Graham v. O'Fallon
Supreme Court of Missouri
Admitting the testimony before the court to be competent, the questions arising thereon are, Was the paper alleged to be the will of John Mullan-phy, of which a copy is before the court, executed with the due formalities of law? If so, is the supposed copy, a true copy of that will ? The paper alleged to be the will, is not the same in its detail, as when executed.
Read the full summary
Admitting the testimony before the court to be competent, the questions arising thereon are, Was the paper alleged to be the will of John Mullan-phy, of which a copy is before the court, executed with the due formalities of law? If so, is the supposed copy, a true copy of that will ? The paper alleged to be the will, is not the same in its detail, as when executed. Various blanks then existing were filled up after its execution, and there has been no republication — Toller’s Law of Executor’s, p. 1; and is therefore, not the will of John Mullanphy, or the legal declaration of his intention,…
1Opinion of the Court
Statement of the case, and opinion delivered by
McGirk, Judge.
G’Fallon presented his petition to the county court of St. Louis county, together with a supposed copy of the last will and testament of John Mullanphy, deceased, praying to have 4he same proved and allowed. Whereupon, Richard Graham, for himself and wife, the daughter of-the deceased; James Clemens-, for himself and wife, the daughter of the deceased, and divers others of the children of said deceased, came into court and objected to the establishment of the will, and entered a caveat against the proceedings. The -court went on to…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Dickey v. MalechiSupreme Court of Missouri · 1839
- Neal v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Capps v. AdamsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1951
- Varnon v. VarnonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- Avaro v. AvaroSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.