Van Huss v. Rainbolt
| Decision Date | 30 September 1865 |
| Citation | 42 Tenn. 139 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
| Parties | VAN HUSS v. RAINBOLT & VAN HUSS. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM JOHNSON.
This was a contested will case. The will was established by a verdict of a jury, at the November term, 1860, Judge DAVID T. PATTERSON, presiding. Contestant appealed.
BAXTER & CHAMPION, for plaintiff in error.
NELSON, MAXWELL & MILLIGAN, for defendants in error.
This suit contests the validity of a will. It was established by the verdict of a jury, and the judgment of the circuit court. The contestant appeals for a new trial, upon two grounds:
1. One of the subscribing witnesses, who also wrote the will, when examined touching the condition of the testator's mind, said: “I would not have witnessed the will, had I not believed he was sane at the time.” After the jury had retired to consider of their verdict, they returned into court, and asked that the witness restate this part of his testimony. He was allowed by the court to do so. On both occasions the contestant objected. In this we apprehend no error. It was, in substance, the expression of an opinion by the witness, that, at the time of making the will, the testaor was of sound mind. He had already stated the facts constituting the grounds of his opinion. This, however, in the case of a subscribing witness, was unnecessary. His opinion, as such, was legitimate. The practice of allowing a restatement to the jury, of such portions of the evidence as they may desire to hear, at any time before delivering their verdict; and in the presence of the court, is too well established to be called in question.
2. It is insisted that the verdict is not warranted by the evidence. The inflexible rule of this court, in civil actions, forbids the disturbance of a verdict satisfactory to the circuit judge, where no error of the law intervenes, if there be any evidence to sustain it. This case hardly requires the application of the rule, to the facts disclosed in the record. The formal and orderly execution of the instrument not being questioned, the jury were called on to decide upon the sufficiency of the testator's mind, for the performance of a testamentary act. He was very old, eighty-seven years, stricken with palsy, confined to his bed, and very dependent. He was illiterate in the English language, being unable either to read or write it. The names of his former acquaintances were often forgotten. When applied to about...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodson v. State
...evidence (tape recordings) was conducted in open court in the presence of the judge and counsel without objection (see also Van Huss v. Rainbolt, 42 Tenn. 139 (1865)); and that the voir dire in this case was properly supervised by the trial court. The assignments are The appellant next cont......
-
Tennessee Cartage Co., Inc. v. Pharr
... ... L. Ins. Co. v ... McCrary, 161 Tenn. 389, 391, 32 S.W.2d 1052; between the ... jury and the Trial Judge, Van Huss v. Rainbolt, 42 ... Tenn. 139; Curran v. State, 157 Tenn. 7, 4 S.W.2d ... To ... express the identical rule of practice and the ... ...
-
State v. Cole
...delivering their verdict; and in the presence of the court, is too well established to be called in question." Van Huss v. Rainbolt & Van Huss, 42 Tenn. 139, 141 (1865) (emphasis added); see also State v. Mary Ann Linder, No. 01C01-9312-CC-00430, 1994 WL 630510, at *2-3 (Tenn. Crim. App., a......
-
In re Estate of Meade
...sole remaining staff of their declining years. Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates, 5th ed., § 121, citing, Van Huss v. Rainbolt, 42 Tenn. 139 (Tenn.1865). The Trial Court's reference to the testatrix's prior Will prepared by an attorney in evaluating the holographic Will, was ......