Mahaffey v. Mahaffey
| Decision Date | 25 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 17621,17621 |
| Citation | 236 S.C. 64,113 S.E.2d 72 |
| Parties | A. P. MAHAFFEY and Clyde Mahaffey, as Executors of the Will of Emma Mahaffey, Respondents, v. Pearl MAHAFFEY, Marie M. Rogers, James Mahaffey, Aaron Mahaffey, Frances Mahaffey and Joseph Mahaffey, Appellants. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Moore & Stoddard, Spartanburg, for appellants.
Bobo Burnett, Howard Carlisle Bean, Spartanburg, for respondents.
The will of Emma Mahaffey, dated December 26, 1947, was admitted to probate in common form by the Probate Court for Spartanburg County on February 5, 1948. Thereafter in appropriate proceedings in that court it was admitted to probate in 'due form of law' on August 24, 1949. Upon appeal to the Court of Common Pleas the matter was tried de novo before the Honorable Steve C. Griffith, Presiding Judge, and a jury on October 1, 1958.
Validity of the will was attacked upon two grounds, viz.: (1) that the testatrix lacked mental capacity to make it; and (2) that its execution had been procured by undue influence on the part of the two principal beneficiaries. In the course of his charge Judge Griffith, after having fully instructed the jury as to the law applicable to these issues, submitted to them in writing three questions that he had prepared, as follows:
1. Is the will good?
2. Was there lack of mental capacity?
3. Was there undue influence?
To the first of these questions the jury answered 'Yes'.
The transcript of record reveals no exception designated as such. It merely states, as the 'Question Involved': 'Did his Honor err in submitting to the jury the question 'Is the will good?' before the question 'Was there lack of mental capacity?' and 'Was there undue influence?"
Considered as an exception, this 'Question Involved' does not meet the requirement of Rule 4, Section 6, because it fails to specify any ground upon which appellants based their contention that the trial judge committed error in submitting the three questions in the order stated. Cf. Scott v. Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co., 227 S.C. 535, 88 S.E.2d 623; Furtick v. Duncan, 229 S.C. 126, 92 S.E.2d 132. We note also that at the close of his charge the trial judge excused the jury and gave counsel the opportunity to express any objections to the charge and to request additional instructions, Code, 1952, Supplement, Section 10-1210. Appellants, having at that time voiced no objection to the charge as given, and having requested no amplification of it, have no right now to question it. Tate v. Le Master, 231 S.C. 429, 99 S.E.2d 39; G.A. C. Finance Corp. v. Citizens & Southern National Bank of South Carolina, 234 S.C. 205, 107 S.E.2d 315. For either of the foregoing reasons this appeal might be summarily dismissed; but we prefer to consider directly the question that appellants seek to present.
Appellants argue that the questions as to mental capacity and undue influence should have been submitted to the jury first, and the question 'Is the will good?' last; and that reversal of that order in effect required the jury to decide the issues of mental capacity and undue influence simultaneously before deciding them separatley. We see no merit in this contention, in the light of the trial judge's charge concerning these issues, which we quote:
'Now, gentlemen, I have prepared three questions for you to answer. The order of the questions had no significance at all. One had to be first and one had to be last. The first: Is the will good? By that I mean is the will valid. You will answer that question 'yes' or 'no'. If you find that the contestants have failed to prove that the testatrix at the time she signed the will was lacking in mental capacity, or was acting under undue influence, if they fail to prove one or the other, or both, then you would say 'yes' to that question. And in the event you answer that question 'yes' you do not have to go any further. That ends it. If you find that, the contestants have failed and the will is a good and valid instrument.
'If you decide, however, that the will is no good, then I want you to answer the two following questions. I want to know whether you base your finding of an invalid will upon a lack of mental capacity, or upon undue influence, or both.
'Now, if you find it is no good because the testatrix didn't have mental capacity to execute it, then the number 2 question would be answered 'yes'. If you find that she did have mental capacity, then your answer to that question would be 'no'.
'The third question relates to undue influence. If you find that the will was executed while the testatrix was subjected to undue influence, your answer to that question would be 'yes'. If you find...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Irick v. Ulmer
...additional instructions, when opportunity was afforded to do so, renders questions concerning it unavailable on appeal. Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 236 S.C. 64, 113 S.E.2d 72; Johnson v. Williams, 238 S.C. 623, 121 S.E.2d 223, and Dudley Trucking Co. v. Hollingsworth, 243 S.C. 439, 134 S.E.2d 399......
-
May v. Gentry, 19058
...v. Hyder, 242 S.C. 372, 131 S.E.2d 96 (1963); Lundy v. Lititz Mutual Ins. Co., 232 S.C. 1, 100 S.E.2d 544 (1957); Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 236 S.C. 64, 113 S.E.2d 72 (1960). The second exception reads as 'The Court erred in charging the jury that since the Defendant admitted the shooting, the ......