Home/South Dakota Supreme Court/Farrington v. Longstaff

Farrington v. Longstaff

38 N.W.2d 449, 72 S.D. 604
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedJune 17, 1949
DocketFile No. 9004
StatusPublished

This text of 38 N.W.2d 449 (Farrington v. Longstaff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Farrington v. Longstaff, 38 N.W.2d 449, 72 S.D. 604 (S.D. 1949).

Opinions

HAYES, J.

The sole question submitted by the appeal in this proceeding is whether a writing testimentary in character was executed or signed by the author as is required by SDC 56.0209 relating to the form of an olographic will. No other ground of opposition to the probate of said writing is raised or argued here. By stipulation of counsel appearing in the record it is agreed that all of the writing upon the instrument presented as the will of Ella McNair, with the exception of filing and identification marks placed thereon by court officials, is by the hand of said person. The county and circuit courts each decided that such written instrument bore the author’s signature and that the same should be admitted to probate. The contestants, plaintiffs at the trial de novo in circuit court, appeal from the judgment of that court overruling the ground of opposition to probate upon which they relied and determining that the writing is legally sufficient to constitute the author’s will.

[606]*606• In lieu of an attempt to accurately describe the instrument before us a photographic copy thereof is here set forth.

[607]*607

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

Related

Kinney v. Gardella
104 P.2d 782 (California Supreme Court, 1940)
Estate of Gardener
190 P.2d 629 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
Estate of Kaminski
115 P.2d 21 (California Court of Appeal, 1941)
Shumaker v. Wagner
300 P. 62 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Estate of Bernard
239 P. 404 (California Supreme Court, 1925)
In Re the Estate of McMahon
163 P. 669 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Devlin v. O'Reilly
247 P. 577 (California Supreme Court, 1926)
In Re the Estate of Manchester
163 P. 358 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
In Re Estate of Hurley
174 P. 663 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Shoults v. Williams
191 P. 16 (California Supreme Court, 1920)
In Re Estate of Johnson
229 N.W. 261 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1930)
In Re Estate of Cravens
225 N.W. 398 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1929)
In Re Brandow's Estate
240 N.W. 323 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1932)
Campbell v. Henley
110 S.W.2d 329 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1937)
Lawson, Guardian v. Estate of Dawson
53 S.W. 64 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1899)
Ross v. Taylor
165 N.W. 1079 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1917)
Stone v. Holden
191 N.W. 238 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 N.W.2d 449, 72 S.D. 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farrington-v-longstaff-sd-1949.