Case Name: In the Matter of the Estate of EMMA PEARL COFFIN, Deceased; CLAIR COFFIN, Respondent, v. CURTIS J. BEEDLE, Executor, etc., et al., Appellants
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1930-08-06
Citations: 107 Cal. App. 573
Docket Number: Civ. No. 7382
Parties: In the Matter of the Estate of EMMA PEARL COFFIN, Deceased. CLAIR COFFIN, Respondent, v. CURTIS J. BEEDLE, Executor, etc., et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 107
Pages: 573–575

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 7382.
Second Appellate District, Division One.
August 6, 1930.]
In the Matter of the Estate of EMMA PEARL COFFIN, Deceased. CLAIR COFFIN, Respondent, v. CURTIS J. BEEDLE, Executor, etc., et al., Appellants.
Curtis J. Beedle, in pro. per., E. T. Grau and James R Jaffray for Appellants.
Bonelli, Hughes & Miller and Arthur E. Briggs for Respondent.

Opinion:
HOUSER, J.
This appeal is from an order by which the probate of a certain will of Emma P. Coffin, deceased, was denied probate, and her intestacy decreed.
The following are the "grounds of decision" herein:
(1) The findings of fact upon which -the order in question was based are supported by sufficient evidence.
(2) It is asserted by respondent herein, and not denied by appellants, that at the time the contest herein was commenced certain minor legatees named in the will were not "residents of the county." Under the provisions of section 1312 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in force at the time the contest was instituted, as well as at the time of the hearing of the same, the order made by the trial court was not invalidated because of the fact that the minors in question were not served with process on the contest of the will.
(3) The contest herein was as to the one will offered for probate; and the order or judgment by which it was decreed that the decedent "died intestate" was necessarily limited to the will which was contested.
The order or judgment is affirmed. The appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial is dismissed.
Conrey, P. J., and York, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on August 27, 1930, and a petition by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on October 2, 1930.