Mays v. Mays
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court.—Hon, Thos. H. Baoon, Judge. (1) The court erred in permitting the paper writing called the will to be admitted in evidence. The attesting witnesses were not questioned as to the testator’s sanity and said nothing on the subject.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court.—Hon, Thos. H. Baoon, Judge. (1) The court erred in permitting the paper writing called the will to be admitted in evidence. The attesting witnesses were not questioned as to the testator’s sanity and said nothing on the subject. See Revised Statutes, 1889, sec. 8870: Swift v. Wiley, 1 B. Mon. 114; Senish v. Nason, 22 Me. 441; Heed v. Watson, 27 Ind. 448. (2) When it is required witnesses to attest the signing of a will, it is by implication required of them to attest the capacity of signing. WitMnton v. WitMnton, 7 Mo. 589; Cravens v. Faulkner, 28 Mo. 22;…
1Opinion of the CourtBarclay, J.
This is an action to 'contest the will of Latham Mays, deceased, and to require its probate in solemn form. The will was made November-24, 1886, and gave all his estate (including considerable realty) to his wife, who is one of the defendants. He died October 5, 1887, leaving no children. The plaintiffs are all of his next of kin, brothers, sisters, etc., who would inherit in event of his intestacy, except certain minors who are joined with Mrs. Mays as defendants.
The issues were tried before Judge Bacon and a .jury with the result of a judgment establishing the will. Plaintiffs have appealed.
2Cited by11 opinions
- Berkemeier v. RellerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1927
- German Evangelical Bethel Church of Concordia v. ReithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Morton v. HeidornSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Southworth v. SouthworthSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Bingaman v. HannahSupreme Court of Missouri · 1917
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.