Howard v. Coke
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Appeal prom the Louisville Chancery Court. Chancery. Case 157. ?he grounds on ^hich the will Is assailed. Instructions moved in the Chancery Court by complainant. Instructions giv* en by the Ghan* cellor. Further instructtions asked by the complainant, Instructions given on the trial of an issue of competency or incompetency to make a will, should not restrict the jury to inquiries involving memory alone, and not reason and a knowledge of the natural obligation to relatives.
Read the full summary
Appeal prom the Louisville Chancery Court. Chancery. Case 157. ?he grounds on ^hich the will Is assailed. Instructions moved in the Chancery Court by complainant. Instructions giv* en by the Ghan* cellor. Further instructtions asked by the complainant, Instructions given on the trial of an issue of competency or incompetency to make a will, should not restrict the jury to inquiries involving memory alone, and not reason and a knowledge of the natural obligation to relatives. It Í3 not proper in 3uch cases to group a set of tacts together, and say their existence or nonexistence is conclusive…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Simpson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a controversy about the validity of the will of Polly Bullitt, deceased. The will is assailed on two grounds: First, a deficiency of understanding on the part of the testatrix; and Secondly, that its execution was procured by the exercise of undue and improper influence.
• The record contains a largo mass of evidence, both in support of, and against the will. The main questions presented for the consideration of this Court, are, the correctness of the instructions to the jury on the law of the case, and the right of the Chancellor to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Walker v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2011
- Brady v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1875
- Ramseyer v. DennisIndiana Supreme Court · 1917