Estate of Easton

Dixon v. Hartnett

Good Law
136 Cal. App. 213·1934 Cal. App. LEXIS 1055·28 P.2d 376
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 11, 1934Docket No. 8784.California342 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tyler, J.

Motion for diminution of record. Respondents herein have made a motion for diminution of record by incorporating in and making part of the transcript on appeal an order amending nunc pro tunc an order granting a motion for a new trial. The order amending the record was made under the following circumstances: An appeal was taken by contestants from an order granting a motion for a new trial of the contest of the probate of the will of deceased. The contest was tried before a jury in February, 1930, nearly four years ago, which resulted in a verdict in favor of contestants, the jury finding the will to have been executed by virtue of undue influence exerted upon the deceased. This verdict was set aside by the court in March, 1930, the court subsequently granting a motion on the part of proponents for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Contestants appealed from this judgment and it was reversed, and the trial court was directed to enter judgment on the verdict. (Estate of Easton, 118 Cal. App. 659 [ 5 Pac. (2d) 635 ].) Upon the going down of the remittitur on March 3, 1932, judgment on the verdict was entered in contestants’ favor. Five days thereafter proponents served and filed…

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.