English Translation

1684 Jurisprudence [German law with JW. exempt pre-heirship is defined in an opaque way by the knowledge of inventory price; the previous heir changes are particularly appropriate, especially if, as in the case of dispute, he refuses to give the heir a substantial information on the subsequent heir's case. If the observance against which it is well known, and those which are to be concealed, exist an occasion, if a disadvantage to the liberated pre-heirs would be far from the exercisal claim of the subsequent heirs. § 2127 does not give to the former heirs because of endangering their rights, thus, apart from § 2138 para. 2 BGB., a request of the heirs that the previous heir informs them of the proceeds of the sale, therefore appears to be appreciably exempt from accountability, so that for me this has nothing to do with the question on which subject-matters are entitled and is also justified by the provision of § 2121 BGB, which is also used by the claim in order to stipulate the list of the subsequent heirs according to § 212l. The reasons given by the RG for its interpretation of this provision which is favourable in the legal doctrine of the BG deserve to be shared (cf. e.g. Staudinger, "BGB." V §212i3; lit. This interpretation protects the interests of the heirs, Warneher, "BGB.", to §2i2l;Kresschmar, "heritors harm the heiress or the acquirer of the estate property. Thus, the judgment becomes the sense of the property right" § 34 Note 37; RGRKomm. e.g. BGB. § 21211), and at the same time lives up to the favourable will of the deceased. This essentially with the decree of the Higher Court. Rostock: OLG Rspr. 32, 57 (58), which, in turn, refers to the evidence of the writing in the RJM. Dr. Bogels, Berlin. This is based on evidence of writing. In addition to 15. KG. - § 2256 BGB. (§ 34 TeftG.); § 2078 BGB * other PBlanc-Strohal-Flad, "BGB."V §2l2l1 The withdrawal of a public will from the amt- opposed. It is not only the context of § 2121 and § 2111 BGB that speaks in favour of this latter view, but also on the basis of the grounds that, apart from the provision in § 212l para. 1 Sass 2, it may be stated that the deceased did not know the legal meaning of the date obligation, which had not been accepted as a revocation for a period of succession only. The marriage mates C. established on 2 Sept. 1916 for the sake of Nie- schein- zeigt — in particular also the third paragraph of this provision. of the inscription of a notary a common will, in If thereafter the pre-heritage right and at the request of which they enjoined each other to inherit. The testa re-inheritance is obliged to record the register by the authority was brought to special official custody. to take up authority or other officials On 18 July 1936 the estate court issued, caused by let, it cannot be doubted that there is the state of AB. of the RJM. v. 11 May 1936: DJ. 748, to the marriage inheritance at the time of reception and not of the inheritance people the invitation to reproduce the will in the context of the, since the existence at the moment of the heir- now occurred strong change of the general if the perception of the authority or civil servants concerned with the matter only by the acceptance of economic relations in itself withdraws itself. In this respect, the spouses did not take into account the RevG's claim that it was deemed to have been revoked. After the restitution of the first judge, who was in over-husband C. on 6 Oct. Having died in 1939, his agreement with the complaint challenged the addition of the will's rebuff to the widow. She then requested that she have already given herself and, moreover, did not object to the grant of an inheritance certificate on the basis of the testament, that the list of estates be completed by the fact that she was the sole heiress of her husband. The estate court of Verzeichnis still lacked information about the purchase price refused the grant. An agreement was imposed by the LG. on the business of the enterprise. Jhre further agreement was successful. (RG., VII. ZivSen., U. v. 2. Fuli 1940, VII 266/39.) [He.] According to § 2256 BGB, defsen provisions according to §51 para. 2 TestG. Here still to be applied, one remark applies: If the deceased fine spouse inherits the testament established before a judge or notary as rebuttals and heirs from his own side, if the document taken into official custody inherits, then he will be returned in the negel by the predecessor to the heir (just as it is § 34 Abf. 1 the marriage partner until his life-seat 1 TestG.). Against this revocation, however, the end is taken care of and that the inheritance in the after-heritage contests the will's remission. The acceptance to his family should fall back. This view will consist of the official custody of a public will with the deceased on a regular basis, even if he is not a declaration of intent in law, in particular no surviving spouses in trust of the latter's permissible injunction to die; but it is appointed by the law and faithfulness to the liberated pre-heritage. Unfortunately, as well as the destruction of the instrument of the testament according to § 2255, this trust is often disappointed. The temptation to bring with it the BGB. — with the effects of such a (§ 2254 BGB) a too free position for the pre-heir is equipped. To this it corresponds that in the Rspr. and in many cases apparently too great for him to be able to challenge the bom Gesey almost in general against Scripture (for which the widow also in the present case has the main case of § 2255: NGZ. 102, 69 and in the case of section 2256: part of the estate, namely the valuable wine business, by KGJ. 41, 94; cf. Furthermore, the explanatory works on the BGB. Disposal to a relative from their side to the relatives of their husband who were taken from PI an d, §2255 Note 1; RGNNOmm., § 2078 Note 5 Re-inherited relatives of her husband. and §2256 Note 1 ; Staudinger, §2078 Note I and This sale itself can probably not succeed with §8 2353ff. IV para.6; Palandt §2078 Note.1, will be fought, since the pre-heritage to follow orders purely TestG. § 34 Note 2). The pre-emptions of this contestation is legally authorized, even if they allow the intentions of the heir, since revocation, even when he should not run counter to any decree of lasser. Nor can it be said that death is the cause of death, but with regard to its countervailability, that the enactment of the widow to freed Borerbin must be treated like such a one (Mot. V p.47), gross violation of the healthy popular sentiment is only taken from § 2078 BGB. In the case of the isolated and therefore in accordance with § 48 para.2 TestG. nullity. The heirs, however, have a legitimate Jnteresse (Maenner: L3. 1925, 505; Palandt, "TestG.," §84 baran, that the proceeds from this transfer, the note 2) would practically almost exclude the challenge in respect of their re-inheritance in the place of those, since it could only be explained by the one who enters the sold object, does not escape. The claim, i.e., the validity of the will's revocation of inheritance of their rights against the heirs, or has become pre-heritage, that is to say from the person who is forced to continue with the same against the pupil of the purchase price, to which he will be obliged, but will be very much more closely affected, at the time of the permanent ineffectiveness of the revoked will. The applicant was therefore in accordance with difficult, if fie about the terms of sale and the amount of the chewing price are not sufficiently informed. § 2080 BGB. basically the contestation of the will- In fact, it should now be taken for granted that the advance reclaims in the form and time limit of §§ 2081, 2082 be given to the relatives of her husband, who are heirs to her BGB . If one of the facts of § 2078 para. 1 is to be faced, all the relevant expenses and 2 BGB. was readily given. According to Abf. 1 can give. Here, however, the previous heiress obviously has the intention to be founded on the fact that the deceased is to conceal the facts. The contract is the purchase content of his declaration was in Frrtum or did not want to make a statement as he actually made it, so-