Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

173 Cal. 235

159 P 426

In Re Anderson

California Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 1916

California Supreme Court · decided 1916-07-29

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1948

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1916-07-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1There does not seem to be any merit in this appeal. The document offered as the will of decedent reads as follows:

¶2"Aug. 8th 14.

¶3"Mr. Swartz 228 N 6 St San Jose In having occupied your room for 5 days I want to pay you $10 Please sign your name Maybe you will think there is a something in the hereafter reading this At any rate when you and Ingersoll meet you can talk it over I had my mind made up to keep your wife out of misery and waited for the crises it has come and she is a free woman so you can for an affinity she will go to the sanitorium today and I pay the bill She will send that cable to her son today that she will come as soon as she is able to start for the hotel. I will give her the money.

¶4"AMELI ANDERSON."

¶5There is nothing in the letter that tends in any way to show an intent by the decedent to make a disposition of her property after her death.

¶6The judgment is affirmed.

¶7Hearing in Bank denied.

/173/cal/235 · .json · Public domain