was held that the signature of the testator, which appeared in the attestation clause, was a sufficient compliance with the requirement for subscription at the end of the will. 1947Misc. 484 [ 192 A. 428 ]; In re Noon’s Will, 31 Misc. 420 [65 N.Y.S. *705 568]; In re Eyett’s Will, 124 Misc. 523 [ 209 N.Y.S. 251 ].) In each of "these cases it was held that the signature of the testator, which appeared in the attestation clause, was a sufficient compliance with the requirement for subscription at the end of the will. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Churchill's Estate
green
1 sentence1947She relies on Sears v. Sears, 77 Ohio St. 104 [ 82 N.E. 1067 , 11 Ann.Cas. 1008], an Ohio case, In re Churchill’s Estate, 260 Pa. 94 [ 103 A. 533 ], a Pennsylvania case, and Estate of Seaman, 146 Cal. 455 [ 80 P. 700 , 106 Am.St.Rep. 53 , 2 Ann.Cas. 726]. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Hatfield v. Semans
green
1 sentence1947She relies on Sears v. Sears, 77 Ohio St. 104 [ 82 N.E. 1067 , 11 Ann.Cas. 1008], an Ohio case, In re Churchill’s Estate, 260 Pa. 94 [ 103 A. 533 ], a Pennsylvania case, and Estate of Seaman, 146 Cal. 455 [ 80 P. 700 , 106 Am.St.Rep. 53 , 2 Ann.Cas. 726]. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Will of Gale v. Freeman
neutral
2 sentences1947Also, in Younger v. Duffie, 94 N.Y. 535 [ 46 Am.Rep. 156 ], McCue v. Turner, 252 Ky. 849 [ 68 S.W.2d 415 ], and In re Young’s Will, 153 Wis. 337 [ 141 N.W. 226 ], it was held to be a sufficient compliance with this requirement where the signature of the testator followed instead of preceded the attestation clause. 1947Also, in Younger v. Duffie, 94 N.Y. 535 [ 46 Am.Rep. 156 ], McCue v. Turner, 252 Ky. 849 [ 68 S.W.2d 415 ], and In re Young’s Will, 153 Wis. 337 [ 141 N.W. 226 ], it was held to be a sufficient compliance with this requirement where the signature of the testator followed instead of preceded the attestation clause. | 1 | 1947–1947 |
| Estate of Norswing green | 1 | 1945–1945 |
| In Re the Probate of the Will of Field green | 1 | 1920–1920 |
| In Re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of Hewitt green | 1 | 1920–1920 |
| In Re Estate of Dreyfus green | 1 | 1920–1920 |
| Cardoza v. Pillsbury green | 1 | 1919–1919 |
| Travis v. Straus green | 1 | 1919–1919 |
| Muñoz-Vázquez v. Bonilla green | 1 | 1916–1916 |
| Ruiz de Val v. Morales de Riefkohl green | 1 | 1916–1916 |
| In re estate of Lux green | 1 | 1916–1916 |
| Ruggles v. Welch green | 1 | 1916–1916 |
| In Re Estate of Cowell green | 1 | 1916–1916 |
| Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent De Paul v. Kelly green | 1 | 1910–1910 |
| In re Proving the Last Will & Testament of Gibson green | 1 | 1910–1910 |
| Alberti v. N. Y., Lake Erie & Western Railroad green | 1 | 1895–1895 |
| In Re Proving the Will of Coleman green | 1 | 1895–1895 |
| Fleming v. Morrison green | 1 | 1892–1892 |
| Harris v. Oakley neutral | 1 | 1892–1892 |
| In re Look neutral | 1 | 1892–1892 |
| Keely v. Moore green | 1 | 1892–1892 |
| In Re the Estate of Look neutral | 1 | 1892–1892 |
| In re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament & Codicil of Crane neutral | 1 | 1892–1892 |
| In re the Probate of a Paper Propounded as the Last Will & Testament of Akers neutral | 1 | 1892–1892 |
| Brennan v. . Crouch neutral | 1 | 1892–1892 |
| Fatheree v. Lawrence neutral | 1 | 1892–1892 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.