Estate of Plumer

Good Law
159 Cal. App. 2d 389·1958 Cal. App. LEXIS 2012·324 P.2d 346
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 1958Civ. 22821California1,365 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fourt, J.

This is an appeal by the petitioner from that portion of an order and decree determining heirship and interest in estate which decrees that the residue of the estate should be distributed to the persons named in the will, and not to the petitioner and Andrew E. Perkins, first cousins of the deceased, who are not named in the will.

The decedent died on March 3, 1955, in Los Angeles County, leaving surviving her as her only heirs at law, two first cousins, namely the petitioner and Andrew E. Perkins. The decedent left a holographic will consisting of three pages, one of which pages was titled “Memorandum for Executors,” (Estate of Plumer, 147 Cal.App.2d 760 [ 306 P.2d 110 ]), and which was admitted to probate. Andrew E. Perkins contested the will; however the superior court denied the contest and admitted all three pages of the document in question as the last will of the decedent. That order was appealed from, and was affirmed by this court (Estate of Plumer, supra, 147 Cal.App.2d 760 ). That decision and the issues therein determined are the law of the case. (Allen v. California Mutual B. & L. Assn., 22 Cal.2d 474 [ 139 P.2d 321 ].)

The testatrix, in her will, first set forth…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.