Messner v. Elliott
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 77, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., April T., 1895, No. 223, on verdict for plaintiffs. Issue devisavit vel non. • Before Magee, J. At the trial it appeared that the issue was to determine (1) testamentary capacity; (2) undue influence. Under the terms of the alleged will, Mary Elliott, the only child of the decedent was disinherited.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 77, Oct. T., 1897, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., April T., 1895, No. 223, on verdict for plaintiffs. Issue devisavit vel non. • Before Magee, J. At the trial it appeared that the issue was to determine (1) testamentary capacity; (2) undue influence. Under the terms of the alleged will, Mary Elliott, the only child of the decedent was disinherited. The chief beneficiary under the will was Amanda Messner, who had lived with decedent for a year and a half before her death. Bequests were also made to the children of Samuel J. Heath who was appointed…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam,
This issue was awarded to determine the validity of a paper purporting to be the last will of Elizabeth A. Heath which was contested on the grounds of testamentary incapacity and undue influence. The evidence, which is quite voluminous, involved questions of fact which were necessarily for the jury, and the case was accordingly submitted to them with instructions which, on the whole, appear to be adequate and free from any error that requires a reversal of the judgment.
*54There was no error in affirming plaintiffs’ third and fourth points, recited in the first and second…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Phillips' EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1914
- Llewellyn's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Sturgeon WillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1947
- Thompson WillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1956
- King WillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1952
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.