Shock v. Berry
Decision Date | 14 June 1926 |
Parties | CHARLES E. SHOCK, RESPONDENT, v. HENRY BERRY ET AL., DEFENDANTS, C. W. SETTLE, EXECUTOR, APPELLANT. [*] |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Boone County.--Hon. D. H. Harris Judge.
Appeal dismissed.
North T. Gentry for respondent.
Arthur C. Bruton and Don C. Carter for appellant.
Trimble, P. J., absent.
This is a suit contesting the will of one Nancy I. Berry, who died September 9, 1924, while a resident of Boone county Missouri. The suit was brought by her son who alleged in his petition that deceased was unduly influenced in making her will and at the time thereof was a person of unsound mind and of not sufficient mental capacity to make a will.
The defendants, other than Henry Berry, Harrison Berry and C. W. Settle, executor of the will, are beneficiaries under the will. The two Berrys are the heirs of Jasper Berry, deceased, Mrs. Berry's last husband whom she pre-deceased. Most of the other defendants are not heirs at law of the deceased but are her nieces and nephews. Personal service was had upon the defendants, Fannie Riggs, Dorcas Chrisman, Sallie Newman, Belle McCammy, John R. Younger, Nannie B. Hulen and John A. Chrisman. Defendants, Henry Berry, Harrison Berry, Dora Turner and John Gay were duly and legally notified by order of publication. None of the defendants filed an answer except English Gay, Irene Burgess and C. W. Settle, executor of the will, defendants. English Gay and Irene Burgess admitted in their answers that at the time deceased made the will the latter was not of a sound and disposing mind, that at that time deceased was unduly influenced and they consented that the will be set aside. The answer of the defendant Settle in his capacity as executor of the will was a general denial and asking that the will be decreed the last will and testament of the deceased. The reply was a general denial. There was a trial before a jury, resulting in a verdict declaring that the instrument was not the last will and testament of the deceased. The executor alone appeals.
The facts recited by appellant are fairly inferable from the record except that there is nothing therein establishing that "the other defendants did not file answer depending upon the executor...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Yale University v. Sartorius
...from finding as a fact that the appellant is not aggrieved by the judgment. Love v. White, Admr., etc., 154 S.W.2d 759; Shock v. Berry, 221 Mo.App. 718; Dixon Hunter, 204 Mo. 382, 102 S.W. 970; McClain v. Kansas City Bridge Co., 338 Mo. 7, 88 S.W.2d 1019; State ex rel. People's Ry. Co. v. T......
-
State ex rel. Madden v. Sartorius
...in the property in question. Dixon v. Hunter, 204 Mo. 382, 102 S.W. 970; Hopkins v. Cooper, 235 Mo. 461, 138 S.W. 508; Shock v. Berry, 221 Mo. 718, 285 S.W. 122; State ex rel. Fischer v. Vories, 333 Mo. 197, S.W.2d 457; Hall v. Goodnight, 138 Mo. 576. (b) The administrator of Hazlett K. Cam......
-
State ex rel. Fischer v. Vories
...Leahy v. Trust Co., 247 S.W. 396; McMurray v. Bank, 74 Mo.App. 394; Chandler v. Railroad Commissioners, 141 Mass. 208, 5 N.E. 509; Shock v. Berry, 285 S.W. 122; v. Brown, 66 Mo.App. 318; Chicago v. Chicago Rapid Transit Co., 284 U.S. 577, 76 L.Ed. 501. OPINION Tipton, J. This is an original......
-
Pugh v. St. Louis Police Relief Ass'n
... ... court, and respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal ... should be sustained. 2 Am. Jur., 941 to 943; Gum v ... Meyers, 221 Mo.App. 392; Shock case, 221 Mo.App. 718; ... State ex rel. v. Talty, 139 Mo.App. 379, 391; ... State v. Voreis, 62 S.W.2d 457; American ... Petroleum Exchange ... the following cases: Gum v. Myers, 221 Mo.App. 392, ... 277 S.W. 948; Shock v. Berry et al., 221 Mo.App ... 718, 285 S.W. 122; State ex rel. The People's Railway ... Company v. Talty, 139 Mo. 379, 40 S.W. 942; State ex ... ...