Owens v. Sinklear

Decision Date23 May 1892
Citation19 S.W. 813,110 Mo. 54
PartiesOWENS et al. v. SINKLEAR et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

In an action to set aside a will admitted to probate with the exception of a clause making a devise to defendant K., the entire will was established, and, on the issue of ademption or satisfaction of the devise to K., interjected into the case, over the objection of K., by the other defendants, there was a finding for K. Held, on appeal by the other defendants, that, the action of the court in considering the question of ademption being erroneous, that part of the judgment would be set aside. BARCLAY, J., dissenting.

Appeal from circuit court, Ralls county; THOMAS H. BACON, Judge.

Action by Selinda Owens and others against Maria A. Sinklear and others to set aside a will. From a judgment establishing the will, all of defendants except John C. Keathley appeal. Set aside in part.

John Megown and Clark & Dempsey, for appellants. Reuben F. Ray, for respondent.

BRACE, J.

The appellants are all the defendants in the above-entitled cause, except John C. Keathley, who is the respondent. No abstract of the record, such as is required by our rules, has been filed in this case, and, if a timely motion had been made for that purpose, this appeal would have been dismissed for that reason. But as the case has been submitted, and counsel for the respondent has kindly furnished an abstract which enables us to dispose of the only error complained of, we will avail ourselves of it for that purpose. It appears from such abstract that Roland Keathley died in Ralls county, Mo., leaving a last will and testament dated the 3d day of May, 1869; that in April, 1878, said instrument was admitted to probate by the probate court of said county, except the fifth and sixth items, which were rejected; that "on the 18th day of April, 1878, the plaintiff commenced this suit against the appellants and the respondent herein, making both appellants and respondent defendants, for the purpose of setting aside said will on the ground of the incapacity of the testator and of undue influence. The defendant John C. Keathley, who is respondent herein, filed his separate answer, in which he affirmed that said instrument was the will of said Roland Keathley, and asked that the whole of said instrument be declared to be the will of said Roland Keathley. The other defendants, who are appellants herein, filed their separate answer, in which they denied...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT