In Re the Will of Loftin
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
Caveator urges this Court either to reverse the judgment below on the ground that the paperwriting in question is insufficient as a matter of law to constitute a holographic codicil or to order a new trial for errors committed in the caveat proceeding. Our courts have uniformly held once a caveat to the probate in common form has been filed, a jury’s verdict is indispensable upon the issue devisavit vel non. In re Will or Morrow, 234 N.C. 365, 67 S.E. 2d 279; In re Will of Hine, 228 N.C. 405, 45 S.E. 2d 526; In re Will of Redding, 216 N.C. 497, 5 S.E. 2d 544; In re Will of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Nicholson v. Eureka Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Alexander v. . JohnstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- In Re the Probate of the Last Will & Testament of HineSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
- In Re Will of ReddingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- In Re Will of BartlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re the Will of PenleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989