*1 аny specific testator had proponents prove capacity in which Fred regard particular to the intent with might make signed. Any interpretation of the statute other trap safeguard. rather than a denying probate is reversed. order J., Schauer, J., Carter, J., Trаynor, Shenk, J., Edmonds, Spence, J., concurred. rehearing denied petition for a October Respondent’s 23, 1952. Sept. 25, 22069. In Bank. A. No. 1952.]
[L. BLOCH, Deceased. SALLY GOLD- of HELENE I. BLOCH, Appellant. BERG, Respondent, v. JULIUS J. *2 Frye & Yudelson Appellant. and Coliman E. Yudelson for Samuel D. Respondent. Robbins GIBSON, C. J. appeal аdmitting is an This from an order to probate, as the will of I. Bloch, Helene ment which was safety found after her deposit death in a box held and her joint sister as tenants. The appeared which on envelope, two sides of an was dated and portions decedеnt’s own hand. The which were probate admitted to are :* as follows Sally “My Goldberg (sister) executor shall be who shall em- pay fight any from ploy expenses counsel estate action taken said Bloch husband Julius J which 8/24/48 belonging Helene
Bonds I. Bloch ........
5300°° *Language envelope by аttempted on the to provide grave for care was denied but funds of her raise probate, parties as to this order. my case these are to be distributed to follow- death
ing (divided equally) children for education their Freshman
Babette
Carolyn Freshman
Barbara Sue Freshman
Gary Goldberg Lee Goldberg
Susan Linda
Judy Brown
Stephen Brown Bloch right Julius J shall not receive a dower or be allowed my to contest wishes in the United States. Julius J Block did not envelope]
over of first side [end prior any part give me (before) these monies Same saved my marriage and During my marriage invested likewise. my Julius J Bloch did support—I paid not cоntribute to expenses throughout marriage own our Therefore he is not to receive one cent of During marriage estate. our Julius Block, husband, J only was such in name. When he had funds *3 profits squandered or made he gam- all on his selfish desires bling—also throughout marriage cоntinually aided finan- many cially his ending adventures—all losses Therefore with ’’ I feel he does participate. writing stopped right-hand The at the lower corner of the envelope, and there was second side of insufficient room any further of at that location for the same size and spacing employed elsewhere in the document. Some as were space unused left above the on both sides of the envelope. entirely written, dated,
A will must be (Prob. signed by Code, 53), of the testator and the hand and § (Estate with intent. it must be exеcuted of Golder, 848, 850 465].) language 31 P.2d The Cal.2d [193 plainly dispositive involved of the document here is char acter, admittedly and the document was dated and was the hand of the decedent. The sole is whether only name, appears body the decedent’s in the of the signature instrument, meaning constitutes a within the of the statute. signature
It is settled California that the need not may appear at the end but another of located provided the testator wrote his name there with authenticating executing the intention of
573 16 P.2d (Estate 50, his Cal.2d 53 will. [104 оf 669, 424 P. 782]; McMahon, 423, 174 Cal. Estate [163 417, 174 778]; Manchester, L.R.A. see Cal. 1917D Estate of 358, 227, 421 1918B L.R.A. 1917D P. Ann.Cas. [163 629].) required appear on the intention must face itself, parol and evidence not admissible document is signature to show that elsewhere than the end is a found signature (Estate 713, 178 Cal. Hurley, of executiоn. 400, Morgan, 714-715 P. see Estate Cal. [174 669] 702]; 401-402 McMahon, 423, P. Estate [253 669, Manchester, L.R.A. 1917D 629]; [163 417, 227, Cal. 421-422 P. 358, Ann.Cas. 1918B 629]; 50, 1917D P.2d Cal.2d 782].) adopted The rule of has these cases also applied signature in determining appearing whether a body in the satisfy of a document is sufficient to statute of (Marks McCarty frauds. v. Walter Corp., 33 Cal.2d G. 820-821 1025]; Export v. Corp., McNear Petroleum [citing probate eases].) 167-168 has been said that where a decedent’s is only found in the document which claimed will, be a must inspection determine from an of the language, instrument’s form position relative its parts whether positive satisfactory or not there is a in ference that the decedent’s name location with the intention of if instrument, and such an appears, inference proven. (See execution considered Estate Kinney, Manchester, 174 Ann.Cas. 1918B 227, L.R.A. important 1917D Particulаrly here principles are the Kinney set forth in the where it case was held holographic testamentary probate, admitted although the testator wrote his name only in beginning, appears whenever it ment a completed (16 declaration decedent’s desires. pp. 54-56.) Cal.2d at pp. 55-56): court said Cal.2d at ‘‘Completeness alone has been held sufficient evidence of the *4 adoption of the name authenticating signature so as of the compliance testator and as a with the statute which requires the ‘signed’. will be . . . From earliest con sideration question, of the completeness of declaration has been deemed the ‘signing’ sufficient evidence writing, of the though even the declarant’s by him place at a other than at the end.” The court dis-
574 must that there proposition cited for
tinguished cases effeсt that expression to the affirmative some signature, and it stated that those adopted as an affirma- holding that such an as not to be construed cases are appears to be a required where will expression is tive (16 p. 54.) at testamentary declaration. Cal.2d completed decedents involved was noted that this connection it everything they to have “done appear those did cases court, applying p. 55.) do.” simply: “I provided which principles, upheld a will these bequeath my possessions all Anna do Leona Graves 1923,” giving the living in names my four sisters who were persons. and addresses of four of which have cited and followed cases, some Many other of this state have that the courts indicate Estate of validity sustaining very liberal complete testamentary documents appear to wills (See end. Estate than at the elsewhere although signed my 138, 140-141 P.2d Brooks, 214 148] [“This Brooks,” Ryan after which are numerous will'—Elizabeth Morgan, Estate bequests] ; specific .[253 Cal.App.2d 237, Wallace, 100 ; Estate P. all T. Wallace have use of Personal [“I, 284], P.2d James long survive,” after which were two Estate and Real disposing property]; Estate Gar sentences short 629], [“I, 394, 396-397 Mrs. dener, Cal.App.2d give Laurel and 433 West Street do devise Estelle Gardener Hyatt” Dorothy Mathews and Mrs. Eleatra bequeth Mrs. ; Kaminski, property] Estate 45 Cal. described certain 21], and testa 779, 781-782 will App.2d [“Last . Kaminski, being 8-1937 . . Belle Dec. of sound ment memory publish mind and ... do make disposing following, manner this last will testament declare by specific provisions disposing of say,” followed that is to ; direction for concluding with a property and cremation] seq. 62], Cal.Aрp. 553 et Bauman, 114 [ 9th, 1929, April desire Bauman, on this date I Lovina [“That . . as stated. Sulli herein executed .”] wishes [“I, 753], Mark Cornelius van, Cal.App. made, heretofore revoking wills me do . . . all Sullivan my Last Will and Testament hereby publish and declare following: .”]; Eng . . form ... manner and 486, Will of land, Cal.App. [“Last Anna caption, only by followed England,” bequests].) *5 present case, the in we The instrument involved and, opinion, testamentary intent, in our seen, discloses a have under the fore complete document constitutes writing, on the going indicates that face, decisions. its speci she do: She everything intended to testatrix did that belonged to her were to the bonds which fied that equally among individuals; seven named she be distributed sharing giving in bequest, her husband from excluded her execu doing so; appointed for sister reasons she might her to action which trix and directed resist giving husband. The after the rea taken the husband, ends, testatrix exclusion of her in sons the by stating: manner, “Therefore feel he natural does ’’* participate. photostat not instrument con transcript in after tained the clerk’s shows that the word although is “partiсipate” which, there a mark not clear, may well period. have intended as a Even if period no end, portions at the other of the writ ing occasionally disclose that the testatrix omitted punctua (See tion marks after sentences and initials. Estate Brooks, 148], sustaining will with neither period end.) nor at The fact that the testatrix her used one of the document for a pur dual pose, is, that property describe bequest the covered the as well as to authenticate will, the is immaterial. writings
Unlike involved in upon by the cases relied appellant, nothing there is in the document before us to suggest incomplete that it was in the sense that the testatrix may have intended set forth any additional matter but failed to do so. example, For the instrument considered in Estate Manchester, 174 Cal. Ann.Cas. 1918B 227, 629], L.R.A. 1917D hеreby ended: “Whereunto I set hand this day January, 1914,” fourteenth the court stated apt that these are precede a sig nature attestation of a will and tend to show that sign immediately below but did not carry out that intent. p. 419.) at In Estate parties, disagree briefs, *The their as to last whether the word “participate” something is an abbreviation thereof or else. The dispute apparently photo- due to fact the briefs contain transcript, which are not as as the stats clear one the clerk’s plainly possible each shows letter the word. testatrix provision relating inserted the the above “executor” after she had written quoted sentence, but this does not seem to be material since provision complete by each itself. 40-41 the court held that Bernard, 197 Cal. abrupt instrument near the middle termination page the writer did intend to last manifested that stop point something but, rather, additional compelled done, and that this the conclusion that adopting decedent had intention of executing signature opening (See, clause of a will. also, Leonard, seq. et Devlin, *6 178 Cal. Hurley, appears holographic it that the document written Since it fol complete testamentary instrument, Mrs. Bloch is a lows, Kinney, under the decision in Estate 16 Cal. supra, regarded having 2d 56, that her name is to be as authenticating written in the of thе instrument with intent.
The order is affirmed.
Shenk, J., Carter, J., Spence, Sehauer, J., concurred. TRAYNOR, J. dissent. comply re- did not with the my opinion
In
the decedent
53 of the Probate Code that
quirement of section
“signed by the hand of the testator himself.”
be
will must
require
signature to
does
the
Although
section
this
probatе
end of the instrument offered for
affixed at
the
decedent,
require the name of the
50(1)),
it does
(compare §
the intention of
placed, to be written with
wherever
(Estate Manchester,
a will.
instrument as
the
1917D
Ann.Cas. 1918B
417, 421
926.)
cases collected
19 A.L.R.2d
see
629]
may appeаr in
the name
Regardless
where
the
course,
it was
always
ment,
possibility,
the
there
possi
signature.
mere existence
intended as
permit
enough
a reasonable infer
however, is not
to
bility,
When the name is used to
ence
it was so intended.
alleged
will as
the decеdent
the author
the
identify
(“I
Anna
Cal.2d 50
782]
to
bequeath
my possessions
do
all
Leona Graves
identify sisters”),
instrument as decedent’s
four
or to
(“This
Brooks,
Edmonds, Sept. 25, No. Bank. 5321. 1952.] [Crim. BENTLY PEOPLE, Respondent, v. EUGENE THE SOUTHACK, Appellant.