From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Estate of Crozier

Supreme Court of California
Jul 25, 1884
2 Cal. Unrep. 345 (Cal. 1884)

Opinion

          Department 2. Appeal from the superior court of San Joaquin county.

         COUNSEL

         Byers & Elliot, Campbell & Muenter, and W. L. Dudley, for appellant.

         D. S. Terry and Louttit & Lindley, for respondent.


          OPINION

         THE COURT.

          The demurrer to the petition for revocation of the probate of the will was properly overruled. The petitioner alleges that one of the grounds on which she asks for such revocation is ‘that at the time of signing said supposed will by him the said James Crozier was not of sound and disposing mind, but, on the contrary, said deceased was at said time of unsound mind.’ If this is not an averment that he was of unsound mind, we do not know what would be.

          Decree affirmed.


Summaries of

Estate of Crozier

Supreme Court of California
Jul 25, 1884
2 Cal. Unrep. 345 (Cal. 1884)
Case details for

Estate of Crozier

Case Details

Full title:Estate of CROZIER.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 25, 1884

Citations

2 Cal. Unrep. 345 (Cal. 1884)
2 Cal. Unrep. 345

Citing Cases

Gillespie v. Winn

( Lathrop v. Bampton, 31 Cal. 17; People v. Houghtaling, 7 Cal. 348; Wells Fargo & Co. v. Robinson, 13 Cal.…