Court Opinion

ID: 9541132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:22:57.975153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:36.882482
License: Public Domain

Sharp, J.
(dissenting) — In view of the length of the majority opinion (which in turn necessitated an unduly lengthy dissent), an observation on the scope of Supreme Court review in will contests seems appropriate. At one time will contests were tried de novo by this court. Fortunately, the rules have been changed, and now our function is to ascertain whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. In re Estate of Kleinlein, 59 Wn.2d 111, 366 P.2d 186 (1961). As Justice Weaver stated in the will contest In re Estate of Dand, 41 Wn.2d 158, 247 P.2d 1016 (1952):
This case is a striking example of the wisdom of our rule that the trial court, having the witnesses before it, is in a better position to arrive at the truth than is the appellate court.
My examination of the record discloses substantial evidence to support the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court. For that reason I would affirm.
July 9, 1971. Petition for rehearing denied.