Estate of Dargie

After further consideration of this cause, we are satisfied to readopt the opinion of Mr. Justice Preston, formerly rendered herein, which is as follows, to wit:

The application of appellants to produce and introduce additional evidence is denied. The order appealed from is affirmed.

Before proceeding to a discussion of the issue, I think it is proper to point out that the will of 1916 is entirely relevant and material, and should have been admitted as part of the record herein, for reasons which will hereinafter appear.

The general rules which should guide the determination of this appeal are well established. The intent, of the testator is the object of all construction of testamentary instruments. Several testamentary instruments executed by the same person are to be construed together as one instrument; and all the parts of a will are to be construed in relation to each other to form, if possible, a consistent whole. (See Prob. Code, secs. 101, 103; Estate of Peabody, 154 Cal. 173 [ 97 Pac. 184 ]; Estate of Coleman, 189 Cal. 612 [ 209 Pac. 571 ].)

The problem is not simple, and speculation as to the actual state of mind of the decedent is not helpful. Our task is, by the rules of law and sound policy, to determine her intention from the facts, and in accordance with reasonable inferences from these facts. The first and undeniable fact is that the two instruments, while they differ considerably in some respects, and cover much the same ground in other…