Bocquin v. Theurer
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. - There was misconduct of the jury; the jury were improperly influenced by the argument of the juror Friedman and others. Ill Ark. 151. The income of contestant was not in issue and a collateral matter. 2. The will was- not properly executed. The witness Smart signed for a testatrix and then attested the will. The law requires two witnesses to the will.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Paul Little, Judge; 1. - There was misconduct of the jury; the jury were improperly influenced by the argument of the juror Friedman and others. Ill Ark. 151. The income of contestant was not in issue and a collateral matter. 2. The will was- not properly executed. The witness Smart signed for a testatrix and then attested the will. The law requires two witnesses to the will. One witness can not act in a dual capacity. 13 Ark. 486; 14 Id. 675; 193 S. W. 518. 3. It was error to refuse contestant’s requests Nos. 13 and 18. The will was…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellant is the son of Emma B. Bocquin, the probate of .whose will was resisted by him upon the ground that his mother did not have testamentary capacity to make a will, and that its execution was prompted and secured by undue and improper influences. The will was upheld both by the probate court land in the circuit court on appeal. Appellant discusses the testimony at some length;.but it abundantly -supports' the verdict of the jury, and we will set out only such portions of it as are necessary to an understanding of the instructions given and refused to which exceptions were saved. The…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Taylor v. McClintockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
- McCulloch v. CampbellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
- Speer v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. SparksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Turner v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Whaley v. NivenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Maloney v. State Ex Rel. Prosecuting AttorneySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930
- Priola v. PriolaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964
- Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Security Trust Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1923
- Sealy Mattress Company v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.