Appeal of Packard
| Decision Date | 07 November 1921 |
| Parties | Appeal of PACKARD. In re NORWOOD'S ESTATE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Knox County, at Law.
In the matter of the estate of Mary A. Norwood, deceased. From a decree allowing a certain instrument as the will of deceased, Maude N. Packard brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, DUNN, MORRILL, and DEASY, JJ.
Z. M. Dwinal and J. H. Montgomery, both of Camden, for appellant.
A. S. Littlefield, of Rockland, for appellee.
Appeal from a decree of the judge of probate of Knox county allowing a certain instrument as the will of Mary A. Norwood, late of Camden, deceased. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Probate by the presiding justice, without the intervention of a jury. The appellant requested a ruling that upon the facts presented the testatrix was not of sound mind when said instrument was made. This request was denied.
In a careful opinion the presiding justice held, (1) upon the issue of fraud and undue influence, that "there is not sufficient evidence of undue influence to outweigh the evidence of the counsel drafting the will that it was her own free and voluntary act," and (2) upon the issue of testamentary capacity, "I am. therefore, after considering all the evidence, constrained to find that Mary A. Norwood was possessed of testamentary capacity on November 17, 1917, even though evidence of equal weight may cast doubt on her capacity at times even prior to that date." and thereupon dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the decree of the probate court. The appellant has exceptions to said ruling, findings and decree.
The rule is firmly established that, upon exceptions to findings of the sitting justice in the Supreme Court of Probate, upon questions of fact, if there is any substantial evidence to support the findings, the exceptions must be overruled. Eacott, Appellant, 95 Me. 522, 50 Atl. 708; Costello v. Tighe, 103 Me. 324, 69 Atl. 269; Palmer's Appeal, 110 Me. 441, 86 Atl. 919; Gower, Appellant, 113 Me. 156, 93 Atl. 64; Cotting v. Tilton, 118 Me. 94, 106 Atl. 113.
A careful examination of the record discloses very substantial evidence to support the findings of the sitting justice upon both issues presented.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal of Heath
...challenged by exceptions.' See also In re Mitchell, 133 Me. 81, 174 A. 38; Appeal of McKenzie, 123 Me. 152, 122 A. 186; Appeal of Packard, Aplt., 120 Me. 556, 115 A. 173; Palmer's Appeal, 110 Me. 441, 86 A. The sufficiency of bills of exceptions to the findings and decrees of the Supreme Co......
-
In re Loomis' Will
...113 Me. 156, 93 A. 64; Appeal of Thompson, 116 Me. 473, 102 A. 303; Cotting v. Tilton's Estate, 118 Me. 91, 106 A. 113; Appeal of Packard, 120 Me. 556, 115 A. 173; Appeal of McKenzie, 123 Me. 152, 122 A. The conclusion of the Supreme Court of Probate had ample support in believable evidence......
-
Appeal of Sleeper
...v. Thompson, 92 Me. 545, 43 A. 509; In re Gower, 113 Me. 156, 93 A. 64; Cotting v. Tilton, 118 Me. 91, 94, 106 A. 113; Appeal of Packard, 120 Me. 556, 115 A. 173; Appeal of McKenzle, 123 Me. 152, 122 A. The evidence discloses that twenty-eight sheets of the testatrix's personal corresponden......
-
First Auburn Trust Co. v. Baker's Estate
...113 Me. 156, 93 A. 64; Thompson's Appeal, 116 Me. 473, 102 A. 303; Cotting v. Tilton's Estate, 118 Me. 91, 106 A. 113, 114; Packard's Appeal, 120 Me. 556, 115 A. 173; Rogers' Appeal, 123 Me. 459, 123 A. 634; In re Chaplin, 133 Me. 287, 177 A. It appears, from almost every reported decision ......