James v. Rowe

California Supreme Court

James v. Rowe

188 Cal. 663

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 2, 1922

DocketSac. No. 3294

StatusPublished

This text of 188 Cal. 663 (James v. Rowe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James v. Rowe, 188 Cal. 663 (Cal. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

At the close of the argument the court rendered its opinion as follows:

It is the opinion of the court that there is enough evidence in this case to uphold the finding of the trial court that at the time of the making of the will the testatrix was not competent to remember her affairs sufficiently to make a will or to remember her relatives and keep the matter in mind long enough to complete the task. Upon that ground the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

The court expresses no opinion as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding that the will was not properly executed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Shaw, C. J., Lawlor, J., Wilbur, J., Lennon, J., Shurtleff, J., Sloane, J., and Richards, J., pro tem.,concurred.

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

At the close of the argument the court rendered its opinion as follows:

It is the opinion of the court that there is enough evidence in this case to uphold the finding of the trial court that at the time of the making of the will the testatrix was not competent to remember her affairs sufficiently to make a will or to remember her relatives and keep the matter in mind long enough to complete the task. Upon that ground the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

The court expresses no opinion as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding that the will was not properly executed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Shaw, C. J., Lawlor, J., Wilbur, J., Lennon, J., Shurtleff, J., Sloane, J., and Richards, J., pro tem.,concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 Cal. 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-rowe-cal-1922.