MACMILLAN
v.
KNOST
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to support a jury's finding of undue influence in the procurement of the will.
An elderly widow executed a will leaving her estate to her grand-nephew, who had been kind and attentive to her. The jury found the will was obtained …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Testamentary Capacity cases and more on FLexlaw
We find no evidence of oppression or coercion. We find no evidence of improper conduct, as we interpret that term. Appellant’s conduct may arouse distaste in reasonable men. Reasonable men, measuring his conduct by their individual standards, may even call it improper. The jury, in effect, have done so. But the evidence would not support a finding that appellant’s conduct was improper according to commonly accepted standards. That, we think, is the test. In legal theory, the rights of litigants do not turn upon the predilections of a jury, and so upon accidental differences between one jury and another. For example, when negligence is in issue the law undertakes to measure conduct by the normal standards of normal men — the so-called “reasonable man” or “ordinary prudent man” — and not by the higher or lower standards of the men who try the issue.3 On the same principle, conduct which influences a will is not improper, and the influence is not undue, unless it falls below commonly accepted standards.
Reversed.
GRONER, C. J.,
is of opinion there was evidence to support the verdict and is therefore for affirmance.
Cf. Hagerty v. Olmstead, 39 App.D.C. 170.
Beyer v. LeFevre, 186 U.S. 114, 126, 22 S.Ct. 765, 46 L.Ed. 1080; Brooke v. Barnes, 61 App.D.C. 161, 58 F. 2d 887.
In another field, cf. United States v. One Book Called “Ulysses”, D.C., 5 F.Supp. 182, 184.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barry v. Am. Sec. & Tr. Co., 135 F.2d 470 (D.C. Cir. 1943)
-
Simmons v. Pinney, 375 F.2d 929 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
-
Duckett v. Duckett (D.D.C. 1945)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beyer v. LeFEVRE, 186 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1902)
- Brooke v. Barnes, 58 F.2d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1932)