McKenna v. McMichael
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 161, Oct. T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1898, No. 520, on verdict for plaintiffs. Issue devisavit vel non. On the trial for an issue to determine the validity of an alleged will of James McMichael, deceased, dated October 1, 1896, defendants alleged undue influence, and that the will had been revoked by one made on or about ’February 2, 1897, which had been lost.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 161, Oct. T., 1898, by defendants, from judgment of O. P. No. 3, Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1898, No. 520, on verdict for plaintiffs. Issue devisavit vel non. On the trial for an issue to determine the validity of an alleged will of James McMichael, deceased, dated October 1, 1896, defendants alleged undue influence, and that the will had been revoked by one made on or about ’February 2, 1897, which had been lost. When Elizabeth J. McMichael was on the stand defendants offered to prove by her that two days after the death of James McMichael, she saw the will of February 13, 1897,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The learned court below was entirely correct in excluding the offers to prove the contents of the alleged second will. There was no sufficient proof of the execution of that will, and hence its contents could not be given in evidence. The reasons for the rulings of the court are sufficiently set forth in the opinion on the motion for a new trial and need not be repeated.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Gray WillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1950
- Michell v. LowSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Tinnan v. FitzpatrickCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1913
- Burtt WillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
- Estate of Johnson, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco1903