Murphree v. Senn
| Decision Date | 31 July 1895 |
| Citation | 107 Ala. 424,18 So. 264 |
| Parties | MURPHREE v. SENN ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from probate court, Pike county; W. J. Hilliard, Judge.
J. K Murphree, as executor, propounded the will of Savannah Shofner for probate L. A. Senn and others filed their contest of the probate of said will, and from a judgment in favor of the contestants the proponent appeals. Reversed.
Savannah Shofner died in Pike county, Ala., February 21, 1895, and left surviving her two sisters and one brother, viz., L. A Senn, the wife of N.W. Senn of Pike county, Ala., E. A. Teer the wife of William Teer, and William Shofner, the latter-named sister and brother living in Texas. Prior to her death, Savannah Shofner executed her last will and testament on December 16, 1891, in which she bequeathed and devised her household and kitchen furniture to her sister, L. A. Senn and the rest of her property, real and personal, she bequeathed and devised to Jake Murphree, the son of J. K Murphree, and nominated J. K. Murphree her executor without bond. On March 5, 1895, J. K. Murphree propounded the said will for probate in the probate court of Pike county. On April 1, 1895, L. A. Senn, E. A. Teer, and William Shofner, heirs at law of said testatrix, filed their contest of the probate of said will, on the grounds, (1) want of testamentary capacity in the testatrix, and (2) fraud and undue influence in the procurement of the execution of said will by the testatrix. Under the opinion of this case, it is deemed unnecessary to set out in detail the evidence adduced on the hearing of this contest. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the proponent asked the court to give to the jury the following written charge: "If the jury believe all the evidence they should find for the proponent." The court refused to give this charge, and the proponent duly excepted; and also separately excepted to the court's giving, at the request of the contestant, the following written charges: (1) "If the jury believe from the evidence that the testatrix was addicted to spells or attacks such as to impair her mind, and there were intermissions of such spells or attacks, during which intermission she was able to work and transact business, yet, there must have been more than mere intermissions-there must have been lucid intervals such as to enable her to understand the nature of the will, the nature and character of her estate, and the character and conditions in life of the devisees, or it is the duty of the jury to find for the contestants." (2) "If the jury believe from the evidence, that the testatrix had brothers and sisters who were poor, and that Jake Murphree, the beneficiary of the will, is a young son of J. K. Murphree, and not related to her, and that his father is wealthy, this is a circumstance to which the jury should look in determining whether there was undue influence exercised over the mind of testatrix in making her will, and as to whether there was fraud in the light of all the other evidence in procuring the execution of the will." (4) "If the jury believe from the evidence there was undue influence used over testatrix in making the will in question, or that there was fraud practiced on her in the procurement of its execution, or that she was mentally incapacitated to make it, either of which would be sufficient to invalidate it, then it would be the duty of the jury to find for the contestants." (5) "If it is shown by the evidence that the testatrix was afflicted with permanent insanity before making of the will, then the burden is shifted to the proponent, and he must prove that the testatrix was mentally capacitated to make the will at the time it was made, and if this is not so proven by proponent, it is the duty of the jury to find for contestants." (6) "It is the duty of the jury to determine from the evidence in the case whether there is undue influence in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galloway v. United States
...persons who could testify in his favor. 14 Cf. note 12, supra. 15 Compare Bishop v. Copp, 96 Conn. 571, 580, 114 A. 682; Murphree v. Senn, 107 Ala. 424, 18 So. 264; Aldrich v. Aldrich, 215 Miss. 164, 102 N.E. 487, Ann.Cas.1914C, 906. 16 Cf. Dr. Wilder's admission, note 9, 17 Neither the Ame......
-
Howell v. Howell
...and may have been ascribed to other agencies than that of testatrix, Savannah Shofner, which latter fact, we think, distinguished Murphree v. Senn, supra, from Bulger v. Ross, supra, and conclusion we here announce. The decree of the probate court is affirmed. Affirmed. All the Justices con......
-
Carey v. State
...time; and alone from its existence at a later time a presumption of fact may arise of its existence at a given prior time. Murphree v. Senn, 107 Ala. 424, 18 So. 264; McAllister v. State, 17 Ala. 434, 52 Am.Dec. 180. But in the latter case it is clear that the probative value of subsequent ......
-
Towles v. Pettus
... ... State, ... 174 Ala. 4, 9, 56 So. 913, 915; Melvin v. Murphy, ... 184 Ala. 188, 189, 63 So. 546; Murphree v. Senn et ... al., 107 Ala. 424, 18 So. 264; or judicially ascertained ... to exist, Wray v. Wray, 33 Ala. 187; ... [12 So.2d 365.] ... Camp ... ...