Anna E. Gotthardt v. George A. Adlung

D.C. Circuit

Anna E. Gotthardt v. George A. Adlung

246 F.2d 674, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 393, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3610

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 13, 1957

Docket13554_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 246 F.2d 674 (Anna E. Gotthardt v. George A. Adlung) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anna E. Gotthardt v. George A. Adlung, 246 F.2d 674, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 393, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3610 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee is the executor of the will Mamie Ross who died March 10, 195 The will was executed March 5, 195. Appellants, beneficiaries under a pri will, filed a caveat contesting the due e ecution of the will and the testatri testamentary capacity, and asserting t" will was procured through the fraud, ceit, undue influence, duress and coercí of appellee, and that it was not the 1 will of the testatrix. The trial co directed a verdict for appellee at close of appellants’ evidence on the iss relating to due execution and fraud deceit. Thereafter, the jury retur verdicts for the appellee-executor find that the testatrix had testament capacity to execute the will, that appe had not obtained the will by undue fluence, duress or coercion, and that March 5 instrument was the last wil the testatrix. The District Court tered judgment admitting the wil probate and granting letters t' mentary to appellee.

On appeal appellants urge as gro for reversal that the trial judge mad roneous rulings in the admission exclusion of evidence, that he impro instructed the jury concerning the 1 undue influence and that the app counsel engaged in asserted preju conduct at the trial.

We have reviewed appellants’ c tions and conclude no error oc which would warrant our disturbi judgment appealed from. The jud of the District Court is therefore

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellee is the executor of the will Mamie Ross who died March 10, 195 The will was executed March 5, 195. Appellants, beneficiaries under a pri will, filed a caveat contesting the due e ecution of the will and the testatri testamentary capacity, and asserting t" will was procured through the fraud, ceit, undue influence, duress and coercí of appellee, and that it was not the 1 will of the testatrix. The trial co directed a verdict for appellee at close of appellants’ evidence on the iss relating to due execution and fraud deceit. Thereafter, the jury retur verdicts for the appellee-executor find that the testatrix had testament capacity to execute the will, that appe had not obtained the will by undue fluence, duress or coercion, and that March 5 instrument was the last wil the testatrix. The District Court tered judgment admitting the wil probate and granting letters t' mentary to appellee.

On appeal appellants urge as gro for reversal that the trial judge mad roneous rulings in the admission exclusion of evidence, that he impro instructed the jury concerning the 1 undue influence and that the app counsel engaged in asserted preju conduct at the trial.

We have reviewed appellants’ c tions and conclude no error oc which would warrant our disturbi judgment appealed from. The jud of the District Court is therefore

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 F.2d 674, 100 U.S. App. D.C. 393, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 3610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anna-e-gotthardt-v-george-a-adlung-cadc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack