Johnson v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
279 P.2d 928 (1954)
Dexter G. Johnson was an attorney who, as part of his practice had prepared many properly executed wills. After his death, a document was offered for probate consisting of three typewritten paragraphs that were not signed, dated or attested, but were followed by a few sentences in Johnson’s handwriting that were dated and signed by Johnson. One handwritten sentence stated that Johnson’s brother, James, should receive only ten dollars, and another stated, “This will shall be complete unless hereafter altered, changed or rewritten.” The County Court of Oklahoma denied probate, and the District Court of Oklahoma County held a de novo trial which included the testimony of Jack G. Wiggins, Johnson’s insurance counselor, and Lowell M. Wickham Johnson’s rental agent. Wiggins testified that Johnson had told him he was working on his will and explained the general disposition of his property. Wickham testified that, while visiting Johnson’s office, Johnson had shown him the typewritten portions of the document offered for probate, saying it was his will and Johnson asked Wickham to witness this will. However, they failed to execute the will at that time. When Wickham discussed the will with Johnson later, Johnson told him that he had changed his will by executing a codicil, so he no longer needed Wickham to witness the will. Proponents of the will (defendants) argued that the typewritten paragraphs constituted an unexecuted will and the handwritten portion constituted a valid holographic codicil. Those objecting to the will (plaintiffs) argued that the handwritten portion was just a continuation of the typewritten portion because the typewritten portion could not be a will without being dated, signed and attested, and when considered together, the entire document was invalid because it lacked the signatures of attesting witnesses. The District Court of Oklahoma County affirmed the county court’s denial of probate and the proponents of the will appealed to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Concurrence (Corn, J.)
Dissent (Halley, C.J.)
What to do next…
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.
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 171,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.