In re Estate of Taylor
Decision Date | 28 October 1940 |
Docket Number | Civil 4200 |
Parties | In the Matter of the Estate of JOHN L. TAYLOR, Deceased. v. EZEKIEL B. TAYLOR and EZEKIEL B. TAYLOR, as Administrator of the Estate of JOHN L. TAYLOR, Deceased, Appellees BERNARD C. BLACK, Appellant, |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Yavapai. Richard Lamson, Judge. Order affirmed.
Messrs Wilson, Compton & Wilson, for Appellant.
Messrs O'Sullivan & Morgan and Mr. E. C. Locklear, for Appellees.
John L Taylor, hereinafter called deceased, died on the 4th of February, 1939, leaving surviving as heirs at law thirteen nieces and nephews and two children of a deceased niece. The illness of which he finally died commenced about January 10, 1939, at which time he moved to the home of one of his nephews, Bernard C. Black, where he was confined until the time of his death. On Sunday, January 29th, deceased told one Butler, in the presence of two other witnesses, that he desired to make a will, and requested that Butler go to Flagstaff and have C. B. Wilson, his attorney, prepare a form of written will, full details of which had been given to Butler. In accordance with these instructions, Butler did go to Flagstaff, had the will drawn, and on Monday, January 30th, returned to the home of Black, where deceased was confined, with the form of will as drawn. Evidently the parties knew that Taylor was in a very weakened condition for the will was prepared in such a manner that he might, if he desired, sign it by making his mark. For some reason, although the will was at the Black place on Monday, it was not presented to deceased for his signature until Friday.
The foregoing facts are undisputed. In addition, the following evidence appears in the record. At that time Butler, his wife and their daughter, Bessie Carlisle, being present, the following conversation, according to Mrs. Carlisle, occurred:
Butler and his wife testified, respectively as follows:
The written will was never signed either by the deceased or by any witnesses, and the former passed away shortly thereafter.
Bernard Black, the nephew of deceased and the person named in the nonexecuted will as executor, filed a petition alleging that deceased had made a nuncupative will in the precise terms of the written will, and prayed that it be admitted to probate. Ezekiel Taylor, appellee herein, another nephew, filed a written opposition to the will, and also an application for his appointment as administrator, on the theory that deceased had died intestate.
Hearings on the two petitions were had by the court sitting without a jury, and it made the following findings:
Upon these findings, the probate of the alleged nuncupative will was denied, and letters of administration were issued to Taylor.
The question before us is as to whether the court erred in finding that deceased died intestate. If the factual situation above set forth shows that he made a valid nuncupative will, the conclusion of the court was wrong. If he did not, it was right, for admittedly no written will was executed which would pass the test set by our statute. It is the universal rule of this court that if there be sufficient evidence appearing in the record to sustain the findings of the trial court on the facts, we will not disturb such findings...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sciranko v. Fidelity & Guar. Life Ins. Co.
... ... See, e.g., Mass. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Forman, 516 F.2d 425, 429 (5th Cir.1975); Estate of Doe v. Paul Revere Ins. Group, 86 Hawai'i 262, 277-81, 948 P.2d 1103, 1118-22 (1997). The primary justification for these latter cases is the ... Page 1324 ... insured's interests." Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 185 Ariz. 174, 176, 913 P.2d 1092, 1094 (1996). This duty prohibits the insurer from "gain[ing] an unfair ... ...
-
In re Gary's Estate
... ... 97, 15 P.2d 961, 962 ... We ... believe that there was evidence in this case to sustain ... appellant's theory of the case. If the evidence is ... uncontradicted, this court is not bound by the conclusions of ... the lower court in deciding against the evidence. In re ... Taylor's Estate, 56 Ariz. 211, 106 P.2d 492; ... McFadden v. Watson, 51 Ariz. 110, 74 P.2d 1181; ... Rowe v. Goldberg Film Delivery Lines, 50 Ariz. 349, ... 72 P.2d 432; Phen v. All American Bus Lines, 56 ... Ariz. 567, 110 P.2d 227; Illinois Bankers' Life ... Ass'n v. Theodore, 44 Ariz. 160, 34 P.2d ... ...
-
Gomez v. Dykes
...Enterprises v. Hartsell, 75 Ariz. 36, 251 [89 Ariz. 174] P.2d 641; Allen v. Whiting, 58 Ariz. 273, 119 P.2d 240; In re Taylor's Estate, 56 Ariz. 211, 106 P.2d 492; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. Boyd, 51 Ariz. 308, 76 P.2d 752; Tway v. Southern Methodist Hospital and Sanitor......
-
Pitt's Estate, In re
...is reasonable evidence in the record to sustain them. In re Wagner's Estate, 75 Ariz. 135, 252 P.2d 789 (1953); In re Taylor's Estate, 56 Ariz. 211, 106 P.2d 492 (1940). Neither party nor this Court has succeeded in finding any Arizona case controlling the matter of surcharging Appellant fo......