Later courts went against this
Disapproved — as noted by a later court
the contrary (and which is in effect and on reason inconsistent with Wolf v. Gall, (1916) supra, 32 Cal. App. 286, 295, 296, 163 Pac. 346), is overruled; dicta, based on Estate of Pico, appearing In re Jessup, (1889) 81 Cal. 408, 421, 21 Pac. 976, 22 Pac. 742, 1028, 6 L.R.A. 594, and in Estate of Heaton, (1902) 135 Cal. 385, 387, 67 Pac. 321, are disapproved.”
medium confidence
The opinion
Works, J., dissenting.
I dissent, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed on the former hearing of this case, written by me and concurred in by a majority of the court. No new point was made on the second hearing, and nothing additional, either of law or fact, was developed. The second hearing strengthened my views as expressed in the former opinion, and the manner in which the evidence is treated in the prevailing opinion of Mr. Justice Fox has served to confirm my first convictions.