Sharpe v. Hughes
| Decision Date | 19 December 1918 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 715 |
| Parties | SHARPE v. HUGHES et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1919
Appeal from Probate Court, Jefferson County; J.P. Stiles, Judge.
In the matter of the probate of the will of Marion F. Hughes deceased; Joseph Hughes and others contestants. From a verdict and judgment against the will, the executor nominated under the will, George Sharpe, appeals. Reversed and remanded.
See also, 80 So. 798.
Thompson Greene & Thompson and N.L. Steele, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
R.E Smith and Clark Williams, both of Birmingham, for appellees.
This was a proceeding in the probate court to admit to probate the will of Marion F. Hughes, deceased. Appellees instituted a contest. From the verdict and judgment against the will this appeal is taken.
The contest alleged the mental incapacity of deceased, undue influence, and, in the last place, fraud in that George M. Sharpe (who is nominated in the will as executor without bond), and one P.F. Sudduth (who was the grandfather of John Sudduth, a minor and chief beneficiary under the will), knowing that testator was physically and mentally incompetent, connived and caused the will to be prepared and executed. There was evidence which properly carried all these issues to the jury, and this appeal has to do mainly with rulings on one point which may have exerted material influence in the decision of each of these issues.
The instrument in question was signed on July 6, 1912. Testator--so for convenience to speak of the signer--died in the hospital for the insane at Tuscaloosa in August, 1916. Forty or 45 years before that he had been confined in the asylum for a short time, and again late in the year 1911. From the last-mentioned confinement he had been discharged in April, 1912, on the finding of a jury that he was sane. The evidence as to his mental condition and capacity in the intervals indicated, and at the time of the signing of the instrument in contest was, as we have indicated, in conflict. Appellant attempted repeatedly to get before the jury evidence to sustain his proposition that testator's manifestations of abnormality and incapacity during the many years thus brought into view were coincident with, and the result of, an excessive use of intoxicating liquors, and so up to and beyond the particular time in question, were of a temporary character; and upon the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. Everett
...e. g., 37 and 70. Some are without merit because they do not point out where the alleged error appears in the transcript. Sharpe v. Hughes, 202 Ala. 509, 80 So. 797. Others are without merit because they charge error where the witness never answered the question. Southern Electric Generatin......
-
State v. Barnhill
...for our determination. Brooks v. Everett, 271 Ala. 354, 124 So.2d 105; Crews & Green v. Parker, 192 Ala. 383, 68 So. 287; Sharpe v. Hughes, 202 Ala. 509, 80 So. 797; Orso v. Cater, 272 Ala. 657, 133 So.2d 864; Mothershed v. Mothershed, 274 Ala. 528, 150 So.2d 372; Morton v. Clark, 10 Ala.Ap......
-
Henry v. Jackson
...for our determination. Brooks v. Everett, 271 Ala. 354, 124 So.2d 105; Crews & Green v. Parker, 192 Ala. 383, 68 So. 287; Sharpe v. Hughes, 202 Ala. 509, 80 So. 797; Orso v. Cater, 272 Ala. 657, 133 So.2d 864; Mothershed v. Mothershed, 274 Ala. 528, 150 So.2d 372; Morton v. Clark, 10 Ala.Ap......
- Black v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co.