In Re the Will of Mucci
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
EXUM, Justice.
We agree with the conclusion in Judge Hedrick’s opinion, 23 N.C. App. 428, 209 S.E. 2d 332 (1974), that there is no evidence in this record from which a jury could find that the letter in question was a codicil to Mucci’s attested will. The Court of Appeals erred, however, in reversing the entry of a directed verdict in favor of the caveators and remanding this case for further proceedings.
Before any instrument can be probated as a testamentary disposition there must be evidence that it was written animo testandi, or with testamentary intent. In re Perry, 193 N.C. 397, 137 S.E.…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- In Re HintonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- In Re WestfeldtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- In Re Will of ReddingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Spencer v. . SpencerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- In Re BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Williams v. Springfield Marine BankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1985
- In Re the Will of MasonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
- In Re Will of SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
- In re the Will of James Paul AllenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017
- Matter of Will of JarvisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.