Deck v. Deck
| Decision Date | 06 April 1900 |
| Citation | 82 N.W. 293,106 Wis. 470 |
| Parties | DECK ET AL. v. DECK ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Waukesha county; James J. Dick, Judge.
Action by Julian J. Deck and others against Julia Deck and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.Tullar & Lockney, for appellants.
T. C. Martin, for respondents.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court admitting to probate what purported to be the last will and testament of Henry Deck, deceased. It appears, and is undisputed, or found by the court and jury, or the court, as matters of fact, in effect, that the will in question was executed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, as required by the statutes, February 16, 1894; that the testator died at his home in the town of Ottawa, in Waukesha county, August 11, 1898; that at the time of executing the will he was possessed of testamentary capacity, and was of sound and disposing mind and memory, and knew the contents and purport of the will; that such will was his own voluntary act and deed, and was not the result or product of undue influence. As conclusions of law the court found, in effect, that the proponents were entitled to judgment admitting the will to probate, and gave certain directions as to costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees, and that the record be remitted to the county court for further proceedings, and ordered judgment to be entered accordingly. From the judgment so entered, and affirming in all things the judgment of the county court, three of the nine children of the testator, to wit, Julian J., Louis, and Philip, bring this appeal. It is undisputed that at the time of making the will the testator was 75 years of age; that his wife was then sick in bed, and died 3 days afterwards; that he and she consulted together as to the terms of the will while it was being drawn; that upon the death of the testator he left an estate of the value of $11,600; that he left, him surviving, nine children, to whom, by the terms of the will, he distributed his property and estate as follows: To Elizabeth, $2,500; to Julia, $2,900; to George F., $2,000; to Edmund M., $1,000; to Margaret, $1,000; to Henry, $5; to Louis, $100; to Julian, $5; to Philip, $5. All the rest, residue, and remainder of his estate, both real and personal, he, by the terms of the will, gave, devised, and bequeathed to his son George F., and to his daughters Julia and Elizabeth, and he appointed such residuary devisees and legatees, and the survivors of them, executors of his will. It appears that George F. was about 39 years of age when his father died. He had remained at home nearly all his life, assisting his father. Julia was 50 years of age, and had never been married, but remained at home all her life, working for her father and mother. Elizabeth was married, and had three children, and resided some five miles distant from the testator. She qualified as executrix, but died about three and a half months after the death of her father. Henry lived about a mile from his father's place. All the other children lived at a considerable distance from their father,--some in distant states. All were on friendly relations with their parents, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ball v. Bos (In re Ball's Estate)
...so long as he finally, by his own volition, carries his purpose thus arrived at into effect. In re Jackman, 26 Wis. 104;Deck v. Deck, 106 Wis. 470, 82 N. W. 293;Mueller v. Pew, 127 Wis. 288, 106 N. W. 840;Appeal of Turner, 72 Conn. 305, 44 Atl. 310. The language of this court in the Jackman......
-
In re Johnson's Estate
...it then was, it was his to dispose of as he saw fit, and nothing is shown of any subsequent desire to do otherwise. Deck v. Deck, 106 Wis. 470, 473, 82 N. W. 293. Its being left with Mrs. Hahn was certainly not inconsistent with a desire that she should benefit from it. He was not over care......
-
Beale's Estate, In re
...make a will implies the power to revoke the same.' These are the only ways by which a will can be revoked in this state. Deck v. Deck (1900), 106 Wis. 470, 82 N.W. 293. The burden is upon the objectors to establish by competent evidence that there was a valid and effective revocation. Estat......
-
Jamison v. Jamison
...fact that a wife is a beneficiary under husband's will, though the will may have been procured by her solicitation and importunity. See 82 N.W. 293. As to the exclusion of children by a former marriage. Gwin v. Gwin, 48 P. 295. Nor will the fact that children were disinherited by the influe......