Decatur Morgan v. Charles Adams

• Decision Date: 11 January 1909
• Docket Number: No. 50,50
• Citation: 29 S.Ct. 213,53 L.Ed. 362,211 U.S. 627
• Parties: DECATUR MORGAN and Jennie G. Morgan, Plffs. in Err., v. CHARLES H. ADAMS, Frank W. Adams, and Carrie M. Adams
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

211 U.S. 627

29 S.Ct. 213

53 L.Ed. 362

DECATUR MORGAN and Jennie G. Morgan, Plffs. in Err.,

v CHARLES H. ADAMS, Frank W. Adams, and Carrie M. Adams.

No. 50.

Argued December 9, 10, 1908.

Decided January 11, 1909.

Mr. E. Hilton Jackson for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. J. J. Darlington and Herbert S. Giesy for defendants in error. ` Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

This writ of error brings up for review the judgment of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia, confirming the judgment of the probate court, entered upon a verdict of a jury upon issues framed under a caveat filed against a paper writing alleged to be the last will and testament of Julia M. Adams. The will was presented for probate by Decatur Morgan, who was named therein as executor, and who, with his wife, Jennie G. Morgan, were the principal legatees therein. Defendants in error, who were respectively nephews and nieces of the deceased, filed a caveat against the probate of the will, alleging the incapacity of the deceased to make a will, and also alleging undue influence and fraud and coercion exercised upon her by the Morgans and other persons. An answer was filed denying the allegations of the caveat, and the following issues were framed for submission to the jury: (1) Was the written paper propounded as the last will and testament of the deceased executed in due form of law? (2) Was the testatrix, at the time of executing the will, of sound and disposing mind? (3) Was it procured by the undue influence of Decatur Morgan or Jennie G. Morgan, or other person or persons? (4) Was it procured by fraud or coercion of either of the Morgans, or other person or persons.

A jury was impaneled to try the issues, and the questions in the case turn upon certain instructions given by the court upon the second or third issues. The other two, that is, the first and fourth issues, were withdrawn by defendants in error. The verdict of the jury was adverse to the plaintiffs in error on the two issues submitted. Judgment was in due course entered, denying the probate of the will, which judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals. 29 App. D. C. 198.

A question is presented as to the right of plaintiffs in error to bring the case to this court. Defendants in error contend the amount in dispute is less than the necessary amount to confer jurisdiction. The total value of the estate is $7,394.50, only $4,144.50 of which are bequeathed to the Morgans; the balance of the estate goes to defendants in error, except $250, bequeathed to the Epiphany church. The mater...