TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Estate of Martin

ESTATE OF EDWARD MARTIN

Estate of Martin, 58 Cal. 530 (1881)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1881
Docket
No. 7,336
Citations
58 Cal. 5301881 Cal. LEXIS 259
Syllabus
Olographic Will—Date—Construction of Code.—A date is essential to the validity of an olographic will. Id.—Id.—Construction of Will,—A recital in an olographic will that the testator is of the age of sixty years, does not constitute a date.
Summary
Appeal refusing to admit a will to probate in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Finn, J.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Court:

A paper was presented for probate as the last will and testament of the deceased, as olographic. It was written and signed by the hand of deceased, but bore no date, and was not witnessed. Probate was refused by the Court below.

The statute upon the subject is as follows (Civ. Code, § 1277):

“ An olographic will is one that is entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form.”

It is claimed that the dating of a will is a mere formal matter, not absolutely necessary. We do not think so. The Legislature has seen fit to require three things to concur, for the execution of an olographic will, viz., that it be written, *533 dated, and signed by the hand of the testator. We are not at liberty to hold that the Legislature intended any one of these requirements to be of greater or less importance than the others. If we may omit one, why not either of the others ? “ It is subject to no other form.” It is subject to the form prescribed.

The paper is not aided by the declaration contained in it, “ of the age of sixty years.” It does not appear in the paper when he was of the age of sixty years. It may have been one day before his decease; it may have been ten years.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1884–1885: 11902–1903: 11908–1909: 11916–1917: 11918–1919: 11920–1921: 11922–1923: 11930–1931: 11936–1937: 21942–1943: 21950–1951: 11952–1953: 11956–1957: 11958–1959: 118842026peak 1936 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Estate of Fay1 Coffey 428 (Cal. Supp. Ct. (San Francisco) 1902)
  2. In re Estate of Hail1923 OK 689, 235 P. 916
  3. In re Estate of Vance162 P. 103 (Cal. 1916)
  4. Thorn v. California Academy of Sciences192 P. 19 (Cal. 1920)
  5. In re Estate of Billings1 P. 701 (Cal. 1884)
  6. In re Irvine's Estate139 P.2d 489 (Mont. 1943)

Most recent

  1. Lundblade v. Avery344 P.2d 612 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
  2. Treaster v. Hamlin295 P.2d 898 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)
  3. Estate of Moody257 P.2d 709 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)
  4. Estate of Fritz227 P.2d 539 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
  5. In re Irvine's Estate139 P.2d 489 (Mont. 1943)
  6. Wild v. Hall139 P.2d 489 (Mont. 1943)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list