Court Opinion

ID: 9586782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:14:57.80726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:51.143647
License: Public Domain

*343YORK, J., Dissenting.
I dissent. I am in accord with the foregoing opinion with the exception only of that portion which holds that the provision in the will of William Wilson Sloan, Jr., reading: “to the heirs of said William Wilson Sloan, Third, as per his last will and testament”, means that the said William Wilson Sloan, Third, had to leave to each and every one of his heirs a portion to be designated by William Wilson Sloan, Third. It is my opinion, in the absence of any direct California authority, that this provision of the will merely meant that the said deceased was limited in disposing of the property involved to a person or persons to be designated by him, but who must be his heir or heirs, and that he was excluded, from disposing of any of the property to any person, who was not his heir. Therefore, I believe that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
A petition by respondent to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on August 1, 1935.