Collins v. Dobbins

District of Columbia

Collins v. Dobbins

198 F.2d 763, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 287

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMarch 13, 1952

DocketNo. 11015

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 198 F.2d 763 (Collins v. Dobbins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Collins v. Dobbins, 198 F.2d 763, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 287 (D.D.C. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question is whether the alleged will of Marion E. Sabbs was duly executed. The trial judge thought there was “no doubt that she was not in a condition to execute a serious document, such as a will or deed or contract, with judgment and understanding” when she went through the motions of executing a will. The judge nevertheless directed a verdict sustaining the will because the decedent was able to “perform the physical act of signing her name” and because the will had been written for her, and she had orally expressed to one witness her approval of it, before she became mentally incompetent.

D.C.Code 1940, § 19-101 provides: “No will, testament, or codicil shall be good and effectual for any purpose whatever unless the person making the same * * * be at the time of executing or acknowledging it * * * of sound and disposing mind and capable of executing a valid deed or •contract.” The judgment is therefore reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

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

PER CURIAM.

The question is whether the alleged will of Marion E. Sabbs was duly executed. The trial judge thought there was “no doubt that she was not in a condition to execute a serious document, such as a will or deed or contract, with judgment and understanding” when she went through the motions of executing a will. The judge nevertheless directed a verdict sustaining the will because the decedent was able to “perform the physical act of signing her name” and because the will had been written for her, and she had orally expressed to one witness her approval of it, before she became mentally incompetent.

D.C.Code 1940, § 19-101 provides: “No will, testament, or codicil shall be good and effectual for any purpose whatever unless the person making the same * * * be at the time of executing or acknowledging it * * * of sound and disposing mind and capable of executing a valid deed or •contract.” The judgment is therefore reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 F.2d 763, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-dobbins-dcd-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack