Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Andrews v. Andrews

Supreme Court of Washington
199 P. 981 (1921)


Facts

A.D. Andrews (plaintiff) was the son of Joshua Andrews and Harriet Andrews. When Harriet Andrews became ill, she and Joshua lived with A.D. and his wife, who together cared for Harriet until Harriet's death. Harriet made a will bequeathing all of her property to her husband Joshua, then to A.D. at Joshua's death. A.D. alleged that he and Joshua had agreed that, in exchange for continuing to care for Joshua for the rest of his life, Joshua would leave A.D. all of Joshua's property at the time of Joshua's death. Joshua continued to live with and be cared for by A.D. and his wife for three more years. When A.D. and his wife moved to Nome, Alaska, they made provisions for Joshua to live with and be cared for by them, but Joshua refused to move to their new home. Joshua subsequently remarried the second Mrs. Andrews (defendant) and executed a will and codicil that provided A.D. with substantially all of Joshua’s estate, but those documents were deemed invalid because of faulty execution. A.D. sued to establish that, pursuant to his agreement with Joshua, A.D. was entitled to all of Joshua's estate under a valid, fully performed oral contract. The trial court determined that A.D.'s wife was an interested party, because any property that Joshua was entitled to under any oral contract was community property. A.D.'s wife’s testimony regarding the existence of the agreement with the decedent was excluded by the trial court on account of her status as an interested party. The trial court subsequently dismissed the matter, and A.D. appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Bridges, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.