DANIEL HEALEY ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
DANIEL F. WALSH, APPELLEE
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 affirmed the lower court's rulings, finding no error in the directed verdicts or the jury's decision on competency.
A will was challenged by a relative on grounds of fraud, undue influence, improper execution, and lack of testamentary capacity. The trial court direc…
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 Will Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In the District Court a written instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of the late Elizabeth M. Healey was attacked by a relative who would have shared in her estate in event of intestacy. Issues were duly framed and tried to determine the questions of fraud and undue influence, failure of execution and attestation as required by law, and lack of sound and disposing mind of the deceased when the paper was signed.
On the evidence the court directed a verdict in favor of caveatee on the issues of undue influence and fraud, and also ruled as matter of law that the will had been properly executed. We agree with the disposition of these questions. The evidence was insufficient to raise an issue for the jury as to any of them.
The issue of competency of the deceased was left for jury decision and was resolved by them in favor of competency. We find no error as to this, in the rulings of the court as to the scope of cross examination, the admissibility of evidence, or in any other matter of significance.
Affirmed.