Estate of Russell

In Estate of Russell (1968) 69 Cal.2d 200, the testator's holographic will left "'everything I own'" to "'Chester H. Quinn'" & "'Roxy Russell.'" Extrinsic evidence established that Quinn was the testator's close personal friend, but that "Roxy Russell" was her pet dog. On appeal, the friend argued that he, rather than the testator's niece and only heir-at-law, should receive the dog's half-share of the estate because the testator did not intend the niece to inherit. The Supreme Court declined to so rewrite the will based on evidence of extrinsic circumstances that the testator intended to do something not expressed in the will. "No words of the will . . . indicate that the provision for the dog is merely precatory in nature. Such an interpretation is not consistent with a disposition which by its language leaves the residuum in equal shares to Quinn and the dog. A disposition in equal shares to two beneficiaries cannot be equated with a disposition of the whole to one of them who may use 'whatever portion thereof as might be necessary' on behalf of the other." (Id. at p. 214.)