Estate of Martin
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Estate of Fay (California Superior Court, San Francisco County 1902)
- In re Estate of Hail (Okla. 1923)
- Yount v. Hail (Okla. 1923)
- In re Estate of Vance (Cal. 1916)
- Lundblade v. Avery (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
- Treaster v. Hamlin (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)
- Estate of Moody (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)
- Estate of Fritz (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
- In re Irvine's Estate (Mont. 1943)
- Wild v. Hall (Mont. 1943)
- Hebbart v. Schiffmann (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
- Estate of Maguire (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
- Thorn v. California Academy of Sciences (Cal. 1920)
- In re Wolcott's Estate (Utah 1919)
- Noyes v. Gerard (Mont. 1909)
- In re Estate of Billings (Cal. 1884)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of 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,
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.