gno.law

In Re Estate of Henning

California Supreme Court · L. A. No. 6801. · 1921-06-20 · Published · 199 P. 39 · 186 Cal. 307 · 1921 Cal. LEXIS 444

In the Matter of the Estate of GEORGE E. HENNING, Deceased

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Trial judge
Fred H. Taft
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
probate
Panel
Curtis D. Wilbur (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 — Wilbur

WILBUR, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying probate to a letter written by the deceased dated May 15, 1920, to his brother, the petitioner for its probate. Like most letters, it is entirely written, signed, and dated in the handwriting of the deceased. The letter is too long to quote. The writer states that he is coming east for the purpose of getting married. He expected to leave Los Angeles on July 3d, to arrive at Thurmont, Maryland, July 8th, and be married July 15th, if the girl he had picked out would have him. The writer discusses his own love affair and that of Hazel, who was willing to get married, but whose “Little Slim man” is very slow about asking her. The only possible justification for the claim that this letter is testamentary in character is the following: “If there is anny troble on the roade That is get hurt ore sick thay [Edison Company] look after me and if I should get killed there is plenty of money to put me away in fine shape. Then i want you to have everything.”

[1]

From the whole letter, however, it is evident that the deceased was contemplating matrimony rather than death. The judgment of the trial court was correct.

Order affirmed.

Olney, J., Shaw, J., Angellotti, C. J., Sloane, J., Lennon, J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.

Cited by