Brown v. Malinowski

Court of Appeals of Texas

Brown v. Malinowski

347 S.W.2d 626, 1961 Tex. App. LEXIS 2401

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedMay 18, 1961

DocketNo. 3839

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 347 S.W.2d 626 (Brown v. Malinowski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Malinowski, 347 S.W.2d 626, 1961 Tex. App. LEXIS 2401 (Tex. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

WILSON, Justice.

Appeal from judgment denying probate of a will. Judgment was based on jury findings that decedent did not have testamentary capacity, did not request subscribing witnesses to act as such, and that execution of the instrument offered for probate was, in effect, induced by undue influence.

Appellant’s brief contains one “specification of error”: that the court erred in overruling his motion for instructed verdict. There is no such motion in the record, and no order or other reference thereto. The point may not be considered. 3 Tex.Jur.2d, Sec. 431, p. 684.

Appellant’s brief, consisting of two pages, also contains a heading: “questions involved”, under which it is said the evidence is “insufficient to support the findings.” In the argument it is claimed “there was not any testimony” on the issues of testamentary incapacity or undue influence. No record reference is made to the lengthy statement of facts. We have applied extremely liberal construction to the briefing, rules so as to consider the brief at all. We have examined the statement of facts. The evidence amply supports the verdict and judgment. Affirmed.

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

WILSON, Justice.

Appeal from judgment denying probate of a will. Judgment was based on jury findings that decedent did not have testamentary capacity, did not request subscribing witnesses to act as such, and that execution of the instrument offered for probate was, in effect, induced by undue influence.

Appellant’s brief contains one “specification of error”: that the court erred in overruling his motion for instructed verdict. There is no such motion in the record, and no order or other reference thereto. The point may not be considered. 3 Tex.Jur.2d, Sec. 431, p. 684.

Appellant’s brief, consisting of two pages, also contains a heading: “questions involved”, under which it is said the evidence is “insufficient to support the findings.” In the argument it is claimed “there was not any testimony” on the issues of testamentary incapacity or undue influence. No record reference is made to the lengthy statement of facts. We have applied extremely liberal construction to the briefing, rules so as to consider the brief at all. We have examined the statement of facts. The evidence amply supports the verdict and judgment. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.W.2d 626, 1961 Tex. App. LEXIS 2401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-malinowski-texapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack