Appeal of Pope
| Decision Date | 23 July 1918 |
| Citation | 93 Conn. 53,104 A. 241 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Appeal of POPE. v. ROGERS et al. POPE |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Howard J. Curtis Judge.
Suit by Homer N. Pope against Hattie P. Rogers and others, executors of Frederick J. Pope, deceased. From a decree establishing the will, plaintiff appeals. No error.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the superior court on the second trial of the contestants' appeal from a decree of probate establishing a certain instrument as the last will of Frederick J. Pope. On the first trial in the superior court a verdict was directed for the proponents, and this court held that the facts did not show due execution of the instrument and ordered a new trial for the reasons stated in Pope v. Rogers, 92 Conn. 248, 102 A. 583. On the first trial no evidence of the due execution of the will was offered, other than the testimony of the three attesting witnesses, who were pupils at the testator's school for boys and girls. Their testimony was, in substance, that Mr Pope, who had been seated at his desk in the schoolroom, left it, carrying a paper in his hand, and approached a table at which the three pupils were seated. He thereupon presented the paper, and asked the three in turn to sign it, and they complied by writing their names successively the one under the other. None of them noticed Mr. Pope's signature on the paper when they signed it, or that he signed it in their presence, or that it then had on any part of the typewriting which now forms the body of the instrument, and none knew from observation, or from any statement made by Mr. Pope what the paper was or why they were asked to sign it. On the second trial their testimony was to the same effect, but was supplemented by the testimony of two girls, also pupils of Mr. Pope, who testified that they saw Mr. Pope take the paper from his desk, unfold it, and write something upon it; that he then took it to the three boys and asked them to sign it, and when all had done so asked them whether they knew what they had signed, and on their saying they did not, he said to them, " It is my will." The paper itself shows that the signatures of the testator and of the three witnesses were written over and upon the lines made by the typewriter for that purpose, and the appearance of the folds indicate that the instrument was typewritten before it was folded.
Harrison Hewitt and Charles E. Clark, both of New Haven, for appellant.
Charles S. Hamilton, of New Haven, for appellees.
Upon its face the paper is a valid will, and the essential facts necessary, under the circumstances of this case, to prove its due execution, were correctly stated by the court in its charge to the jury....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gardner v. Balboni, 14162
...Conn. at 583, 244 A.2d 359; and although witnesses need see neither the testator's signature nor his act in signing it; Pope v. Rogers, 93 Conn. 53, 55, 104 A. 241 (1918); in practical effect, the attestation requirement necessitates that the testator sign first. When all the signing takes ......
-
Shulman v. Shulman
...tending to support the proponents' position may be found in Livingston's Appeal, supra, 63 Conn. 74, 26 A. 471; Pope v. Rogers, 93 Conn. 53, 55, 104 A. 241, and Gilman's Appeal, 115 Conn. 724, 725, 161 A. 845. As might be expected, in the light of these somewhat inconsistent expressions, th......
-
Scinto v. Appeal from Probate, No. FBT CV 030400636 (CT 10/19/2005)
...under our statutes for admission of the will to probate." Wheat, 156 Conn. at 583. This is not the scenario in Pope v. Rogers, 93 Conn. 53, 55, 104 A.2d 241 (1918), a case wherein "there is no claim that the typewritten matter was not all on it when the testatrix and the attesting witnesses......
-
Crane v. Manchester
...503, 35 A.2d 849; Livingston's Appeal, 63 Conn. 68, 75, 26 A. 470; see Kast v. Turley, 111 Conn. 253, 256, 149 A. 673; Pope v. Rogers, 93 Conn. 53, 55, 104 A. 241; Lockwood v. Lockwood, 80 Conn. 513, 520, 69 A. 8. Since the defendants had the burden of proof, the failure of the plaintiff to......