Long v. Long
| Decision Date | 14 June 1883 |
| Citation | 107 Ill. 210,1883 WL 10292 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | ELLIS LONG et al.v.JANE LONG et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Appellate Court for the Third District;-- heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Morgan county; the Hon. CYRUS EPLER, Judge, presiding.
Messrs. KETCHAM & HATFIELD, for the plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. MORRISON, WHITLOCK & LIPPINCOTT, for the defendants in error.
George Long departed this life September 4, 1876, at his residence in Jacksonville, Morgan county, this State, leaving a widow, but no children, or descendants of children. On the 3d of July next preceding his death he executed an instrument purporting to be his last will and testament, by which he disposed of his entire estate, the greater portion of it being given to Caroline Smith, his niece, and Carroll C. Mayhew, an intimate friend, both of whom, together with Nimrod Sharp, were subscribing witnesses to the instrument in question. He made quite a number of bequests to other parties, but they were all relatively small and insignificant. Upon the affidavits of Mayhew and Sharp, two of the subscribing witnesses, the instrument was admitted to probate in the county court on the 11th of September, 1876. On the 2d of November following, Elias Long and others filed in the Morgan circuit court the present bill to contest the validity of the will, on the alleged ground the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making the same, and that its execution was procured through the undue influence of Mayhew and Smith. An issue at law was made up, as directed by the statute, and submitted to a jury, who found, from the evidence before them, that the instrument in question was the last will and testament of George Long, and the court thereupon entered a decree in conformity with the verdict of the jury, which, on appeal, was affirmed by the Appellate Court for the Third District, and the plaintiffs in error bring the case here for review.
The rule is well settled by the previous decisions of this court, that in contested will cases like the present the finding of the jury is conclusive, unless clearly against the weight of evidence, ( Brownfield v. Brownfield, 43 Ill. 147, Meeker v. Meeker, 75 Id. 260, Calvert v. Carpenter, 96 Ill. 63,) and in this respect they are put upon the same footing with cases at law. Such being the case, it would seem to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dowie v. Sutton
...the same effect as a final determination of the facts, as the affirmance by such court of a judgment at law. In the case of Long v. Long, 107 Ill. 210, Mr. Justice Mulkey announced the effect of the affirmance of the decree by the Appellate Court, as follows: ‘The rule is well settled by th......
-
Bradley v. Palmer
...not sustained by the evidence. Brownfield v. Brownfield, 43 Ill. 147;Meeker v. Meeker, 75 Ill. 260;Calvert v. Carpenter, 96 Ill. 63;Long v. Long, 107 Ill. 210;Society v. Price, 115 Ill. 623, 5 N. E. 126. The question then recurs, what is the rule in common-law cases in respect to granting n......
-
Carnahan v. Hamilton
...the verdict has no bearing on a case like this, brought here directly from the trial court. In that case the court cited Long v. Long, 107 Ill. 210, where it was said the rule is well settled by the previous decisions of this court that in will contests like the present ‘the finding of the ......
-
Ring v. Lawless
...Jeremiah Ring, Sr.,’ has the same force and effect as the verdict of a jury in an action at law. Rutherford v. Morris, 77 Ill. 397;Long v. Long, 107 Ill. 210. It appearing to us that error crept into the charge of the court to the jury, and may have contributed to the verdict, it becomes ou......