In re Estate of Hadsell, Civil 4134
Decision Date | 12 February 1940 |
Docket Number | Civil 4134 |
Citation | 55 Ariz. 116,99 P.2d 93 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Estate of BURGESS A. HADSELL. Deceased. v. C. H. RUSSELL, IDORA P. RUSSELL, and WALTER E. HADSELL, Appellees WILLIAM SUTTERLIN, Executor of the Estate of BURGESS A. HADSELL, Deceased; ANNA M. SUTTERLIN, MAMIE S. TAYLOR, ANDREW H. HADSELL, EDWIN P. HADSELL, a Minor, by His Guardian, HARRIETTE P. HADSELL, Appellants, |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. J. C. Niles, Judge. Judgment reversed.
Mr Albert R. Smith, for Appellants.
Mr. J S. Wheeler, for Appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Maricopa county refusing to revoke the probate of a certain nuncupative will. The facts necessary for a determination of the appeal are not in dispute, and may be stated as follows:
These remarks were shown by three credible witnesses to have been made, and their substance was reduced to writing within six days after they were spoken. The written will, the codicil, and the nuncupative will above referred to, were all admitted to probate on April 8, 1937, as the separate and conflicting last wills and testaments of deceased. A petition was filed thereafter, asking that the probate of the nuncupative will aforesaid be set aside. The matter was heard before the court, and findings of fact were duly made and judgment was rendered denying the petition for revocation of probate, whereupon this appeal was taken.
There are a number of errors assigned in appellants' brief, but we think we need consider only number four, which is in effect that the nuncupative will in question attempts to revoke, in part, the written will and codicil aforesaid, and that a revocation in this manner is prohibited. This involves a consideration of certain sections of our Code referring to wills, those pertinent to this case being sections 3637, 3638 and 3639, Revised Code of 1928, which read, so far as material, as follows:
The nuncupative will was, or course, not made in writing nor executed with the formalities required by section 3637, supra, and it is urged by appellants that it is, therefore, void.
The original will bequeathed "all of my estate." We have held, in substance, that language of this kind when used in a will refers to all of the property of the deceased, either at the time of making the will or at time of his death, and cannot be limited to certain specific portions thereof. Hill v. Hill, 37 Ariz. 406, 294 P. 831. That this was the intention of the testator at the time of the making of the written will is obvious. The nuncupative will attempted to dispose of certain of the personal property of the deceased covered by the written will, and is, therefore, to that extent in conflict with the latter, and constitutes an attempt at a partial revocation. Under section 3638, supra, can this be done by a nuncupative will?
There are no...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Estate of Feir, Matter of
...Estate of Johnson, 129 Ariz. 307, 630 P.2d 1039 (App.1981). A will must be revoked in a manner prescribed by statute. Estate of Hadsell, 55 Ariz. 116, 99 P.2d 93 (1940). The intent to revoke must be accompanied by an act which appears on the purported will. Matter of Estate of Cox, 621 P.2d......
-
In re Grattan's Estate
... ... House and Litch, ... Administrators, 8 Ohio 144, 31 Am.Dec. 438, and In ... re Hadsell's Estate, 55 Ariz. 116, 99 P.2d 93. Other ... cases, dealing with statutes somewhat different in ... ...
-
State ex rel. Conway v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona
... ... THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Appellee Civil No. 4093Supreme Court of ArizonaFebruary 12, 1940 ... APPEAL ... ...