Contest of Wills (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1912 edition. Excerpt: ... that the point has been reached where the burden is thrown upon the proponents of the will of proving the absence of undue influence the matter must go to the jury to be determined by their consideration of the evidence, and in this case it is the duty of the Court to guide the jury to a careful verdict by a clear statement of the law as it effects the case. (59 Conn. 247.) Richmond's Appeal, 59 Conn. 241, is distinguished and limited in Turner's Appeal, 72 Conn. 306. Fraud or undue influence in procuring one legacy in a will does not invalidate other legacies not so procured. (Harrison's Appeal, 48 Conn. 203, 204; Livingston's Appeal, 63 Conn. 78; White vs. Howard, 38 Conn. 356.) Where the issue is as to the fact of undue influence in procuring a will and it appears that the undue influence was confined to a single legacy in the will, the jury may find under the issue the will void as to that legacy and valid as to the others. (Harrison's Appeal, 48 Conn. 204.) Counsel have no right to read to the jury from a standard work on wills in their argument to prove the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to show fraud and undue influence. (Richmond's Appeal, 59 Conn. 243.) A finding that the devisee, by threats and flattery, induced and coerced the testatrix to execute the writing offered as her will, is sufficient to authorize its disapproval. (Denslow vs. Moore, 2 Day. 21.) Fraud--Promise, if Promise Would Abstain From Making a Codicil. A testator having made a will in favor of his nephew, had a codicil drawn shortly before his death, giving part of his real estate to a niece, and asked the nephew if he was willing, to which he replied that he need not trouble himself to sign the codicil, as he was so weak, but that he would deed the property to the...