In re Hail's Estate
Decision Date | 25 September 1923 |
Docket Number | 14210. |
Parties | In re HAIL'S ESTATE. v. HAIL. YOUNT |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1923.
Second Petition for Rehearing Dismissed Nov. 24, 1924.
Syllabus by the Court.
A holographic will is one that is entirely written, dated, and signed by the hands of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of this state, and need not be witnessed.
Where a holographic will is offered for probate and the probate is contested on the sole ground that day of the month is omitted from the date, held that, where the will otherwise complies with the statute and there is no question of lack of mental capacity, undue influence, or duress involved, the omission of the day of the month from the date will not invalidate the will, and it will be admitted to probate.
The statutes of this state require, in construing a will, that it should be so construed as to prevent a total intestacy, if possible.
Record in this case examined, and there is nothing to show that the day of the month works any injustice to the parties, and in the absence of such showing we hold that the day of the month in the date is not of sufficient importance to invalidate the will.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.
Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Redmond S. Cole, Judge.
In the matter of the estate of John D. Hail, deceased. The will of deceased was denied probate by the county court on contest by Anna Bess Yount. On appeal by Belle Hall Hail, proponent, the district court admitted the will to probate, and contestant appeals. Affirmed.
Hulette F. Aby and William F. Tucker, both of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
West Sherman, Davidson & Moore, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.
This case presents for our consideration the validity of the holographic will of John D. Hail, deceased, which is in words and figures as follows:
The sole question to be passed on in this case is: Does the omission of the day of the month in the date to said will invalidate it, and justify the court in denying it probate as the last will and testament of John D. Hail, deceased? Counsel for both plaintiff in error and defendant in error have ably briefed the case and cited many authorities in support of their respective contentions. The reading of these authorities cited by respective counsels, as well as independent research on our part, shows that there are two well-defined rules of construction. One may be defined as that line which holds to a strict compliance with the statute, and the other that holds that a substantial compliance with the statute is all that is required.
Our statute on wills and succession was taken from Dakota Territory and so far as we are advised neither the Supreme Court of Dakota nor this court has ever passed on the precise question presented by this record, so that this court is left free to follow either rule of construction.
Before determining which rule we will follow, let us look to our own statute and see if there is anything to guide us. Section 11230 of Compiled St. of 1921 defines a holographic will as follows:
Under the head of interpretation of wills, we find the following sections: Section 11264, Comp. St. 1921, reads as follows:
Section 11273 reads as follows:
"Of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which will prevent a total intestacy."
Section 11295 reads as follows:
"A condition precedent in a will is to be deemed performed when the testator's intention has been substantially, though not literally complied with."
With these sections of our statute before us, and some decisions of our court construing wills generally, will be a safe guide for us to follow in arriving at which rule of construction or interpretation this court should follow.
The will above set out was denied probate by the county court of Tulsa county, and the case was appealed to the district court, and the district court admitted the will to probate and from that order admitting the will to probate this appeal is prosecuted.
Counsel for plaintiff in error has ably argued and contended that we should adopt the rule of strict compliance, and that as to holographic wills he holds that the will must be "letter and figure perfect," and cites in support of his contention a large number of cases from California, Louisiana, and Montana as supporting the rule of strict compliance or "letter figure perfect" rule, and we will here incorporate a list of the authorities cited by counsel for plaintiff in error as supporting his contention: Hill v. Davis, 64 Okl. 253, 167 P. 465, L. R. A. 1918B, 687; Noyes v. Gerard, 40 Mont. 190, 105 P. 1017, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1145, 20 Ann. Cas. 366; Walker's Estate, 110 Cal. 387, 42 P. 815, 30 L. R. A. 460, 52 Am. St. Rep. 104; Re Seaman, 146 Cal. 455, 80 P. 700, 106 Am. St. Rep. 53, 2 Ann. Cas. 726; Re Andrews, 162 N.Y. 1, 56 N.E. 529, 48 L. R. A. 662, 76 Am. St. Rep. 294; Robertson's Succession, 49 La. Ann. 868, 21 So. 586, 62 Am. St. Rep. 672; Heffner v. Heffner, 48 La. Ann. 1088, 20 So. 281; Estate of Billings, 64 Cal. 427, 1 P. 701; Estate of Plumel, 151 Cal. 78, 90 P. 192, 121 Am. St. Rep. 100; Re Carpenter's Estate, 172 Cal. 268, 156 P. 464, L. R. A. 1916E, 498; Re Rand, 61 Cal. 468, 44 Am. Rep. 555; Armant's Succession, 43 La. Ann. 310, 9 So. 50, 26 Am. St. Rep. 183; Baker v. Brown, 83 Miss. 793, 36 So. 539, 1 Ann. Cas. 371; Re Thorn's Estate, 183 Cal. 512, 192 P. 19; Re Estate of Mary J. Wolcott, Dec., 54 Utah, 165, 180 P. 169, 4 A. L. R. 727; section 8347, R. L. 1910; Estate of Martin, 58 Cal. 530; In re Price's Estate, 14 Cal.App. 462, 112 P. 482; In re Noye's Estate, 40 Mont. 190, 105 P. 1017, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1145, 20 Ann. Cas. 366; In re Anthony's Estate, 21 Cal.App. 157, 131 P. 96; In re Carpenter's Estate, 172 Cal. 268, 156 P. 464, L. R. A. 1916E, 498; In re Vance's Estate, 174 Cal. 122, 162 P. 103, L. R. A. 1917C, 479.
The case of Hill v. Davis, 64 Okl. 253, 167 P. 465, L. R. A. 1918B, 687, above cited, has also been cited by counsel for defendant in error. Both seem to get some comfort from this decision. We may have occasion to refer to this case again, and will not discuss it further at this time.
In the case of In re Walker's Estate, supra, the court made the following observation:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial