Vaughan v. Malone

Decision Date13 March 1919
Docket Number(No. 2086.)
Citation211 S.W. 292
PartiesVAUGHAN v. MALONE et al.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Wood County.

Application of A. J. Vaughan to probate the will of Mrs. E. A. Vaughan, deceased, opposed by J. H. Malone and others, contestants. From a reversal by the district court of the judgment of the county court admitting the will to probate, applicant appeals. Reversed, and judgment rendered admitting the will to probate.

Beavers & Wilkinson, of Winnsboro, and V. B. Harris, of Quitman, for appellant.

Jones & Jones, of Mineola, and Williams & Smith, of Ft. Worth, for appellees.

HODGES, J.

In October, 1907, the appellant, A. J. Vaughan, filed his application in the county court of Wood county to probate the last will and testament of Mrs. E. A. Vaughan, his deceased wife. The probate of the will was contested by the children and heirs of Mrs. Vaughan by a former marriage. The contest was based upon two grounds—undue influence and mental incapacity. The trial in the county court resulted in a judgment admitting the will to probate. An appeal was prosecuted by the contestants to the district court, where, after a trial before a jury, the probate of the will was denied; the jury having found that Mrs. Vaughan did not have sufficient mental capacity to make a will. The court failed to submit the issue of undue influence.

In the appeal to this court, the principal ground urged for a reversal of the judgment is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the jury.

The evidence shows that at the death of Mrs. Vaughan's first husband, J. H. Malone they were possessed of several hundred acres of land as their community property. Soon after the death of Malone, his widow and children divided the land in a manner satisfactory to themselves; the widow retaining the homestead and other land aggregating about 400 acres. In may, 1905, Mrs. Malone was married to the appellant. In July following, she executed the will in controversy. By the terms of the will, 200 acres of land were devised to Vaughan, and he was made an independent executor without bond. It was also recited in the will that 200 acres of other land then possessed by Mrs. Vaughan had been deeded to her children. The evidence showed that the conveyance referred to was made on the same day the will was executed. The will was witnessed by T. J. Goodman and V. B. Harris. Harris testified that he wrote the will at the request of the testatrix; that she and her husband were the only other parties present on that occasion. Mrs. Vaughan told him the property she wanted to bequeath to her husband, called attention to the fact that she wished to deed 200 acres of land to her children, and appeared to be of sound mind. She gave the directions concerning her will in a manner that indicated that she was in a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Fortenberry v. Herrington
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 13, 1940
    ... ... 389; In re Hope, 103 N. J. Eq ... 11; In re Armstrong's Will, 106 N.Y.S. 671; ... In re Wright's Estate, 202 Pa. 395; In re ... Vaughn v. Malone, 211 S.W. 292; In re Hansen's ... Will, 177 P. 982; Stewart's Executors, 26 Wendell ... Extreme ... age and feeble health do not render a ... ...
  • Cameron v. Houston Land & Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • October 7, 1943
    ...259 S.W. 657; In re Bartel's Estate, Tex.Civ.App., 164 S.W. 859; Milner v. Sims, Tex.Civ.App., 171 S. W. 784; Vaughan v. Malone, Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W. 292; Hodges v. French, Tex.Civ. App., 256 S.W. 662; Payne v. Chance, Tex. Civ.App., 4 S.W.2d 328; Daley v. Whiteacre, Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W......
  • Lord v. Hatcher
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 2, 1935
    ...App.) 164 S. W. 859; Milner v. Sims (Tex. Civ. App.) 171 S. W. 784; Navarro v. Garcia (Tex. Civ. App.) 172 S. W. 723; Vaughan v. Malone (Tex. Civ. App.) 211 S. W. 292; Hill v. Crow (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 184; Stolle v. Kanetzky (Tex. Civ. App.) 220 S. W. 557; Id. (Tex. Civ. App.) 238 S.......
  • Boultinghouse's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 7, 1954
    ...the above reasons her was in error in not granting a motion for a new trial. Bell v. Bell, Tex.Civ.App., 248 S.W.2d 978; Vaughan v. Malone, Tex.Civ.App., 211 S.W. 292; Bell v. Bell, Tex.Civ.App., 237 S.W.2d 688; Navarro v. Garcia, Tex.Civ.App., 172 S.W. 723; Whitney v. Murrie, Tex.Civ.App.,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT