Court Opinion

ID: 9790005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:45:10.495507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:25.649756
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN
concurring specially.
I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Castles on the only point presented by the appeal. That point is whether the instrument dated 1951 was properly admitted to probate as a holographic will. The case of In re Irvine’s Estate, 114 Mont. 577, 589, 139 P.2d 489, 498, 147 A.L.R. 882, quoted with approval from 1 Page on Wills (3d ed.), p. 702, the following: “If the date gives the year and the month, but without the day of the month, some courts have held that such date is insufficient ; while others have held that it is sufficient.” There are no cases that hold a document is sufficiently dated with nothing but the year given as here.
There is much said in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Adair to the effect that Exhibit 2, the instrument dated July 18,1955, should be admitted to probate as a valid will. Respondents have not filed a cross appeal. They have made no cross assignments of error raising this point. They do not argue that it is a valid will. Both opinions indicate that it is a valid will and with that I agree.
The only substantial difference between the two opinions is the matter of directions to the district court. The opinion of Mr. Justice Castles directs the district court to reconsider the question as to whether it was properly attested as a will, either on the evidence already taken or on additional evidence.
This conclusion was arrived at because of the fact that *235having admitted the instrument of 1951 to probate the court, in all probability, gave but little consideration to the instrument executed on July 18, 1955, which contained the identical language.
Since the question is not argued here and very likely was not argued in the trial court and since in all probability was given but little, if any, consideration by the trial court, the directions given in the opinion of Mr. Justice Castles, I think, are proper. Whether the instrument dated 1951 should be taken and considered with the instrument dated July 18, 1955, under section 91-204 is of no moment here because there is no dispute as to the intention of testatrix. Both instruments are identical in form and substance and clearly express her intention.
I concur in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Adair so far as it holds that Dr. Gangner should not be ruled out as executor without notice and hearing on charges regularly made, and I also agree with much that is said in the opinion of Mr. Justice Adair regarding the rights of the public administrator, though as to the latter question there is some doubt whether it is properly before us, a point on which I express no opinion.