Letts v. Holgate, 7226.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 7226.,7226. |
| Citation | 165 A. 222 |
| Parties | LETTS et al. v. HOLGATE. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Kent County; Leonidas Pouliot, Jr., Judge.
Application by Julius D. Holgate, executor, for the probate of the will of Mary E. Reynolds, deceased. Directed verdict sustaining the will, and Minnie O. Letts and others, contestants, bring exception.
Exception sustained.
William H. McSoley and William B. Sweeney, both of Providence, for appellants.
Quinn, Kernan & Quinn and Michael De Ciantis, all of Providence, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the probate court of the town of Warwick admitting to probate the will of Mary E. Reynolds. In the superior court the trial justice directed the jury to return a verdict sustaining the will, and the case is here on appellants' exception to the decision granting the motion for a directed verdict. The appellants are a sister, a nephew, and a niece of the testatrix.
From the record it appears that Dr. Royal C. Hudson was called to attend the testatrix December 19, 1931, at about 9 p. m. and found her in a semicoma as a result of some "cerebral accident." He called twice the next day, and, on his second visit, the appellee, Julius C. Holgate, was present; some one suggested that the patient be taken to a hospital, and Dr. Hudson recommended the Jane Brown Hospital. The appellee suggested the South County Hospital in Wakefield, giving as his reason that it was nearer to his home. When Dr. Hudson last saw the testatrix before her removal to South County Hospital she was still in a semiconscious condition, and, in his opinion, unable to make a will. Three days later, on the 23d day of December, being unable to write by reason of paralysis, she signed by her mark the will in question. By this instrument she left all her property to "my trusted friend and adviser Julius C. Holgate." The third clause of the will is as follows: "I have intentionally omitted my sister and other relatives from this will because the only person who has been kind and helpful to me in my last years has been Julius C. Holgate."
On December 26. the appellant, Minnie O. Let is sister of the testatrix, saw her at the hospital. Testatrix did not recognize her sister and was unable to speak. On December 30 she died.
The will was drawn at the hospital by an attorney sent there for that purpose by Julius C. Holgate, who was, according to some of the testimony for the proponents, in the room when the will was executed.
The testatrix and her sister, owing to a disagreement as to the disposition of their father's estate, had not been on friendly terms for a number of years, but her relations with her niece, Consuelo Huling, while not intimate, were friendly.
It is seldom that undue influence can be proved by direct evidence. Its exercise ordinarily has to be proved by circumstantial evidence and the inferences that may reasonably be drawn therefrom. Huebel v. Raidwin, 45 R. I. 40, 119 A. 639.
In the present case it is undisputed that the appellee had the opportunity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Killings v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co
... ... S.W. 535; Nelson v. Public. Service Transport ... Co., 135 A. 467, 5 N.J. Misc. 73; Letts v ... Halgate, 165 A. 222, 53 R. I. 198; Vaughn v. Memorial ... Hospital, 130 S.E. 481, 100 ... ...
-
Levy v. Equitable Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...could draw an adverse inference from the failure of plaintiff to testify, Huebel v. Baldwin, 45 R.I. 40, 119 A. 639, Letts v. Holgate, 53 R.I. 198, 165 A. 222, Higgins v. Mycroft, 80 R.I. 118, 123, 92 A.2d 727, we are satisfied from a reading of the transcript that he did not base his decis......
-
R.I. Hosp. Trust Co. v. Sherman
...40, 44, 119 A. 639; Caldarone v. Caldarone, 48 R.I. 163, 165, 136 A. 489; Moran v. Moran, 52 R.I. 291, 294, 160 A. 619; Letts v. Holgate, 53 R.I. 198, 200, 165 A. 222. We do not find that in the instant case there was any abuse of discretion by the trial justice in admitting or in refusing ......
-
Higgins v. Mycroft, 9310
...consistently followed this pattern whether applied to a party or a witness. See Huebel v. Baldwin, 45 R.I. 40, 119 A. 639; Letts v. Holgate, 53 R.I. 198, 165 A. 222; Kerr v. McKenna, 57 R.I. 252, 189 A. 408; Misch v. Montgomery, 61 R.I. 345, 200 A. 999; Black v. Child's Co. of Providence, 7......