In Re Santini's Estate

53 P.2d 338, 56 Nev. 350, 1936 Nev. LEXIS 3
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 13, 1936
Docket3074
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 53 P.2d 338 (In Re Santini's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Santini's Estate, 53 P.2d 338, 56 Nev. 350, 1936 Nev. LEXIS 3 (Neb. 1936).

Opinion

OPINION

By the Court,

Coleman, J.:

This is an action to probate a lost holographic will. The proponents and the deceased were all natives of Italy. Two main questions are presented upon this appeal: (1) That contestants have no interest in the estate, and hence no right to contest the probate of *352 the will offered; and (2) that the findings are against the evidence.

The contestants are the mother of the deceased, a foster brother of deceased, and the administrator of his estate. There is no allegation of facts on the part of the contestants showing, or attempting to show that' there is no one living who has a prior right to inherit the estate of the deceased than the contestants, or any of them.

Section 9615 N. C. L. provides who may appear and contest a will, and it limits such persons to those who are “interested.”

Section 9859 N. C. L. enumerates the persons who shall inherit the estate of a deceased person dying intestate, and there is no allegation of fact, nor anything smacking of such allegation, to the effect that no one of a class entitled to inherit prior to the mother is not living. Such an allegation is necessary, and an allegation of a mere conclusion will not suffice. Naylor v. Mealey, 62 App. D. C. 321, 67 F. (2d) 693.

So far as appears, there may be a wife of the deceased, or others who have such prior right. This being true, the motion to strike such contest, and all objections to such attempt to contest the probate of the will, should have been sustained. -68 C. J. 902;. 28 R. C. L. pp. 386-389. An administrator is not an interested person (68 C. J. p. 906), and a foster brother is not an heir under our statute.

We do not deem it necessary to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence, but it presents a rather unusual situation. Contestants were tenants of the deceased from about September 1, 1931, to the time of his death, April 25, 1932 — a little over eight months — and it is their theory that during that short period deceased became so attached to them that he was anxious to leave everything he had to them. This is remarkable, in view of the fact that he had a mother living.

Contestants not being entitled to be heard under the allegations mentioned, it is ordered that the orders *353 appealed from be reversed, the lower court to permit amendments to the pleadings, on satisfactory showing; costs to abide final determination of this contest.

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

Related

Wolzinger v. Eighth Judicial District Court
773 P.2d 335 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1989)
Estate of Bily
215 P.2d 78 (California Court of Appeal, 1950)
Sexton v. Popkay
20 N.W.2d 871 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1945)
Darby v. Arrington
11 So. 2d 220 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1942)
Goldsberry v. Green
81 P.2d 1106 (Utah Supreme Court, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 P.2d 338, 56 Nev. 350, 1936 Nev. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-santinis-estate-nev-1936.