Anderson v. Wall

• Decision Date: 28 June 1920
• Docket Number: 10446.
• Citation: 103 S.E. 562,114 S.C. 275
• Parties: ANDERSON v. WALL ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

103 S.E. 562

114 S.C. 275

ANDERSON v. WALL ET AL.

No. 10446.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 28, 1920

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Barnwell County; John S Wilson, Judge.

Proceedings by Lula E. Anderson to probate the will of Mrs. Sallie I Hair, deceased, opposed by M. O. Wall and others. A judgment was entered, admitting the will to probate, and on trial de novo on contestants' appeal judgment on a verdict in favor of the will was entered, and contestants again appeal. Affirmed.

Charles Carroll Simms, of Barnwell, A. H. Ninestein, of Blackville and J. O. Patterson, Jr., of Barnwell, for appellants.

Harley & Blatt and Brown & Bush, all of Barnwell, for respondent.

FRASER J.

Mrs. Sallie I. Hair, a childless widow, made her will in 1912, and died in 1917, leaving this will of force. In her will she gave all of her property to a friend, Mrs. Lula E. Anderson. Mrs. Hair left a number of near relatives, who contested the will. The will was admitted to probate by the judge of probate of Barnwell county. The contestants appealed to the court of common pleas. It was tried de novo before the court of common pleas, with a jury. The jury found in favor of the will, and from the judgment entered on this verdict this appeal is taken. In due time the contestants moved before Judge Rice for an order framing issues.

The questions framed by Judge Rice are:

(1) Was the said Sallie I. Hair mentally capable of making a will at the time the paper now offered as her will was made?

(2) Did she sign the paper in question, now offered as her will, and, if so, was she fully informed as to the nature and contents of such paper before she signed same?

(3) Was the said Sallie I. Hair unduly influenced into making the will now offered as her last will and testament, under which Lula E. Anderson is made the sole beneficiary?

I. The contestants proposed six questions, all of which inquire as to the thoughts that were in the "mind and heart" of the testatrix. There was no contest as to the meaning or "intention" of the will. The objection to the questions framed by Judge Rice was that they restricted the scope of the inquiry. In trying the question of "Will or no will," the inquiry is narrow and should be restricted. We have not been referred to any precedent for so broad an inquiry as that proposed by the contestants, and no authority that condemns the questions prepared by Judge Rice. There was no error here.

II. Judge Wilson, who heard the case, announced to the jury that the questions submitted had been agreed upon by the counsel on both sides. The record shows that the questions had not been agreed upon, but the statement could not have affected the result. Besides this, the appellants should have called his honor's attention to the inadvertent error, and, not having done so, cannot now complain. There was no reversible error here.

III. The third exception is:

"Because his honor erred in charging plaintiff's request without modification; whereas, he should have charged the jury in connection with said sixth request that where an aged and infirm person executed a will without consideration and in favor of a stranger in blood, and to the exclusion of near relations in blood and affection, and without the benefit of independent advice and contrary to her previously declared purposes, then the bona

...