Hackett v. Hackett (In re Hackett's Estate)

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtMcCOY
Citation145 N.W. 437,33 S.D. 208
Decision Date14 February 1914
PartiesIn re HACKETT'S ESTATE. HACKETT et al. v. HACKETT.

33 S.D. 208
145 N.W. 437

In re HACKETT'S ESTATE.
HACKETT et al.
v.
HACKETT.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Feb. 14, 1914.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; R. B. Tripp, Judge.

Application for the probate of the will of Jane Hackett. From a judgment for contestants, Elmer E. Hackett and others, Eugene Hackett appeals. Reversed and remanded.

[145 N.W. 437]

Payne & Olson, of Vermilion, and W. O. Knight, of Wakonda, for appellant.

John L. Jolley, of Vermilion, and Bogue & Bogue, of Centerville, for respondents.

[145 N.W. 438]


McCOY, J.

This action involves the contest of the will of one Jane Hackett, who died October, 1911, having theretofore, on the 8th day of September, 1908, made what purported to be her last will and testament. When this will was offered for probate certain of her children and heirs and devisees under said will appeared and entered written objections, and contested the probate of said will upon the ground, among others, that at the time of the execution of said will said Jane Hackett was not of sound mind, and was not competent to make a last will and testament. The county court, after hearing, by order and judgment admitted said will to probate. From the order and judgment admitting said will to probate contestants appealed to the circuit court, where a trial de novo was had before the court and a jury. Verdict was rendered finding that said decedent, at the time of the execution of said will, was not of sound mind, and was not competent to make a last will. Thereafter, and before the makings of findings by the trial court, the appellant moved the court to disregard the findings of the jury and to make findings favorable to appellant. This motion was overruled and denied, and appellant excepted to such ruling. The court then adopted the findings of the jury and rendered judgment disallowing the probate of said will, from which judgment the appellant, Eugene Hackett, has taken an appeal.

[1][2][3][4] The vital question to be determined is whether or not the said finding of the jury, as adopted and approved by the findings of the court, is opposed by the weight or clear preponderance of the testimony. The verdict was advisory to the court only. Shaw v. Shaw, 28 S. D. 221, 133 N. W. 292. We are of the opinion that the clear preponderance of the evidence is against said findings. The evidence on the trial was quite voluminous, and it will serve no useful purpose, and it would be impracticable, to herein set the same out in full. Evidence which is practically undisputed shows the following facts: That the will in question was written and executed on the afternoon of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Estate of Linnell, Matter of, Nos. 15101
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 4, 1986
    ...Wexler v. Wexler, 79 S.D. 537, 114 N.W.2d 886 (1962); In re Brown's Estate, 55 S.D. 53, 224 N.W. 942 (1929); and In re Hackett's Estate, 33 S.D. 208, 145 N.W. 437 (1914). "It was for the trial judge to select from the conflicting evidence that which he would believe. He, not this court, is ......
  • Bilby v. Stewart, Case Number: 5702
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • December 21, 1915
    ...only, and not binding. See, also, Estate of Dolbeer, supra; In re Corson's Estate, 29 S.D. 14, 135 N.W. 666; In re Hackett's Estate, 33 S.D. 208, 145 N.W. 437. ¶6 Under the foregoing section of our statute, we think the trial court had a right, in its discretion, to submit the two questions......
  • Johnson v. Shaver, No. 4427.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 13, 1919
    ...upon undue influence. Certain it is that while mere physical weakness is not necessarily evidence of undue influence (Hacket v. Hackett, 33 S. D. 208, 145 N. W. 437), evidence of physical and mental weakness is always material upon the question of undue influence (Ekern v. Erickson, 37 S. D......
  • Anders Estate, In re, No. 11408
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 21, 1975
    ...weakened during this period. We have held that mere physical weakness is not determinative of unsound mind. In Re Hackett's Estate, 1914, 33 S.D. 208, 145 N.W. 437; In re Brown's Estate, 1929, 55 S.D. 53, 224 N.W. 942. The proper inquiry was set out in Petterson v. Imbsen, 1923, 46 S.D. 540......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Estate of Linnell, Matter of, Nos. 15101
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • June 4, 1986
    ...Wexler v. Wexler, 79 S.D. 537, 114 N.W.2d 886 (1962); In re Brown's Estate, 55 S.D. 53, 224 N.W. 942 (1929); and In re Hackett's Estate, 33 S.D. 208, 145 N.W. 437 (1914). "It was for the trial judge to select from the conflicting evidence that which he would believe. He, not this court, is ......
  • Bilby v. Stewart, Case Number: 5702
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • December 21, 1915
    ...only, and not binding. See, also, Estate of Dolbeer, supra; In re Corson's Estate, 29 S.D. 14, 135 N.W. 666; In re Hackett's Estate, 33 S.D. 208, 145 N.W. 437. ¶6 Under the foregoing section of our statute, we think the trial court had a right, in its discretion, to submit the two questions......
  • Johnson v. Shaver, No. 4427.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • May 13, 1919
    ...upon undue influence. Certain it is that while mere physical weakness is not necessarily evidence of undue influence (Hacket v. Hackett, 33 S. D. 208, 145 N. W. 437), evidence of physical and mental weakness is always material upon the question of undue influence (Ekern v. Erickson, 37 S. D......
  • Anders Estate, In re, No. 11408
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 21, 1975
    ...weakened during this period. We have held that mere physical weakness is not determinative of unsound mind. In Re Hackett's Estate, 1914, 33 S.D. 208, 145 N.W. 437; In re Brown's Estate, 1929, 55 S.D. 53, 224 N.W. 942. The proper inquiry was set out in Petterson v. Imbsen, 1923, 46 S.D. 540......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT