Home/Wisconsin Supreme Court/Prisland v. Robinson

Prisland v. Robinson

123 N.W.2d 515, 20 Wis. 2d 626, 1963 Wisc. LEXIS 517
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 1, 1963
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 123 N.W.2d 515 (Prisland v. Robinson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Prisland v. Robinson, 123 N.W.2d 515, 20 Wis. 2d 626, 1963 Wisc. LEXIS 517 (Wis. 1963).

Opinion

Gordon, J.

Ordinarily, Wisconsin does not recognize a holographic will as valid since it does not comply with our statutory requirements as set forth in sec. 238.06, Stats. However, under the Uniform Foreign Executed Wills Act, sec. 238.07, if the testament is valid in the state where it was executed, it. shall be deemed legally executed for purposes of Wisconsin law. Thus, if the will were executed in South Dakota, the Wisconsin courts would be obliged to determine whether it conforms to South Dakota law, and, if it does, we would then treat it as a valid testamentary disposition. The trial court concluded that the document was entitled to probate, and we agree with that conclusion.

*630 Where the Document was Executed.

There was considerable testimony presented at the trial to show that the deceased and his wife, the respondent, left Madison, Wisconsin, for South Dakota on December 28, 1934. The testimony of Mr. Griffin, Mrs. Swezea, and Margaret Robinson undoubtedly persuaded the trial court that Mr. Robinson was in South Dakota at the time he wrote the instrument in question. The trial’ court’s conclusion in this regard is entirely warranted by the record.

The appellants contend that the printed matter on the document, which includes a Madison, Wisconsin, address, contradicts the finding of execution in South Dakota. It is not required that the- document show on its face where it was executed. Stead v. Curtis (9th Cir. 1911), 191 Fed. 529; Pounds v. Litaker (1952), 235 N. C. 746, 71 S. E. (2d) 39. We believe it is clear that the deceased did not intend to incorporate any of the printed matter on the sheet as a part of his holographic will. The handwritten portion of the document constitutes his will, and the printed words, under these circumstances, may be ignored as surplusage. See Estate of Bower (1938), 11 Cal. (2d) 180, 78 Pac. (2d) 1012. Extraneous matter appearing on the paper on which the will is written is to be disregarded where such matter does not constitute a part of the will itself. See Atkinson, Wills (2d ed., hornbook series), p. 358, sec. 75. Under the circumstances, we do not consider that the printed matter effectively contradicts the trial court’s finding that this will was executed in South Dakota.

While there is no proof that anyone saw Mr. Robinson sign this instrument in South Dakota, there are sufficient facts and circumstances from which the trial court was entitled to reach such conclusion. This is particularly true with reference to the evidence of Mr. Griffin, who not only saw

*631

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

Related

In Re the Estate of Teubert
298 S.E.2d 456 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1982)
Estate of Molay
175 N.W.2d 254 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1970)
Carson v. City of Beloit
145 N.W.2d 112 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 N.W.2d 515, 20 Wis. 2d 626, 1963 Wisc. LEXIS 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prisland-v-robinson-wis-1963.