Stanley v. Sawyer
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | THOMAS, Justice. |
| Citation | Stanley v. Sawyer, 237 Ala. 515, 187 So. 425 (Ala. 1939) |
| Decision Date | 23 February 1939 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 520. |
| Parties | STANLEY v. SAWYER. |
Rehearing Denied March 30, 1939.
Appeal from DeKalb County Court; J. D. Pope, Special Judge.
Petition of C. M. T. Sawyer to probate the will of J. P. Stanley deceased, contested by H. R. Stanley. From a judgment for proponent, contestant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Isbell & Beck and Scott & Dawson, all of Fort Payne, for appellant.
E. M Baker and L. L. Crawford, both of Fort Payne, and Goodhue & Lusk, of Gadsden, for appellee.
The appeal presents the question of whether or not the will filed in the probate court was, in fact, executed by J. P. Stanley, or under his direction. The contestant demanded a jury and the verdict was for proponent.
The facts of the execution of the will are stated by Mrs. Viola LeFurgey, a witness to and beneficiary under the alleged will, as follows:
The account of the execution of the will by the other witness to the alleged will, and a beneficiary under it, W. J. LeFurgey, is: * * *."
Mr. Sawyer, the proponent, said:
The proponent having rested, contestants offered Mr. Wolfes as a witness. The following questions were propounded to said witness:
The court sustained objections to these questions and there were due exceptions thereto.
The first question did not fall within the rule of a privileged communication. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v. Prichett, 203 Ala. 33, 81 So. 823; 70 C.J. 426, § 569. There was error in the ruling of the court for these questions were not calling for privileged communication between attorney and client, but the answers thereto would illustrate the interest and acts through the attorney of the two witnesses and beneficiary in the will. The last question shed an illuminating light upon the question of interests and the question was competent evidence when taken in connection with the attempted inquiry and the statement of the witness, "I was employed by Mr. & Mrs. LeFurgey."
The following questions were erroneously denied to contestant:
The importance of the foregoing questions and the statement of contestant's counsel to the court: "We want the record to show that we expected an affirmative answer to each of the several questions hereinabove asked to which the court sustained objections," was that it was a communication between an attorney and third persons and the answers are not privileged communications. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Prichett, 203 Ala. 33, 81 So. 823; 70 Corpus Juris, p. 415, § 556.
The witness Campbell testified that he was present in office of the attorney for contestant when Mr. and Mrs. LeFurgey came in and asked counsel, "We want to know whether or not Mr. Stanley ever made a will?" Witness stated, "I was in the hall of the office waiting to see Mr. Beck." On cross-examination he testified further:
The testimony of Mrs. Baxter, who was Mr. Stanley's housekeeper, contradicted the testimony of the LeFurgeys as to spending the night with Mr. Stanley or coming to his house the next day at the time Mrs. Wear died. There was error in declining the question: "Did he ever tell you the LeFurgeys, about the time Mrs. Wear died, if Viola and Mr LeFurgey spent the night there?" The witness further...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Sawyer v. Stanley
...attorney as to his statements and necessary actions for his client with certain persons as to and in the matter of his employment. Stanley v. Sawyer, supra. In that opinion mention was made of the statute (Code, §§ 7658 and 7726) touching an attorney's inability to testify as to any matter ......
-
Clark v. Clark
...where we referred to the provisions of § 59, Title 61, Code. An examination of the original transcripts in the cases of Stanley v. Sawyer, 237 Ala. 515, 187 So. 425, and Sawyer v. Stanley, 241 Ala. 39, 1 So.2d 21, shows that the will contest which was involved in Stanley v. Beck, Supra, ori......
-
Le Furgey v. Beck
...1 So.2d 21. The final judgment was conclusive that the instrument was a forgery. The record sufficiently set out in the decision in Stanley v. Sawyer, supra, makes clear that litigation was in good faith. As a matter of judicial knowledge, we must now hold the averment to that effect in the......
-
Jay v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...an attorney from being placed in such position. The cases of Vacalis v. State, 204 Ala. 345, 86 So. 92 (1920), and Stanley v. Sawyer, 237 Ala. 515, 187 So. 425 (1939) cited by the defendant are distinguishable upon the facts. Vacalis v. State, supra, did not involve communications between a......