Appeal of Brooks
| Decision Date | 05 November 1896 |
| Citation | 36 A. 47,68 Conn. 294 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Appeal of BROOKS. |
Appeal to superior court, Litchfield county; George W. Wheeler, Judge.
Eliza Brooks appealed to the superior court from an order probating the will of Norman Brooks, deceased. On a verdict and judgment in favor of appellant, the executors move for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence. Denied.
James Huntington and Alberto T. Roraback, for appellants.
Charles G. Root, for appellee.
This is a motion for a new trial for a verdict against evidence, made under the provisions of chapter 51 of the Public Acts of 1893. The contest in the court below related to the validity of the will of Norman Brooks, who died in July, 1895, aged 78 years, leaving a widow 75 years of age, but no children, nor representatives of them. The will in question was dated the 15th of January, 1895, and, after giving certain legacies to a nephew and three nieces, gave the residue of the estate to Edgar M. Clossey and Ralph H. Moore, as trustees, to hold in trust for the wife of the testator, and to pay over to her annually, or oftener if requested by her, the net use and income of said residue during her life, with a provision authorizing and directing the trustees to expend so much of the principal of the estate "as may be necessary for the comfortable maintenance and support" of the widow, if the use and income proved inadequate for that purpose. The seventh and eighth clauses of the will read as follows: Clossey and Moore were also by the will named as executors. From the decree of the court of probate approving this will, the widow appealed to the superior court, alleging as her reasons of appeal, among other things, that at the time of making said will the testator was not of sound mind, and also that said will had been obtained by undue influence exerted by said Clossey. The case was tried to the jury, who rendered the following verdict, which was accepted by the court: "In this case the jury finds that there was undue influence exerted upon the testator, Norman Brooks, in the making of a part of said will, to wit, in making paragraphs Nos. 7 and 8, and therefore find that said paragraphs are null and void, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Groos
...148 A. 350 110 Conn. 403 STATE v. GROOS. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.January 6, 1930 ... Appeal ... from Superior Court, New Haven County; Alfred C. Baldwin, ... John ... Groos, alias John Grotski, alias Julian Yalkowsky, was ... reasonably, could reach on the evidence before it. State ... v. Chin Lung, 106 Conn. 701, 704, 139 A. 91; Brooks' ... Appeal, 68 Conn. 294, 296, 36 A. 47. It is quite apparent ... that the weight and effect of the testimony, especially that ... of Mrs. Spivak ... ...
-
State v. Buxton
...of the trial court is entitled to weight in reaching our conclusion. Burr v. Harty, 75 Conn. 127, 130, 52 Atl. 724; Brooks' Appeal, 68 Conn. 294. 297, 36 Atl. 47; Loomis v. Perkins, 70 Conn. 444, 447, 39 Atl. 797; Fell v. Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 76 Conn. 494, 496, 57 Atl. 175. The law......
-
State v. Dionne
...clearly unreasonable under all the circumstances and one which no jury could fairly and reasonably reach on the evidence. Brooks' Appeal, 68 Conn. 294, 296, 36 A. 47. 'A verdict is not to be upheld or set aside by weighing the evidence and determining upon the credibility of witnesses, for ......
-
State v. Chin Lung
...under all the circumstances; such an one as no jury, acting fairly and reasonably, would be likely to reach on the evidence." Brooks' Appeal from Probate, supra. Our means this: " The verdict will not be disturbed if there is any reasonable ground appearing in the evidence on which the jury......