Poole v. Richardson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court, approving the will of Jepthah Richardson. The sanity of the testator being denied, an issue was made to the jury.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court, approving the will of Jepthah Richardson. The sanity of the testator being denied, an issue was made to the jury. On the trial, the Court permitted the subscribing witnesses to the will, to be inquired of, generally, as to the judgment they formed of the soundness of the testator’s mind, at the time of executing the will; observing, that the law placed them around the testator to try, judge, and determine, whether he is compos to execute it.
1Opinion of the Court
Other witnesses were allowed to testify to the appearance of the testator, and to any particular facts, from which the state of his mind might be inferred, but not to testify merely their opinion or judgment (1).
Dana, for the appellants. Ward and Bigelow, for the respondent.
Vide Chase & Al. Appellants, vs. Lincoln, ante, page 236.
[Vide Dickinson vs. Barber, 9 Mass. 227.—Needham vs. Ide, 5 Pick 510.—No such distinction can reasonably be made between the subscribing witnesses, and any othei witnesses who may happen to be present. The latter are more likely to be free from bias, which naturally…
2Cited by27 opinions
- State v. PikeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1870
- Beaubien v. CicotteMichigan Supreme Court · 1864
- Porter v. Pequonnoc Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1845
- Dickinson v. BarberMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Grant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.