Conner v. Skaggs
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Platte Circuit Court. — No». A. D. Burnes, Judge. (1) The defendants, or proponents of the contested instrument, not the plaintiff, were, under the law, charged with the burden of showing, among other things, testamentary capacity. This burden remained with them throughout the trial and did not, as has been sometimes supposed, shift, after the making of what is called a prima-facie case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Platte Circuit Court. — No». A. D. Burnes, Judge. (1) The defendants, or proponents of the contested instrument, not the plaintiff, were, under the law, charged with the burden of showing, among other things, testamentary capacity. This burden remained with them throughout the trial and did not, as has been sometimes supposed, shift, after the making of what is called a prima-facie case. Norton v. Paxton, 110 Mo. 456; Carl v. Gabel, 120 Mo. 283; Moore v. McNulty, 164 Mo. 119; Southworth v. Southworth, 173 Mo. 72; Lorts v. Wash, 175 Mo. 503. (2) When there are facts established…
1Opinion of the CourtLamm, J.
In a statutory proceeding contesting the will of Joseph Skaggs, deceased, wherein the issue was devisavit vel non, the trial court gave a demurrer to the evidence in the nature of an instruction at the close of plaintiff’s case. Refusing to set aside the verdict so coerced, the court rendered judgment probating the will in solemn form. Thereat, plaintiff appeals.
The will bears date of February 28, 1895. Its ' seventh item runs: “To my daughter, Thurza, wife of Wm. Conner, I give only one dollar, she having married contrary to my expressed wishes, I wish to discriminate against her.” The…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Stevens v. MyersOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- Wade v. NorthupOregon Supreme Court · 1914
- Coleman v. ColemanOregon Supreme Court · 1917
- Hardy v. BarbourSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
- Purdy's Administrator v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.