gno.law

In Re Estate of Carpenter

California Court of Appeal · Docket No. 7250. · 1930-02-13 · Published · 285 P. 348 · 104 Cal. App. 33 · 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 963

In the Matter of the Estate of DR. F. G. CARPENTIER, Etc., Deceased. HAZELWOOD WINTER, Appellant; LIZZIE FERRIS Et Al., Respondents

Proceeding
appeal from orders
Trial court
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco admitting and denying wills to probate
Trial judge
Thomas F. Graham
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
probate
Panel
Maurice T. Dooling, Jr. (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Dooling

DOOLING, J., pro tem.

On February 28, 1919, the decedent F. G. Carpentier executed a document which is claimed by appellant to be both a will and a contract to leave by will certain property therein described to appellant.

*34 On April 17, 1927, the decedent executed a will expressly revoking all previous wills and making a different disposition of such property. Respondents presented the later will to the court for probate and appellant filed a contest based solely on the document of February 28, 1919, and the contract alleged to be evidenced thereby. Appellant also proposed said document for probate. The probate court sustained a demurrer to the contest, admitted the will of April 17, 1927, to probate, and denied probate to the document of February 28, 1919.

The court’s action was correct. A will, though it may be irrevocable as a contract is none the less revocable as a will, and in ease such a will is revoked, the injured party cannot contest the later will in the probate court on that ground or insist on the probate of the earlier will, but is remitted to an independent action at law or in equity to enforce whatever rights he may have.

(Estate of Rolls, 193 Cal. 594 [226 Pac. 608];

Estate of Berry, 195 Cal. 354 [233 Pac. 330].)

The decree and orders appealed from are affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Nourse, Acting P. J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by