Legal Opinion
Hartlerode v. Thomas
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided October 3, 1914No. Docket No. 56PublishedCited by 19 opinions
Error to Berrien; Bridgman, J. Charles Hartlerode presented for probate an instrument purporting to be the last will of Elizabeth Hartlerode, deceased, and it was admitted to probate in the probate court. Winifred Thomas appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for proponent on a directed verdict. Contestant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
The principal question involved in this case is: Were certain provisions contained in the will of Elizabeth A. Hartlerode, deceased, procured by and through undue influence?
The will in question bears date February 19, 1913. The pertinent provisions are as follows:
"First. I will and bequeath to my beloved husband, Charles Hartlerode, Sr., all my real estate, including our home, situated in the county of Berrien, township *53of Pipestone, in the State of Michigan, and all my personal property during his life.
“Second. At the death of my said husband, it is my will and wish that one-half of my…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ross v. ConwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Cooper v. HarlowMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
- In re Bromley's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Conklin v. ConklinMichigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Gumtow v. JankeMichigan Supreme Court · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- In Re Wood EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
- Williams v. BaileyMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Pritchard v. HuttonMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Hill v. HairstonMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
- In Re Bryan's EstateUtah Supreme Court · 1933
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.