Copley v. Craft
| Decision Date | 09 December 1960 |
| Parties | Mabel E. COPLEY, Appellant, v. Wilhelmina Kahne CRAFT, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Bunyan S. Wilson, Jr., J. G. M. Robinson, Ashland, for appellant.
John L. Smith, Catlettsburg, P. H. Vincent, Ashland, for appellee.
STANLEY, Commissioner.
The late Mrs. Catherine Jiles devised her entire estate to her friend, Mrs. Mabel E. Copley. The testatrix' niece, Mrs. Wilhelmina K. Craft, contested the will on the ground that the beneficiary had unduly influenced its execution. A jury found against the will. We reversed the judgment on the ground that there was no evidence to sustain the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial with an instruction that a verdict for the contestee be directed if the evidence should be substantially the same on a retrial. Copley v. Craft, Ky., 312 S.W.2d 899.
By an amended complaint the ground of mental incapacity was added. At the close of the introduction of evidence the contestee's motion for a directed verdict was overruled, and the case went to the jury under instructions submitting both the grounds of undue influence and mental incapacity. The verdict recited that the jury found that the testatrix 'was unduly influenced and said will is not the will of said Catherine Jiles.' A motion for a judgment in behalf of the defendant notwithstanding the verdict was overruled and judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict. The appeal follows.
It is agreed that the issue of mental incapacity is out of the case. The facts are fully related in the first opinion.
The appellant insists the evidence on the issue of undue influence was the same on the second trial or was of even less probative value. She invokes the law of the case rule. Her brief states the more material evidence on both trials in juxtaposition. This is in accord with Rule 1.210(b).
The appellee does not challenge the statements in the brief with respect to the similarity of the evidence. She recites some evidence tending to sustain the verdict. Subsection (c) of Rule 1.210 provides that the appellee's brief shall present the controversy in the same manner as that of the appellant, 'except that it shall not restate the facts or the issues further than necessary to correct errors, inaccuracies, or omissions in appellant's presentation of the controversy.' We have an able brief for the appellee on the points of law and no question of the appellant's statement of the facts or that the evidence on the two trials was substantially the same.
The rules covering briefs are designed to aid the court in reaching a prompt and proper decision of the appeal. The particular rule with respect to stating the facts shown in the record and the controversy in regard thereto relieves the court of the duty of dredging out facts about which there is no controversy. Hence, as the appellant's statement of the facts is not contested, it will be presumed and accepted as correct. 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error §§ 1343, 1344. This obviates a search and critical comparison of the two transcripts of evidence. We accept the appellant's statement that the evidence on the second trial was substantially the same as on the first trial.
The appellee recognizes the law of the case rule, which is, in short, that when an appellate court passes on a question and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion or for a directed verdict conditioned upon the evidence being the same upon another trial, the question of law settled by the opinion is final and precludes the reconsideration of the alleged error. Big Sandy Realty Co. v. Stansifer Motor Co., Ky., 294 S.W.2d 529. In Union Light, Heat and Power Co. v. Blackwell's Adm'r., Ky., 291 S.W.2d 539, we held for justifiable reasons and upon authority that the rule is not to be regarded as inflexible, so that in exceptional cases where the court is convinced that a former decision was erroneous, it will not be regarded as conclusive. The present appeal does not present such a case.
The appellee contends that the former opinion failed to take note of certain facts established by the record and to appraise their probative value. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siler v. Williford
...appeal. Big Sandy Realty Company v. Stansifer Motor Company, Ky., 294 S.W.2d 529; Armstrong v. McGuire, Ky., 317 S.W.2d 902; Copley v. Craft, Ky., 341 S.W.2d 70. Cf. Union Light, Heat & Power Company v. Blackwell's Adm'r, Ky., 291 S.W.2d 539, 87 A.L.R.2d 264. The motions were correctly With......
-
Newman v. Newman
...by prosecuting appeals from further proceedings in that case or other related cases. Taylor v. Mills, Ky., 320 S.W.2d 111; Copley v. Kraft, Ky., 341 S.W.2d 70. Especially should this rule be binding upon a court where title to real estate is involved. Title to property must be subject to fi......
-
Augenstein v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.
...lack the authority to review a decision solely by the Chief Justice as no legal precedent provides that authority. See Copley v. Craft , 341 S.W.2d 70, 72 (Ky. 1960) ("Within limits prescribed by the statutes, appellate jurisdiction is the power and authority to review, revise, correct or a......
-
Augenstein v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.
... ... authority to review a decision solely by the Chief Justice as ... no legal precedent provides that authority. See Copley v ... Craft , 341 S.W.2d 70, 72 (Ky. 1960) ("Within limits ... prescribed by the statutes, appellate jurisdiction is the ... power ... ...