Rothstein

Rothstein v. City of Hope

Good Law
1964 Cal. App. LEXIS 1106·228 Cal. App. 2d 506·39 Cal. Rptr. 577·1 A.L.R. 3d 472
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 20, 1964Civ. No. 27635California2,270 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Herndon, J.

Flora P. Rothstein, Kate Kashinsky, Isabelle Gordon and Lucy Rosen, hereinafter referred to as ap-. pellants, have taken this appeal from that portion of the judgment determining interests in this estate adversely to their contentions and in favor of the City of Hope, hereinafter referred to as respondent.

The will admitted to probate herein is holographic; it almost completely covers both sides of a single piece of paper. It reads as follows:

It is the contention of the appellants that since “an uncertainty arises upon the face of [the] will, as to the application of . . . its provisions, the testator’s intention is to be ascertained from the words of the will, taking into view the circumstances under which it was made, ...” (Prob. Code, § 105.)

More particularly, appellants argue that when a testator has made specific bequests of $5,000 each to the natural objects of his bounty, his nephews and nieces, the children of his specified brothers and sisters, except one sister-in-law, and then gives and bequeaths “the sum of Five thousand ($5000) Dollars to the following nieces-” (specifically naming them and identifying them as the daughters of another sister), it is unclear…

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.