Muller v. St. Louis Hosp. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 31 October 1880 |
| Citation | 73 Mo. 242 |
| Parties | MULLER v. THE ST. LOUIS HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
AFFIRMED.
A. J. P. Garesche for appellants.
Finkelnburg & Rassieur for respondents.
This was a proceeding under the statute, contesting the validity of an instrument of writing, which had been proved in common form, as and for the last will and testament of one Martin Muller, brought by the brothers and sisters of said Muller, against the St. Louis Hospital Association, which was named in said instrument as residuary legatee, and the defendant Wachter, who was named therein as executor. The judgment of the circuit court was that the instrument proved as a will, was not the will of Martin Muller, and that the same was inoperative and void, and this judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals. The case is reported in 5 Mo. App. Rep. 390, where the facts are fully stated. The clear, forcible and well considered opinion of the court of appeals in this case disposes of all the questions discussed in it, in a most satisfactory manner, and it is entirely unnecessary for us to restate the matter.
One question, however, has been urged upon our attention, which was not passed upon by the court of appeals It is contended here that the verdict is not responsive to the issues, and is too vague and indifinite to support the judgment. The verdict is as follows: “We, the jury, find the paper read in evidence is not the will of Martin Muller, deceased.” The alleged uncertainty in the verdict arises from the fact that at the trial a former will of the deceased was introduced in evidence. The pleadings in the case distinctly designate the will in which Father Wachter was named as executor, and the hospital association as legatee, as the one the validity of which was contested, and the instructions of the court refer specifically to the instrument in writing produced by the hospital association, and no other instrument purporting to be the will of Martin Muller is therein referred to. In view of these facts, there can be no question as to what will was meant by the jury. The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nasello
...ask the witness whether he kept a woman named Mrs. Nelson at the address mentioned. Muller v. Hospital Assn., 5 Mo. App. 401; Muller v. Hospital Assn., 73 Mo. 242; State v. Miller, 100 Mo. 606; State v. Hack, 118 Mo. 99; State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 159; State v. Long, 201 Mo. 674; State v. Dav......
-
Clark v. Commerce Trust Co.
...v. Sullens, 46 Mo. 147; Caspari v. First Church, 82 Mo. 649; Ford v. Hennessy, 70 Mo. 580; Yosti v. Laughran, 49 Mo. 594; Muller v. St. Louis Hospital, 73 Mo. 242; Bridwell v. Swank, 84 Mo. 455; McClure v. Lewis, 72 Mo. 314; Carl v. Gabel, 120 Mo. 297; Martin v. Baker, 135 Mo. 495; Gay v. G......
-
Maurizi v. West. Coal & Mining Co.
...Collateral answer, and the court should not have permitted Matter. further examination into this collateral issue. [Muller v. St. Louis Hospital Assn., 73 Mo. 242; State v. Long, 201 Mo. 664, l.c. 674; State v. Potts, 239 Mo. 403, l.c. The examination continued, and the plaintiff was asked ......
-
Hughes v. Rader
...Mo. 11; Martin v. Baker, 135 Mo. 495; Garland v. Smith, 127 Mo. 581; Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo. 160; Myers v. Hauger, 98 Mo. 433; Muller v. Hospital, 73 Mo. 242; Harvey Sullens, 46 Mo. 147. In determining whether the will was the result of undue influence it was proper for the jury to consider......