Rankin v. Rankin
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jasper County Circuit Court. cited in argument, Tingley vs. Cowgill, 48 Mo., 291; Dozier vs. Jenu.an, 30 Mo., 216 ; Craighead vs. Wells, 21 Mo.. 404: Sucker vs. Eddings, 7 Mo., llo ; 1 Greenl. Ev., 147, § 74 ; 1 Phil. Ev., top p. 683, side p. 220; 2 id., 878-883Redr.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jasper County Circuit Court. cited in argument, Tingley vs. Cowgill, 48 Mo., 291; Dozier vs. Jenu.an, 30 Mo., 216 ; Craighead vs. Wells, 21 Mo.. 404: Sucker vs. Eddings, 7 Mo., llo ; 1 Greenl. Ev., 147, § 74 ; 1 Phil. Ev., top p. 683, side p. 220; 2 id., 878-883Redr. Wills, 514, §§ 14, et seq.\ 538, § 19; 519, § 23; 528, § 43. cited in argument, Harris vs. I-Iavs, 53 Mg., 90 : 28 Mo., 19; Bed! Wills, p. 30; id., p. 40, § 12 ; 41 N. Y., 229 ; Benoist vs. Mnrrin, 48 Mo., 51; Tingley vs. Cowgill, 48 Mo., 291; 21 Mo., 427; State vs. Wissmark, 3.6 Mo., 592; 44 Mo., 238; 19 Mo,, 557; 16…
1Opinion of the Court
Napton, Judge,
'delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a suit to set aside the will of Sinnett Rankin, on the ground of mental incapacity, and undue influence of his wife.
At the trial the court ruled that the defendants held the affirmative, and the burden of proof was upon them to prove the due execution of the will, and that the testator was of sound and disposing mind when it was executed, and that, as to the question of undue influence, the burden of proof was on plaintiffs; that defendants had the right to open and close the case.
The defendants then proceeded to establish the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Jackson v. HardinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Herwick v. LangfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- McFadin v. CatronSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Gibony v. FosterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.