Matter of Estate Jones

California Supreme Court

Matter of Estate Jones

135 P. 293, 166 Cal. 778, 1913 Cal. LEXIS 379

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 27, 1913

DocketSac. No. 2140.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 P. 293 (Matter of Estate Jones) 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

Matter of Estate Jones, 135 P. 293, 166 Cal. 778, 1913 Cal. LEXIS 379 (Cal. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from an order denying a new trial, after an order revoking the probate of the will of William Jones, deceased. All the questions involved in this appeal were involved and were presented on the appeal from the said order of revocation, Estate of Jones, (Sac. No. 2032), ante, p. 108, [135 P. 288]. In the opinion this day filed in that case these questions were discussed and decided, and the order of revocation was thereupon affirmed. The parties have stipulated that this appeal may be submitted and decided upon the briefs filed in that case, and the case has been submitted accordingly. No further discussion is necessary here, since the facts are the same as in the other case.

The order denying the motion for a new trial is affirmed.

Angellotti, J., and Sloss, J. concurred. *Page 779

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

This is an appeal from an order denying a new trial, after an order revoking the probate of the will of William Jones, deceased. All the questions involved in this appeal were involved and were presented on the appeal from the said order of revocation, Estate of Jones, (Sac. No. 2032), ante, p. 108, [135 P. 288]. In the opinion this day filed in that case these questions were discussed and decided, and the order of revocation was thereupon affirmed. The parties have stipulated that this appeal may be submitted and decided upon the briefs filed in that case, and the case has been submitted accordingly. No further discussion is necessary here, since the facts are the same as in the other case.

The order denying the motion for a new trial is affirmed.

Angellotti, J., and Sloss, J. concurred. *Page 779

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 P. 293, 166 Cal. 778, 1913 Cal. LEXIS 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-estate-jones-cal-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack