In re Mullin

Good Law
110 Cal. 252·1895 Cal. LEXIS 1051·42 P. 645
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 3, 1895S. F. No. 3California1,604 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Henshaw, J.

Mary T. Mullin, widow of deceased, offered his will for probate. A contest over its administration was raised by the brothers and sister of the deceased. The jury, upon special issues presented for their consideration, found that the deceased, at the time of the making of the purported will, was not of sound and disposing mind; that the deceased did not subscribe his name to the will, nor did any person so subscribe his name in his presence and by his direction; that no such subscription was made in the presence of the attesting witnesses, or was acknowledged by deceased to them to have been made by him or by his authority.

In accordance with these findings and others afterward to be considered, the court entered its judgment and decree denying the instrument probate, and from *254 this decree and from the order denying a new trial the proponent appeals.

1. George A. Proctor, called as a witness for proponent, was a subscribing witness to the will, and was also the attorney at law of the deceased in preparing and drawing the will. Proctor was summoned to prepare the will. He visited the deceased, who was then in his last sickness, received his instructions, retired to an…

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.