In re Estate of Billings
Cases that cite this one
34 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Estate of Fay (California Superior Court, San Francisco County 1902)
- Estate of Hazelwood (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)
- Jacobson v. Kristovich (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)
- In re Yowell's Estate (Utah 1930)
- Yowell v. Ogden State Bank (Utah 1930)
- In re Estate of Vance (Cal. 1916)
- In re Will of Ferree (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003)
- Estate of Black (Cal. 1982)
- Bouch v. Rombotis (Cal. 1982)
- Lundblade v. Avery (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)
- In re Bennett's Estate (Okla. 1958)
- Morford v. Elliott (Okla. 1958)
- Treaster v. Hamlin (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)
- Estate of Fritz (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)
- In re Irvine's Estate (Mont. 1943)
- Wild v. Hall (Mont. 1943)
- Estate of Goldsworthy (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
- Estate of Durlewanger (Cal. Ct. App. 1940)
- Irving v. Scripps Memorial Hospital (Cal. 1939)
- Estate of Maguire (Cal. Ct. App. 1936)
- De Caccia v. Barrington (Cal. 1928)
- Estate of Bernard (Cal. 1925)
- In re Estate of Hail (Okla. 1923)
- Yount v. Hail (Okla. 1923)
- Thorn v. California Academy of Sciences (Cal. 1920)
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
The body of the script proposed as an olographic will was entirely written and was signed by the hand of the deceased. The date reads thus “ Sacramento, April 1st, 1880.” The words “ April 1st” were written by the deceased, the balance was printed, the deceased having, evidently, taken a sheet of paper with a letter-head, stating the business and location of his firm, the name of the place “Sacramento,” and the year “1880,” printed, and filled in the month and day, “April 1st.”
We had occasion to consider the principle underlying the facts of this case, in Estate of Martin, 58 Cal. 530, and Estate of Rand, 61 Cal. 468. Section 1277, Civil Code, requires that a paper, to constitute an olographic will, must been tirely Avritten, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator. It must be entirely Avritten, it must be entirely dated, and it must be entirely signed by him. If it be partly written by him and partly Avritten by another, or printed; if it be partly dated or signed by him and partly by another, it is not a compliance Avith the statute. The Avords “April 1st” do not constitute a date—do not show on what April 1st the paper was written—there being, as was suggested on the argument, many days “ April 1st,” in the life of any man; it was requisite that the whole date, April 1, 1880, should have been written by him in order to comply with the statute.
Order affirmed.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.