Rumley's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 17 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 40916,40916 |
| Citation | 234 Miss. 490,106 So.2d 678 |
| Parties | ESTATE of Mrs. Emma C. RUMLEY, Deceased. Mrs. Lena HILLMAN v. Gladys CLAYTON and James Clayton. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Snow, Covington & Shows, Meridian, for appellant.
Ethridge, Minniece & Bourdeaux, Meridian, for appellees.
This is a contest over the authenticity of a holographic will. Mrs. Emma C. Rumley died at her home in Meridian on April 18, 1957. Her husband had predeceased her and they had no children. Her heirs were two sisters and a brother, the parties to this litigation.
After Mrs. Rumley's death, appellant, Mrs. Lena Hillman, allegedly found on the deceased's desk a will written cross-wise on a small, ruled sheet of notebook paper, as follows:
'To Lena
Mrs H Hillman
I leave my house etc on 2 lots
Emma C Rumley
4/17/57'
This instrument was dated the day before the death of Mrs. Rumley. Appellant, Hillman, filed her petition for probate of it. Her brother and sister, appellees, filed a caveat contesting the petition, asserting that this handwritten document was not written by their sister, Mrs. Rumley.
The chancery court empaneled a jury to try the issue. Miss.Code 1942, Sec. 503. It found 'against the will,' and the final decree denied probate. The issue tried was whether the instrument was in the handwriting of Mrs. Rumley. For proponent, several friends and neighbors and an officer of the bank where deceased had a checking account testified that in their opinions the instrument was written by Mrs. Rumley. On the other hand, for contestants a handwriting expert testified at considerable length concerning the characteristics of the writing in the document, compared that handwriting with the characteristics of other standard and recognized writings of deceased, and concluded with his opinion as to why he did not think Mrs. Rumley wrote it. This controversy presented a direct conflict on the facts for determination by the jury. It found against proponent, and there is ample evidence to warrant that conclusion. The chancellor's decree upheld the jury's verdict. We would not be justified in disturbing it.
A handwriting expert as a witness may properly be asked to compare standard and genuine writings of a deceased with a disputed writing or signature of such party, and may state his opinion whether both were written by the same person, along with the reasons for such opinion. Of course, the value of the opinion of experts on handwriting depends largely upon the grounds upon which they base their opinions. The reasons for such opinion are submitted to the jury along with the other evidence, for its own determination. 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, Secs. 840, 842, 843. The probative force of the evidence is a question for the jury or other trier of fact. 32 C.J.S. Evidence Secs. 611-622. These principles are in accord with the long-established rule in Mississippi and with the authorities in general. Moye v. Herndon, 1855, 30 Miss. 110; Wilson v. Beauchamp, 1874, 50 Miss. 24; Garvin v. State, 1876, 52 Miss. 207; Coleman v. Adair, 1898, 75 Miss. 660, 23 So. 369; Roy v. First National of Aberdeen, Miss.1903, 33 So. 494; Harrison v. Eagle Lumber and Supply Co., 1928, 152 Miss. 466, 119 So. 203. See also Hilliard v. State, 1955, 92 Ga.App. 294, 88 S.E.2d 425.
Appellant complains of the granting to appellees of the following instruction: 'The court instructs the jury for the contestants, Miss Gladys Clayton and James Clayton, that the burden is upon the proponents of the will to show by the preponderance of the evidence that the alleged will was wholly written and signed by Mrs. Emma C. Rumley and if, upon the consideration of all the evidence in this case, you find that this burden has not been met and that it is uncertain and doubtful in your minds, whether the said Mrs. Emma C. Rumley did wholly write and sign the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Origin Bank v. Barrett (In re World Health Jets LLC)
...for the trier of facts." Id. at 125. Origin Bank also relies on the Mississippi Supreme Court's holding in In re Rumley's Estate , 234 Miss. 490, 106 So. 2d 678 (1958), that the value of an expert's opinion on handwriting depends largely on grounds upon which his opinion is based, and the r......
-
Lewis v. Lewis
...in the Wallis case was reversed because of errors in the other instructions given to the contestants. In re Rumley's Estate (Hillman v. Clayton), 1958, 234 Miss. 490, 106 So.2d 678, the appellant complained of the granting to the appellees of an instruction similar to the above mentioned in......
-
Clark v. Lansford
...and the cogency of the reasons given by him for his opinion. This is essentially a question for the trier of facts. In re Rumley's Estate, 234 Miss. 490, 106 So.2d 678 (1958); Coleman v. Adair,75 Miss. 660, 23 So. 369 (1898); Moye v. Herndon, 30 Miss. 110 (1855); see also Note, Authenticati......