In re Cummins' Estate, 53.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 53.,53. |
| Citation | 259 N.W. 894,271 Mich. 215 |
| Parties | In re CUMMINS' ESTATE. Appeal of ST. PIERRE. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
In the matter of the estate of Tillie Cummins, deceased. Will contest by Irene St. Pierre, an adopted daughter of the deceased. From a judgment admitting the will to probate notwithstanding a verdict for contestant, the contestant appeals.
Reversed, and judgment to be entered on the verdict unless the court below grants a new trial.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Joseph A. Moynihan, Judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Charles E. Duffy, of Detroit (Arthur C. O'Connor, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.
Harvey B. M. Wilds, of Detroit, for appellees.
July 15, 1931, Tillie Cummins, a widow, seventy-six years of age, made a will, and died May 3, 1933, survived by an adopted daughter as her sole heir at law.
Contest of the will, by the adopted daughter, on the grounds of mental incompetency of testatrix and undue influence and fraud by Lottie Raymond, a niece and principal beneficiary under the will, was filed in the probate court and certified to and tried in the circuit court with verdict in favor of contestant and judgment non obstante verdicto admitting the will to probate. Contestant reviews by appeal and contends that the evidence in support of the grounds of contest commanded verdict by the jury, and the court was in error in entering judgment contrary to the verdict.
At the close of the proofs proponent moved for a directed verdict and the court reserved and exercised decision thereon after the verdict. If the evidence presented issues of fact, within the grounds of contest, for consideration of the jury, then the court was in error in entering judgment contrary to the verdict. The instrument in suit gave contestant property occupied by her, and the residue of the estate to Lottie Raymond, with whom she was living and had lived for some years, and who was paid for her keep. The instrument also stated a reason for not leaving more of the estate to contestant.
The long record has been examined and found to be replete with hearsay, incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and prejudicial testimony, introduced, however, without objection, and therefore left for the jury to winnow the little material evidence from the mass of chaff.
Impeaching testimony went to the jury as substantive evidence for want of caution relative to its purpose and restricted use.
There was, however, some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montgomery Ward Co v. Duncan
...Dimick, 96 Ill. 42; Daniels v. Butler, 175 Iowa, 439, 155 N.W. 1013; Linker v. Union Pac. R. Co., 87 Kan. 186, 123 P. 745; Cummins' Estate, 271 Mich. 215, 259 N.W. 894; Kies v. Searles, 146 Minn. 359, 178 N.W. 811; Central Metropolitan Bank v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 159 Minn. 28, 198 N.W.......
-
Sprenger's Estate, In re, 41
...of a guardian to protect the property of a person does not constitute probative evidence of mental incompetency. In re Cummins' Estate, 271 Mich. 215, 259 N.W. 894. Nor should the lack of wisdom in the disposition of the property nor the fairness of the provisions of the will influence the ......
-
Smith v. Norman
...wandered away from home and was found in a hospital, where she had given her maiden name, and, at times, could not carry on conversations. Id. the Michigan Court noted that "Testatrix was uneducated and could not read, write, or figure, and there was testimony that she could not tell the de......
-
Paquin's Estate, In re
...N.W. 23; In re Slepski's Estate, 253 Mich. 340, 235 N.W. 176; In re Guthrie's Estate, 257 Mich. 180, 241 N.W. 202. In re Cummins' Estate, 271 Mich. 215, 259 N.W. 894, 895, we said: 'We are constrained to hold there was some evidence to go to the jury on the question of the mental incompeten......