Hodge v. Rambow
| Decision Date | 06 February 1908 |
| Citation | 45 So. 678,155 Ala. 175 |
| Parties | HODGE ET AL. v. RAMBOW. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Probate Court, Jefferson County; S.E. Green, Judge.
Application by C. T. Rambow for the probate of the will of Frank Hodge deceased, in which John Wesley Hodge and others appeared as contestants. From a decree admitting the will to probate, the contestants appeal. Affirmed.
Certain children of decedent filed their contest of said will on the following grounds: (1) Decedent, at the time of the making of said will, was not of sound mind, and was incapable of making any disposition of his affairs. (2) The will was not duly executed. (3) That its execution was procured by undue influence. And issue was made up between the proponent and the contestants, and the jury was summoned. The jury was put upon the proponent, who accepted them. The jury was then put upon the contestants, and one juror was challenged peremptorily and stood aside. The court then required the contestants to pass upon the jury as then organized before another juror was summoned to complete the panel. The contestants excepted to this action of the court. Another juror was summoned by the sheriff, accepted by proponent, and challenged by contestants. Still another was summoned and accepted by both sides. Contestants then asked to challenge a member of the jury as thus organized; they yet having other peremptory challenges. This the court declined to let them do. After the jury had been selected, contestants moved to dismiss the petition of proponent on the following grounds (1) That the said Rambow was not the proper party to propound the will for probate. (2) That said Rambow did not have that interest in said will or estate of decedent that authorized him to propound the said will for probate. (3) That the petition in said cause fails sufficiently to aver or set out the kind and character or interest of said Rambow in and to the estate of decedent. (4) Said petition was void on its face. Proponent objected to filing or hearing of said motion on the ground that same came too late, and that the contest filed by the several contestants and the ground of contest was in effect a plea to the merits. The court sustained the objection and refused to hear the motion. Contestants then asked leave to file and offered to file a plea in abatement setting up practically the same grounds set forth in the motion; but on objection by proponent the court refused to allow the contestants to file the plea in abatement. The issue having been made up, testimony was taken. The will provided that, after the payment of just debts, each child over age should receive the sum of $5, and the rest, residue and remainder of testator's property should go in equal shares to his wife and son, Jesse James Hodge. The other facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
Gaston & Pettus, for appellants.
C. W. Hickman and James A. Mitchell, for appellee.
The trial court proceeded in a legal and orderly manner in organizing the jury, and did not have to supply 12 men before requiring the contestants to pass on those remaining after some had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Hoomes
... ... deceased during the last 5 years of his life and his conduct ... 20 years before"; Parrish v. State, 139 Ala ... 16, 36 So. 1012; Hodge v. Rambo, 155 Ala. 175, 45 ... So. 678, defendant "talked rationally," and ... "his mind seemed to be all right"; U.S.C. I. P ... & F. Co. v ... ...
-
City of Huntsville v. Goodenrath
... ... Phoenix Auction Co., [13 Ala.App. 586] 153 Ala. 635, 45 ... So. 150; Harper v. Raisin Fert. Co., 148 Ala. 360, ... 42 So. 550; Hodge v. Rambo, 155 Ala. 175, 45 So ... 678; Western Ry. Co. v. Russell, 144 Ala. 142, 39 ... So. 311, 113 Am.St.Rep. 24; Williams v. Spragins, ... ...
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Smith
... ... We are persuaded the court's ... ruling finds support in the following of our authorities: ... Jones v. Keith, 223 Ala. 36, 134 So. 630; Hodge ... v. Rambo, 155 Ala. 175, 45 So. 678; Southern Natural ... Gas Co. v. Davidson, 225 Ala. 171, 142 So. 63; Long ... v. Seigel, 177 Ala. 338, ... ...
-
Holley v. Josey
...Assignment of Error No. 10, and falls far short of compliance with Supreme Court Rule 10, Tit. 7, Code 1940, Appendix; Hodge v. Rambo, 155 Ala. 175, 45 So. 678; Alsup v. Southern Mfg. Co., 248 Ala. 405, 27 So.2d We find no error to reverse and the case is, therefore, affirmed. Affirmed. SIM......