Navarro v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 06 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 5383.) |
| Citation | 172 S.W. 723 |
| Parties | NAVARRO v. GARCIA et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Duval County; W. B. Hopkins, Judge.
Proceedings by S. C. Navarro for the probate of the will of Virginia G. De Caro, deceased, contested by Eduardo G. Garcia and another. From a judgment in the district court, on appeal from the county court, in favor of contestants, the proponent appeals. Reversed and remanded.
F. Lotto, of San Diego, for appellant. G. C. Robinson, of Beeville, for appellees.
Mrs. Virginia G. De Caro died leaving a will, in which she left all of her property to Enriqueta P. Navarro, and appellant was appointed therein the executor. Appellant sought to probate the will, which was contested by appellees, one a brother and the other a half-brother of deceased. The will was probated in the county court, but on appeal to the district court probate of the will was denied.
The burden rested upon the proponent of the will to show that the testatrix was of sound mind at the time that she executed the will. Article 3271, Rev. Stats. There is no such presumption of sanity in Texas, although there is in other states, in the case of a maker of a will, as in the case of the maker of deeds or other ordinary contracts. The formal burden of proof in trials on the probate of wills, whether in the county court or on appeal to the district court, is upon the executor or other person proposing the will for probate. Beazley v. Denson, 40 Tex. 416.
The owner of property has the absolute right to dispose of his property as he may desire, and the fact that the disposition of the property was not made to a blood relative, but to one not related by blood or marriage to the maker of the will, would not, standing alone, be sufficient to justify a refusal to probate the will. While the fact that the relatives were disinherited in favor of some one not related might be a circumstance, which, taken with others, might show unsoundness of mind or undue influence, yet, standing alone, it could not justify a verdict against the probate of the will. "Wills are not to be probated solely upon the ground that the disposition which a testator may make of his property seems to a court or jury a natural and proper disposition, nor are they to be refused probate because to the court or jury the disposition of the property may seem to be improper or unnatural." Vance v. Upson, 66 Tex. 476, 1 S. W. 179.
The state of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Selman
...241 S.W. 184; In re Fullhas' Estate (Tex.Civ.App.) 228 S.W. 659; Jennings v. Jennings (Tex. Civ.App.) 212 S.W. 772; Navarro v. Garcia (Tex.Civ.App.) 172 S.W. 723; Berry v. Brown (Tex.Civ.App.) 148 S.W. 1117; Helsley v. Moss, 52 Tex.Civ.App. 57, 113 S.W. 599; Simon v. Middleton, 51 Tex. Civ.......
-
Gray's Estate, In re
...57, 113 S.W. 599, wr. ref.; Burgess v. Sylvester, Tex.Civ.App., 177 S.W.2d 271, affirmed 143 Tex. 25, 182 S.W.2d 358; Navarro v. Garcia, Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W. 723; 57 Am.Jur. p. Point No. 2 complains of the exclusion of the testimony of one Reeder Webb. The record reveals that Mr. Webb had......
-
Chambers v. Chambers, 18997
...1959, no writ). While making this determination, the court will not presume mental capacity in a probate proceeding. Navarro v. Garcia, 172 S.W. 723, 724 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1915, no writ). In the instant case appellees did not attempt to probate the holographic will dated May 8, 196......
-
Parr v. Parr
...mind at other times has no probative force unless it tends to show the state of mind when the will was executed. Navarro v. Garcia, Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W. 723. The testimony offered by appellant was in effect that the testator had previously declared he planned to leave his property to both......