Buffington v. Thomas

84 Miss. 157
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided March 15, 1904·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Calhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The instrument was properly probated as a will- The acute attack of fever was the inducement to the woman to indicate-her last wishes, and her dominant idea was to express them, and to say what she wanted “in case I die,” and she gives her reason for the wish. The request to “answer at once” perhaps indicates only the desire to know whether the letter reached its destination. There is no presumption that it was designed to alter its nature. And so of the words “this is private.” Erom the purport of the whole paper, manifest reasons would militate against publication during the life of the writer. Anderson v. Pryor, 10 Smed. & M., 620; Redhead v. Redhead (Miss.), 35 South., 761; “All opinions,” Eaton v. Brown, 193 U. S., 411.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Buffington v. Thomas, 84 Miss. 157 (Mich. 1904).

84 Miss. 157 (Buffington v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Methodist Church of Sturgis, Inc. v. Templeton
181 So. 2d 129 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1965)
Carothers v. Estate of Carothers
86 So. 2d 855 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1956)
Estate of Spencer
197 P.2d 351 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
Johnson v. Veale
197 P.2d 351 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
Montague v. Street
231 N.W. 728 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1930)
Benson v. Benson
1927 OK 102 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)
In Re Estate of Spitzer
237 P. 739 (California Supreme Court, 1925)
Yount v. Hail
106 Okla. 124 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
In Re Estate of Hail
1923 OK 689 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Sullivan v. Jones
93 So. 353 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1922)
Prather v. Prather
52 So. 449 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1910)
Estate of Fay
1 Coffey 428 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1902)