Ecker v. Potts
| Decision Date | 06 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 7392.,7392. |
| Citation | 112 F.2d 581,72 App. DC 174 |
| Parties | ECKER et al. v. POTTS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Isadore H. Halpern, of Washington, D.C., for appellants.
Vivian O. Hill, of Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and VINSON, Associate Justices.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court, sitting as a probate court, in a proceeding involving the validity of a will. Appellants as caveatees filed a petition, charging that testatrix was not at the time of making, of sound mind and memory, and that the writing purporting to be her will was obtained by fraud and coercion. Appellees as caveatees filed an answer, denying these allegations, and declaring that the writing was the last will of the deceased. The District Court signed an order framing the issues, and on the trial the jury found that testatrix was of sound mind and capable of making the will and that the writing purporting to be her will was in proper form, but that its execution was procured by undue influence. Thereafter, upon motion of the caveatees, the court entered an order setting aside the verdict in part and awarding a new trial on the single issue of undue influence.
Caveators now appeal from this order, and assign two errors: (1) in granting a new trial; and (2) in granting it upon the single issue of undue influence.
First. As to the first point, it is the settled law in this jurisdiction that the action of the trial court in granting or refusing a new trial is not reviewable unless there is shown a clear abuse of discretion. No authorities need be cited in support of this proposition. There is no showing in this case of such abuse.
Second. We likewise think the court was entirely correct in limiting the scope of the new trial. The old common law rule against the retrial of a single issue is now obsolete, and the practice of setting a verdict aside in part where the issues are separable had the approval of many courts, including the Supreme Court, long before the adoption of the new rules of civil procedure.1 By the latter, a new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties on all or part of the issues.2 These rules, it is true, by their own terms do not apply to probate proceedings in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, Rule 81(a) (1), but that court in the exercise of its statutory authority,3 in adapting its own rules to conform to the new rules, declared that the new rules shall govern the trial of issues in probate proceedings;4 in consequence of which we hold they do. Moreover, we think the rule is supported...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. Madison Hotel, Inc.
...824, 69 S.Ct. 48, 83 L.Ed. 378 (1948); Brown v. Richard H. Wacholz, Inc., 467 F.2d 18, 21 (10th Cir. 1972).95 See Ecker v. Potts, 72 App.D.C. 174, 175, 112 F.2d 581, 582 (1940); Mason v. Mathiasen Tanker Indus., 298 F.2d 28, 32-33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 828, 83 S.Ct. 23, 9 L.Ed.......
-
Rice v. Union Pacific R. Co.
...Co. v. Reliable Auto Tire Co., 8 Cir., 58 F.2d 100; Simmonds v. Capital Transit Co., 79 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 147 F.2d 570; Ecker v. Potts, 72 U.S.App.D.C. 174, 112 F.2d 581; General American Life Ins. Co. v. Central National Bank, supra; Youdan v. Majestic Hotel Management Corporation, 7 Cir.,......
-
Bland v. Graves
...be separately tried without injustice." 6A Moore, Federal Practice (1992) 59.56, Paragraph 59.06. As did the court in Ecker v. Potts (C.A.D.C.1940), 112 F.2d 581, 582, we find the issue of testamentary capacity to be sufficiently distinct from the issue of undue influence to permit retrial ......
-
United States ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int'l Constr., Inc.
...“the error which requires the new trial of [a particular] issue does not affect the determination of any other” issue. Ecker v. Potts, 112 F.2d 581, 582(D.C.Cir.1940). As a general rule, the authority to permit a partial retrial should not be exercised “when the error which necessitates a n......