Estate of Combs

The decedent left a holographic will in words and figures as follows:

Thereafter, August 5, 1932, she filed an account showing total receipts of $16,915.91, disbursements $5,846.34 and personal property on hand $11,069.57. With the account she filed a petition for final distribution in which she set forth:

St. Paul’s English Evangelical Lutheran Church, one of the legatees, appeared and filed written objections to the petition for distribution. The court made a decree which, among other things, provided as follows: “ . . . and orders distribution thereof as follows:

From that decree the surviving daughter appealed. She contends the trial court erred in holding the words “personal property” as used in the last sentence were used in a restricted sense and meant “personal effects”. She quotes section 106 of the Probate Code and she quotes from In re Brown’s Estate, 119 Cal. App. 195 , at page 197 [ 6 Pac. (2d) 319 ], as follows: “The intent of the testator must be determined, if possible, from the language of the will. (Estate of Young, 123 Cal. 337, 344 [ 55 Pac. 1011 ]; Fay v. District Court of Appeal, 200 Cal. 522, 536 [ 254 Pac. 896 ].) The authorities are uniform in declaring…