Legal Opinion

In Re the Will of York

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 2, 1949PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenny, J.

The law presumes that a testator possessed testamentary capacity, and those who allege otherwise have the burden of proving by the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence that he lacked such capacity. In re Burns’ Will, 121 N.C. 336, 28 S.E. 519; In re Cherry’s Will, 164 N.C. 363, 79 S.E. 288; In re Craven’s Will, 169 N.C. 561, 86 S.E. 587; In re Staub’s Will, 172 N.C. 138, 90 S.E. 119. But it is improper for nonexpert witnesses to testify that in their opinion a testator did or did not have the mental capacity to make a will. In re Will of Lomax, 224 N.C. 459, 31 S.E. 2d 369; S. c.,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Bost v. . BostSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
  2. In Re Will of CravenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  3. Horah v. . KnoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
  4. In Re Daniel Burns' WillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
  5. In Re the Will of BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Scott v. Statesville Plywood & Veneer Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  2. In re Will of TatumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  3. In Re the Will of KempSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  4. Matter of Will of MaynardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  5. Matter of Will of BuckCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API