In re McNitt's Estate
Decision Date | 01 July 1910 |
Parties | In re McNITT'S ESTATE. Appeal of BETZER et al. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
229 Pa. 71
In re McNITT'S ESTATE.
Appeal of BETZER et al.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
July 1, 1910.
Appeal from Orphans' Court, Mifflin County.
Proceedings for settlement of the estate of John L. McNitt. From a decree refusing the issue devisavit vel non, George A. Betzer and others appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before MESTREZAT, POTTER, ELKIN, STEWART, and MOSCHZISKER, JJ.
J. W. Gillespie, J. C. Ilouser, and J. Mai. Gillespie, for appellants.
A. Reed Hayes and L. J. Durbin, for appellee.
MOSCHZISKER, J. The register of wills refused an issue devisavit vel non to try the validity of the will of John L. McNitt, deceased, and the orphans' court sustained the decision. The appellants contend that the court below erred in refusing to submit to a jury (1) the question of the testamentary capacity of the testator; (2) the question of the alleged undue influence over the testator of one J. H. Taylor, the husband of the appellee, the sole devisee under the will.
Lizzie Taylor, to whom the testator left his estate amounting to $11,334.87, is the daughter of one of his deceased brothers, and the appellants are four children of a deceased sister. When the grandfather of these parties died he left him surviving four children in whom his estate vested, the testator, the mother of the appellants, the father of the appellee, and one other son, James. After some litigation, the mother of the appellants secured her share of the property amounting to $3,600, which was paid to her in 1805 by the testator and his brother James. This left the property vested one-fourth in the father of Lizzie Taylor and the balance in the testator and his brother James. Upon the death of James the three-fourths became vested in the testator, and upon death of her father the one-fourth became vested in Lizzie Taylor as his only heir, but she permitted the testator the sole use and enjoyment of the homestead property until his decease.
Considering all the circumstances the will in question was a natural one; but the point is, Was there error in not submitting the questions involved to a jury? We have gone over the record with care, and we cannot say that the court below was wrong in refusing an issue. The testimony all shows that the testator was in a physically enfeebled state at the time of the making of the will, and there is certain evidence which standing alone would justify a finding that his mind was in a consequent enfeebled condition at times during the day of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wood v. Wood
......19 was argumentative and erroneous. Instruction No. 27 is erroneous and argumentative. ( Schofield v. Walker, 58 Mich. 96; Disbrow's. Estate, 24 N.W. 624 (Mich.); Ormsley v. Webb, 33 L. Ed., p. 813.) Influence obtained by flattery is undue. influence. (Words & Phrases, Vol. 8, p. ......
-
Williams v. McCarroll
...Herster v. Herster, supra, 116 Pa. 612, 11 A. 410; Id., 122 Pa. 239, 16 A. 342; Allison's Estate, 210 Pa. 22, 59 A. 318; McNitt's Estate, 229 Pa. 71, 78 A. 32; Englert v. Englert, 198 Pa. 326, 47 A. 940; [In re] Macauley's Estate, 224 Pa. 1, 5, 73 A. 181; Keller v. Keller, 239 Pa. 467, Page......
-
In re Phillips' Estate
...116 Pa. 612, 11 Atl. 410; Id., 122 Pa. 239, 16 Atl. 342, 9 Am. St Rep. 95; Allison's Estate, 210 Pa. 22, 59 Atl. 318; McNitt's Estate, 229 Pa. 71, 78 Atl. 32; Englert v. Englert, 198 Pa. 326, 47 Atl. 940, 82 Am. St. Rep. 808; McCauley's Estate, 224 Pa. 1, 5, 73 Atl. 181; Keller v. Keller, 2......
- Thompson's Estate, In re