Preston, &C., v. Fidelity Trust and Safety Vault Co.
| Decision Date | 02 May 1893 |
| Parties | Preston, &c., v. Fidelity Trust and Safety Vault Co. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Mrs. Mary Howard Preston departed this life on the 17th of November of the year 1892, leaving a paper purporting to be her last will and testament that was offered for probate in the Jefferson County Court, and by one of its provisions the Fidelity Trust and Safety Vault Company was made the sole executor.
The contestants, who were the heirs at law of Mrs. Preston, resisted the probate of the will on three grounds — first, because the decedent, at the time of her death, resided in the county of Trimble; second, she was of unsound mind at the time she executed the instrument; and lastly, that it was procured by undue influence.
The case was heard by the Judge of the Jefferson County Court on December 30, 1892, upon evidence touching all the points at issue, viz: residence, mental capacity and undue influence, and this judgment entered: "It is the judgment of the court that the legal residence of Mary Howard Preston at the time of her death was in Trimble county, Kentucky, and for that reason this court has no jurisdiction to probate the will, and the said motion is overruled."
After this judgment was entered the propounders of the paper took an appeal to the Jefferson Court of Common Pleas, and after the case reached that court the contestants, for the purpose of questioning the jurisdiction of the court, moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction on the part of that tribunal to determine the question, insisting that the remedy for the propounders was not by an appeal, but to apply to a court of superior jurisdiction to compel the county court, by mandamus, to dispose of the case on its merits. The common pleas court having the jurisdiction of appeals in will cases, overruled the motion to dismiss the appeal taken by the propounders, and the contestants, claiming that this action on the part of the judge of the court of common pleas was a usurpation of jurisdiction, filed the present petition in this the appellate court, asking for a writ of prohibition commanding the judge of the court of common pleas to cease entertaining jurisdiction on the appeal.
The right of the contestants to this writ, and the exercise of such a supervening power by this court, is claimed to be derived from section 110 of the new Constitution, that provides: "Said court (the Court of Appeals) shall have power to issue such writs as may be necessary to give it a general control of inferior jurisdictions."
As the court below has, in our opinion, jurisdiction of the appeal, it is unnecessary to determine the power of this court to grant the writ. We will proceed, therefore, to discuss only the right of the propounders to an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weaver v. Toney
... ... Petition ... by C. P. Weaver, mayor, and others, for a writ of ... members of the board of public safety; Jacob H. Haager, chief ... of police; and some ... jurisdiction? In Preston v. Vault Co., 94 Ky. 295, ... 22 S.W. 318, ... ...