Canfield v. Barnes
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 163, Oct. T., 1911, by defendants from judgment of O. P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., First Term, 1911, No. 86, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of Laura E. Canfield et al. v. Emma J. Barnes et al. Issue devisavit vel non to determine the validity of the will of Elmore A. Barnes who died on January 17, 1909, a resident of the city of Pittsburgh.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 163, Oct. T., 1911, by defendants from judgment of O. P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., First Term, 1911, No. 86, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of Laura E. Canfield et al. v. Emma J. Barnes et al. Issue devisavit vel non to determine the validity of the will of Elmore A. Barnes who died on January 17, 1909, a resident of the city of Pittsburgh. Before Carnahan, J. The contestants claimed that the will was the result of undue influence exercised upon the testator by his second wife, Emma J. Barnes. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court. Verdict and judgment for…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Stewart,
This was an issue devisavit vel non, in which the ground of contest was alleged undue influence. The only possible explanation of the verdict condemning *530the.will in question, is to be found in the great mass of irrelevant testimony that the jury were called upon to consider, the effect of which must have been, if not to divert their minds from the one issue they were trying, to at least influence them in resolving it by considerations improperly introduced into the case. For we do not hesitate to say, after a careful review of every one of the eleven hundred…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cauffman v. LongSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
3Cited by2 opinions
- Keidel v. KeidelSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1978
- Merrick v. MerrickAppellate Court of Illinois · 1942