Fee v. Taylor
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 38 — CONTESTED WILL — APPEAL PROM KERTOR CIRCUIT COURT. .1. The motion by defendants for a peremptory instruction should have been sustained, because the propounder failed to adduce any testimony that the deceased was of sound and disposing ' mind and memory at the time when, if at all, he wrote the alleged will.
Read the full summary
Case 38 — CONTESTED WILL — APPEAL PROM KERTOR CIRCUIT COURT. .1. The motion by defendants for a peremptory instruction should have been sustained, because the propounder failed to adduce any testimony that the deceased was of sound and disposing ' mind and memory at the time when, if at all, he wrote the alleged will. (Hawkins v. Grimes, 13 B. M., 269.) '% The facts stated in defendants’ petition for a change of venue being conceded, their motion should have been sustained. •3. All of the letters offered for probate in the county court, as forming together one will, were admissible in…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HOLT
delivered the opinion of the court.
Th.e appellee, Hattie Taylor, on February 37, 1883, made a motion in the Kenton County Court to probate four letters from John B. Fee to her, dated respectively January 4, 1880, July 8, 1880, January 3, .1881, and June 30, 1881, as his last will. The appel*261lees, Ms two 'sisters, objected, claiming that so much of the first and two last above-named letters as was1, of a testamentary character had been forged; and. that the other letter, dated July 8, I860, was a forgery in toto.
Upon hearing, the county court probated the last-named one and that of…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Soule v. HenryMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Irvine v. GreenwayCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1927
- Johnson v. StiversCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1893
- Bramel v. BramelCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1897
- Henning v. StevensonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.