Estate of Dunn

Good Law
1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 342·32 Cal. App. 2d 240·89 P.2d 667
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 18, 1939Civ. 10991California921 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ward, J.

The question upon which this appeal may be determined is whether an instrument admitted to probate as a codicil to a holographic will does in fact revoke certain legacies mentioned in the original will.

Frank Dunn, sometimes referred to as Frank M. Dunn, deceased, left a will directing that payment of certain sums of money in designated banks should be “apportioned” to two sisters and a nephew in the amounts of $2,000, $500 and $100 respectively, with a further direction that “all cash remaining after these bequests have been distributed and expenses paid, I leave to my wife Violet L. Dunn”. A specified sum of money and clothing was bequeathed to his brother, but these items were scratched out. The intention of the testator when he signed the holographic will was to apportion specific items of his estate to the individuals named. The codicil, dated approximately three years later, is in part as follows: “In case of accident or death all stock owned by me is hereby given to my wife Violet L. Dunn.” Thereafter shares of stock in certain named corporations are listed, and under the caption “Money on Deposit”, the names of three banks appear. In two instances, opposite, and in…

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.