Succession of Harris
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 27, 1968 211 So. 2d 444; La., February 15, 1880 32 La. Ann. 239
Succession of Harris, 329 So. 2d 493 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976).
Cited by
- Succession of Sara Ann Brocato La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
- Succession of Lanasa 948 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
- In Re Succession of Polk 940 So. 2d 895 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
- Succession of Juliette Bijou Polk La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
- Succession of Dugas 400 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
- Haase v. Robicheaux 400 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
- Succession of Harris 332 So. 2d 862 La. 1976
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Estate of Moreau v. Moreau 261 So. 2d 293
- Funderburk v. Calcasieu Paper Co. 262 La. 193
- Rivette v. Moreau 262 So. 2d 789
Opinion text
329 So.2d 493 (1976) Succession of Benwall J. HARRIS. No. 7368. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. March 16, 1976. Rehearing Denied April 13, 1976. Writ Refused June 2, 1976. *494 Robert P. Charbonnet, Wayne E. Garrett (Charbonnet & Charbonnet), New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant. James J. Grevemberg, Felix W. Gaudin, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee. Before REDMANN, MORIAL and BEER, JJ. REDMANN, Judge. "[T]hose who know not how or are not able to read, cannot make dispositions in the form of the will provided for in R.S. 9:2442...." La.R.S. 9:2443. We decide that a testator's disability to read, with his ordinary eyeglasses, type sized smaller than 10 mm does not invalidate his will typed in type sized about 2 mm. The testator who can only read his will with his eyeglasses is "able to read" within the statute, and the testator who can only read his will with a five-power or stronger magnifying lens is also "able to read" (if he knows how, as our testator did). Appellant proved, by the testimony of the testator's optician, that the testator could not read this will with his ordinary eyeglasses. But the optician also testified there was "a good chance" that the testator could have read larger type, of 5, 6 or 10 mm size. The statute does not require recital or proof that the will was actually read by the testator. Therefore, that the testator did not read the will does not invalidate it; Estate of Moreau v. Moreau, La.App. 3rd Cir., 1972, 261 So.2d 293 , writ refused 262 La. 193 , 262 So.2d 789 . It is thus immaterial that our will's witnesses testified that the testator did not use any magnifying device in order to read the will at the time of its signing. Affirmed.