In re Estate of Plumel

Good Law
5 Coffey 243
Superior Court of California, County of San FranciscoJuly 1, 1895California493 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Coffey, J.

In this matter I have come to the conclusion, after grave consideration, that this instrument should be taken as a single proposition. As I have looked at the decisions of the supreme court, it seems to me that we should ■ construe the will and codicil in such a ease as one entire document. The date of the codicil, taken in connection with the preceding part or page—it is a single sheet, the will on one side, the codicil following on the other side—should be construed as the date of the will.

Now, the very word “codicil” implies an addition to the former instrument, and the testator by executing this codicil has in plain terms as possible set up not only the codicil, but the will, which speaks as of the date of the codicil.

*244 It seemed to me that at the time of the submission of the case the proponents were inclined to allow the will to be rejected, but the court intimated that if it were possible to sustain the two writings as a testamentary instrument the intention of the testator ought to be carried out. Now, it is possible to sustain the will and the intention of the testator can be carried out. It is one complete paper and the tendency of the supreme court decisions has…

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.