Sanger v. McDonald
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Howard Circuit Coúrt; James S. Steel, Judge; statement by the court. This is an issue of devisavit vel non from the circuit court of Howard County.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howard Circuit Coúrt; James S. Steel, Judge; statement by the court. This is an issue of devisavit vel non from the circuit court of Howard County. The case has been here before, and is reported in 82 Ark. 432 (Sanger v. McDonald). In its opinion then, the court expressly declined to consider any of the numerous assignments of error except that upon which the reversal was based, viz., error in permitting one of the attorneys for contestants in his closing argument to allude to the fact that one of the attorneys for the contestees, who had prepared the will, had not testified, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). The testamentary capacity of the testatrix is admitted, and the sole ground upon which the probate of the will was contested is that of fraud and undue influence alleged to have been exercised by the appellant, Will-Sanger, upon the testatrix, his mother, in the execution of the will. .
The proponents of the will insist that there was not stifficient evidence upon which to submit to the jury the question of fraud and undue influence. This issue, together with numerous other assignments of errors, was presented to the court for its consideration on the former…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McCulloch v. CampbellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887
- Tobin v. JenkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1874
3Cited by3 opinions
- Smith v. BoswellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Dunklin v. BlackSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1955
- Creighton v. CreightonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1919