Gamache v. Gambs
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The Court erred in excluding the plaintiff, the legatee, when offered as a witness by appellant. (Shailer vs. Bnmstead, 99 Mass., 130; Garvin’s Admr. vs. Williams, 50 Mo., 206; Granger vs. Barrett, 98 Mass., 463; Baxter vs. Abbott, 7 Gray, 82; Gay vs. Gay, 5 Allen, 157; Looker vs. Davis, 47 Mo., 141; Mass. Bev.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The Court erred in excluding the plaintiff, the legatee, when offered as a witness by appellant. (Shailer vs. Bnmstead, 99 Mass., 130; Garvin’s Admr. vs. Williams, 50 Mo., 206; Granger vs. Barrett, 98 Mass., 463; Baxter vs. Abbott, 7 Gray, 82; Gay vs. Gay, 5 Allen, 157; Looker vs. Davis, 47 Mo., 141; Mass. Bev. Stat., 1860, 672.) The testimony of the beneficiary in a will to acquit himself of the charge of practising a fraud or undue influence on the mind of Prevost to procure the will, was incompetent. The statute says : “Where one of the original parties…
1Opinion of the CourtWagnek, Judge
The plaintiff was the devisee in the will of William M. Prevost, and presented the will for probate in the St. Louis County Probate Court, where it was rejected.
He then filed his petition in the Circuit Court to have the same established. On the trial he offered to testify as a witness and his evidence was ruled out on the ground that he *290was .incompetent to be introduced for that purpose. His rejection as a witness constitutes the only error complained of.
The precise question here raised was decided by this Court, at its October Term, 1872, in the case of Garvin vs. Williams, where it was…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Reidinger v. AdamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
- Mann v. BalfourSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Miltenberger v. MiltenbergerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Elliott v. WelbyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1882