Steinkamp v. Erwin, 12422
| Decision Date | 05 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 12422,12422 |
| Citation | 249 S.W.2d 1012 |
| Parties | STEINKAMP et al. v. ERWIN et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Joe J. Newman and Wiley B. Thomas, Jr., of Groveton, for appellants.
Musslewhite & Fenley and James A. Morris, of Lufkin, Hutson & Cauthen, of Groveton, R. C. Musslewhite, of Lufkin, of counsel, for appellees.
This action-to probate the alleged will of Mrs. Lizzie O. Kenley, deceased,-was brought by appellants, Carol Kenley Steinkamp, joined by her husband, William Steinkamp. The appellees, Jean Carol Erwin, a minor, through her guardian, R. E. Erwin, filed their contest to the application to probate the will, alleging as grounds therefor, a lack of testamentary capacity of the testatrix, and undue influence alleged to have been exerted by appellants.
The will was admitted to probate in the County Court of Trinity County, and appellees appealed from the judgment to the District Court of Trinity County.
On the trial in the District Court, a jury found, in answer to the one special issue submitted-as to the testamentary capacity of Mrs. Kenley-that she did not have testamentary capacity at the time she executed the instrument sought to be probated Upon that verdict, the trial court rendered its judgment refusing to admit said instrument to probate as Mrs. Kenley's will and declaring the instrument to be invalid.
At the time of the execution of the instrument alleged to be Mrs. Kenley's will she was on furlough from the Rusk State Hospital for persons of unsound mind, at the home of her daughter in Groveton, Texas. She had been in mental institutions for some years prior to her death. She died in Rusk State Hospital on April 17, 1949.
Appellants, proponents of the alleged will in both courts below, have appealed from the judgment of the District Court of Trinity County, Texas.
They rely for reversal on three points of assigned error, in which they contend that the trial court erred in overruling their motions for an instructed verdict and for judgment non obstante veredicto, for the alleged reason that there was no evidence that could be considered by the jury in support of their answer; that testatrix did not have testamentary capacity to execute the alleged will at the time of its execution: and, that the court erred in permitting the witness R. O. Kenley to answer certain questions alleged to have been immaterial to any issue in the case and highly inflammatory.
At the time of her death, Mrs. Kenley was about 75 years of age. Attendants and nurses at the Rusk State Hospital where she had been a patient for some years, testified that during the time t...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grimes v. Mulry
...202 S.W.2d 851 (er. ref. n. r. e.); Birmingham v. Coleman, Tex.Civ.App., 241 S.W.2d 245 (er. ref. n. r. e.); Steinkamp v. Erwin, Tex.Civ.App., 249 S.W.2d 1012. Since this court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to pass finally on questions of fact, has decided that the evidence in this c......
-
Lee v. Lee
...Bell, 237 S.W.2d 688 (Amarillo Civ.App., 1951, no writ); Jowers v. Smith, 237 S.W.2d 805 (Amarillo Civ.App., 1950, no writ); Steinkamp v. Erwin, 249 S.W.2d 1012 (Galveston Civ.App., 1952, no The record reflects that the testator executed a power of attorney on February 16, 1960 at the offic......
-
Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Baker
...court could not remove the effect thereof by such instruction. Linkenhoger v. Gilbert, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W.2d 308; Steinkamp v. Erwin, Tex.Civ.App., 249 S.W.2d 1012. The court submitted to the jury the following issue in regard to whether appellee was the employee of Milligan or the borro......
-
Crider v. Appelt
...adjudicated for driving while intoxicated. Therefore, any error of the trial court in admitting the testimony was harmless. Steinkamp v. Erwin, 249 S.W.2d 1012 (Tex.Civ.App.1952, no Finally, we note that evidence of criminal convictions and penalties is admissible in punitive damages cases ......