General

Estate of CROZIER

2 Cal. Unrep. 3454 Pac. 412·Supreme Court of California·1884·CA

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Estate of CROZIER. No. 9119; July 25, 1884. 4 Pae. 412. Will—Revocation of Probate.—An Averment, in a Petition for revocation of the probate of a will, “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, is a sufficient averment of the fact that testator was of unsound mind. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. Byers & Elliot, Campbell & Muenter and W. L. Dudley for appellant; D. S. Terry and Louttit & Lindley for respondent. [MAJORITY — By the COURT.] By 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.