Estate of Parrish

Wright v. DeFosset

Good Law
135 Cal. App. 283·1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 302·26 P.2d 891
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 13, 1933Docket No. 9326.California1,590 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Stephens, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court in which a purported will of Alice Parrish, deceased, was declared invalid. The proponent of the will, Matilda A. Wright, who was both a specific and the sole residuary legatee, as well as the executrix by the terms of the instrument, is the appellant. The respondents are nephews and a niece of deceased, and were the contestants below. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and briefly the findings are to the effect that the purported will, although signed by decedent, re- suited from the fraud of the proponent and John P. Roche, one of the witnesses to it.

The terms of the proposed will (which we shall hereinafter generally refer to as the will) gave $1,000 each to Maud T. DeFosset, a niece, and Oliver Walker, a nephew, and $2,000 to Matilda A. Wright, sometimes referred to as Mrs. Wright. The writing designated Mrs. Wright as “my beloved nurse”. One dollar is left to each of any other lineal heirs who might establish themselves as such. The estate may be taken as of a value around $10,000, under depressed times. Mrs. Wright had been in the employ of Mrs. Parrish for some six months as housekeeper and personal…

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.