Moon v. Estate of Evans

Decision Date01 November 1887
PartiesMOON v. ESTATE OF EVANS, DECEASED.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Iowa county.

J. P. Smelker and J. M. Smith, for appellant.

A. McArthur and Reese & Carter, for respondent.

ORTON, J.

The petition of the appellant in the county court was made under section 2287, Rev. St., which reads as follows, to-wit: “When any testator shall omit to provide in his will for any of his children, or for the issue of any deceased child, and it shall appear that such omission was not intentional, but was made by mistake or accident, such child, or the issue of such child, shall have the same share in the estate of the testator as if he had died intestate, to be assigned as provided in the preceding section--which is, that “it shall be assigned to him as provided by law in case of intestate estates.” The will of Mary Ann Evans, deceased was executed October 8, 1883. She died February 17, 1885, and it was admitted to probate May 4, 1885. She was the mother of the petitioner, and she entirely omitted him in her will, and provided for the other of her children, except Harriett Rogers, and for her husband, by various devises and legacies. The county court found against the petitioner, and upon appeal to the circuit court, the jury in that court found “that Mary Ann Evans did not unintentionally omit her son William [the appellant] from her will; in other words, did intend when she made the will, that William should have none of her property after her death.” From the judgment of the circuit court so determining, this appeal is taken.

The only question is one of fact, and from an examination of the evidence we cannot say say that the jury did not decide correctly. It seems from the evidence that the daughter of the testatrix, Harriett Rogers, had been amply provided for by her mother in her life-time, before making her said will.

William H. Moon, the petitioner and appellant, was sentenced, in the state of Illinois, to the Joliet penitentiary for life, for murder, the eighteenth day of November, 1873, and was pardoned after the death of his mother, May 18, 1885. It appears from the evidence, also, that his mother had made every effort possible to defend him, and to secure his pardon, and at a very great expense which she complained of as having ruined, or nearly ruined, her, and which was much more than his equal share in her estate. It appears, also, that she intended to change her will “if...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • In re Peterson's Estate
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • April 9, 1914
    ... ... Rep. 200; Lorieux v. Keller, 5 Iowa, 196, 68 Am ... Dec. 696; In re Stebbins' Estate, 94 Mich. 304, ... 54 N.W. 159, 34 Am. St. Rep. 345; Moon v. Evans' ... Estate, 69 Wis. 667, 34 N.W. 20 ...          It will ... be observed that the words "and not occasioned by any ... ...
  • Whitby v. Motz
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1914
    ... ... in its final decree in the matter of the estate of George ... Motz, deceased, it assign to her such portion of the estate ... of decedent as ... Wisconsin, from which our statute was derived, and in ... Michigan and Nebraska. Moon v. Estate of Evans, 69 ... Wis. 667, 35 N.W. 20; Re Estate of Stebbins, 94 Mich. 304, 54 ... N.W ... ...
  • Whitby v. Motz (In re Motz's Estate)
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1914
    ...supra, and has been directly decided in Wisconsin, from which our statute was derived, and in Michigan and Nebraska. Moon v. Estate of Evans, 69 Wis. 667, 35 N. W. 20; In re Estate of Stebbins, 94 Mich. 304, 54 N. W. 159,34 Am. St. Rep. 345;Brown v. Brown, 71 Neb. 200, 98 N. W. 718,115 Am. ......
  • Mattes' Will, In re
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • January 11, 1955
    ...omission to provide for his son was intentional or accidental. 170 A.L.R. at 1319. The issue presented is one of fact. Moon v. Estate of Evans, 69 Wis. 667, 35 N.W. 20; In re Will of Kurth, 241 Wis. 426, 6 N.W.2d 233, and may be considered upon extrinsic evidence. Newman v. Waterman, 63 Wis......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT