Estate of Keegan
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. S. V. Costello, J. J. Barrett, and John O’Gara, for Appellant. The evidence shows that the deceased was too childish and mentally weak to appreciate the nature or consequences of the act of making a will. There is therefore an absence of testamentary capacity.
Read the full summary
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. S. V. Costello, J. J. Barrett, and John O’Gara, for Appellant. The evidence shows that the deceased was too childish and mentally weak to appreciate the nature or consequences of the act of making a will. There is therefore an absence of testamentary capacity. (Mannatt v. Scott, 106 Iowa, 203;1 Hall v. Perry, 87 Me. 569;2 Delafield v. Parish, 25 N. Y. 9; Or-dronaux’s Judicial Aspects of Insanity, p. 363; Redfield on Wills, pp. 97, 124.) There is every indication ó£ the presence of senile dementia. (Bell’s Taylor’s Medical Jurisprudence, pp.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.
The will of Michael Keegan, deceased, having been regularly admitted to probate, it was afterwards contested by Mary Monihen and others, upon the grounds,— 1. That at the time of the making of the will the deceased was not of sound mind; and 2. That it was procured by the undue influence of one of the proponents—John Kane. There was another ground, of “fraud and misrepresentation,” which was, however, abandoned. The two issues were submitted to a jury, who found adversely to contestants upon both of them. Contestants made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and from the order denying…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wheelock v. GodfreyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by44 opinions
- Peterson v. LoganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Ginter v. GinterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
- Fairchild v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- In Re Estate of MorcelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Dixon v. EckenrothCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.